The Whole North Into Gaul

[Justin Swanton]

Thanks Justin!

I updated it with a new draft today.

Justin Swanton, I mentioned your interpretation of "Concluderent" in one of my footnotes. I added your name to my (very long) list of contributors too.

Thanks Evan.

Tell me, do you have the Latin text of the Vita Sanctae Genovefae? There are five versions and I am especially interested in the oldest one. I have the Golden Legend of Bishop Caxton but nothing beats the original language.

One other point:

Umm... Aegidius and Childeric were allies, but Childeric killed Paul and vassalized Syagrius in 465, and then Syagrius revolted against Childeric in 486, retook Soissons, and then was defeated and his lands absorbed into the Frankish kingdom.

Do you have any textual evidence for this from the primary sources? My own understanding of the situation in Roman Gaul rests on Gregory of Tours and Remigius.

Gregory:

Now Childeric fought at Orleans and Odoacer came with the Saxons to Angers. At that time a great plague destroyed the people. Egidius died and left a son, Syagrius by name. On his death Odoacer received hostages from Angers and other places. The Britanni were driven from Bourges by the Goths, and many were slain at the village of Déols. Count Paul with the Romans and Franks made war on the Goths and took booty. When Odoacer came to Angers, king Childeric came on the following day and, with count Paul slain, took the city. In a great fire on that day the house of the bishop was burned. 

After this war was waged between the Saxons and the Romans but the Saxons fled and left many of their people to be slain, the Romans pursuing. Their islands were captured and ravaged by the Franks, and many were slain. In the ninth month of that year, there was an earthquake. Odoacer made an alliance with Childeric, and they subdued the Alamanni, who had overrun a part of Italy. – History of the Franks, II, 18 & 19

I interpret this paragraph as follows:

The Visigothic army under the leadership of Frederic, the brother of king Theuderic, attacked the Roman territory north of the Loire. At the same time one of Ricimer’s lieutenants, Odoacer (who would eventually replace Ricimer as Magister Militum of Italy) with the support of a force of Saxon federates sailed up the Loire and attacked Angers. This whole business was arranged by the Emperor Libius Severus to bring Roman Gaul back into line.

The Visigothic army was defeated by Aegidius’s Roman troops, reinforced by Franks, near Orleans, and Frederic was killed. Aegidius himself died shortly after this victory. After Aegidius’s death, one of his lieutenants, Paulus, assumed his title, took command of his army and invaded Visigothic territory south of the Loire, aided by the Franks under Childeric and a force of Britons – the latter most likely Auxilia.

At the news of Aegidius’s death Angers and the surrounding region submitted to Odoacer as the legitimate imperial representative, giving him hostages as surety. Faced with this crisis of authority, Paulus broke off his campaign against the Visigoths and hurried to Angers with his Roman troops and the Frankish federates. The Britons, without support, were beaten by the Visigoths at Bourges and Déols.

Childeric, realising that Paulus was politically on his way out, switched sides and killed his former ally on their arrival at Angers. Odoacer, now the new Magister Militum in Gaul, was able to defeat his Saxon federates when they rebelled against him, using Aegidius’s Roman troops to crush them decisively at Angers whilst the Franks finished the job of teaching them manners in their homeland in the ‘islands’ – possibly Holland. As Odoacer’s new federate, Chideric later helped him subdue the Alamanni in Italy.

Penny MacGeorge in Late Roman Warlords proposes that there were two Odoacers, evidenced by two different spellings of his name in this passage. But that doesn't wash for a second. Gregory's Latin spelling was notoriously bad - he has two substantially divergent spellings for the name of the Visigothic king Euric, but it's obvious he is talking about the same person. What stands out from this passage is that the Emperor reasserts direct control over northern Gaul in the person of Odoacer, whilst Childeric switches allegiance from Paulus to Odoacer when it becomes clear who the real imperial authority is. He then serves Odoacer and the empire by helping defeat the Alamans in Italy. There is no hint here that Childeric renounces his federate status. Something else to note: Syagrius does not immediately succeed his father, but only later on at some undetermined date. Coins continued to be struck in the name of the reigning emperor, first the Western emperors, and when they were gone, the Eastern emperor Zeno. It seems at least likely that Syagrius took up the governorship of Roman Gaul initially in genuine submission to Rome.

Then Remigius's letter to Clovis on his accession in 481:

Rumor ad nos magnum pervenit, administrationem vos Secundum Belgice suscepisse. Non est novum, ut coeperis esse, sicut parentes tui semper fuerunt.

Word of great import has reached us that you have received the administration of Belgica Secunda. This is not a new thing, that you should begin to be what your forefathers always were.

I put in the Latin to underscore two points about this passage. First Clovis does not take absolute control of Belgica Secunda, he is given the administration - administrationem - of it. This clearly implies a superior authority who delegates the governance to him. Secondly, he receives the administration of a Roman province. Belgica Secunda was one of four provinces that made up northern Roman Gaul in the latter half of the 5th century. Here's a map:



If Clovis simply asserted his power over all the territory formerly controlled by Syagrius, why 'administration' and why 'Belgica Secunda'?

Then back to  Gregory of Tours:

In the fifth year of his reign Siagrius, king of the Romans, son of Egidius, had his seat in the city of Soissons which Egidius, who has been mentioned before, once held. And Clovis came against him with Ragnachar, his kinsman, because he used to possess the kingdom, and demanded that they make ready a battlefield. And Siagrius did not delay nor was he afraid to resist. And so they fought against each other and Siagrius, seeing his army crushed, turned his back and fled swiftly to king Alaric at Toulouse. – History of the Franks, II, 27

It is worth noting that 'kingdom' is rendered as regnum in Latin, the primary meaning of which is 'authority', 'rule', 'dominion' - not necessarily a kingdom as such. Tying this in with the previous passages, what we have is Syagrius revoking Clovis's administrative title to Belgica Secunda and reoccupying Soissons to underscore the point. Clovis responds by creating an alliance among the Salian Franks and meeting Syagrius in battle. Notice that Syagrius 'did not delay nor was he afraid to resist' which implies he had a strong army - rather odd for the vassal of a barbarian chieftain - and was quite confident he could beat Clovis.