Quote: Is there .... some proof of surviving Roman units in VI century? Is there some archaeological proof? Because if there is not any proof also saying that Roman Traditions survived in the Merovingian Military System is 'a bit strong'.
Is there indeed archaeological proof of Roman units in Gaul during the 5th century? Is there archaeological proof of the semispatha? Or how many hastae were actually found?
Are you, indeed, not asking for proof in this case but not in other cases? I think you are over-asking other for proof in this case. Nobody is speaking of Roman troops in Roman uniforms (uniforms?? Where did they come from???) speaking Latin or whatever. Procopius is only speaking of 'traditions of their ancestors' without divulging what traditions exactly.
Quote: SOURCES, I'm asking here only for sources, it's not that complex, if you have sources backing your thesis you can state what your sources allow you to state, but if there is not any source
Oh that easy, you call for sources and then you deny that Procopius IS a source. So that disqualifies him? He never saw a Roman unit in northern Europe? Well, then please divulge what you think of Vegetius? Or Claudian? Or Orosius? Zosimus perhaps? Isidore of Seville? Tacitus then, and his description of Varus or Boudicca? They were all there and saw their subjects ‘in the flesh’? As above with archaeology, you are over-asking the proof to be presented by your opponents.
I am so glad that you, Diocle, a private citizen, can judge for all of us when a source is not a source and when it is, or just a private dream or something.
Quote:The Language spoken in Britain in the half of the V century was a Romance language, after few years it vanished, totally vanished, no more existing, not even a single word survived in Britain of the Language of Caesar ....A whole civilization vanished in few decades and the Saxons were not Nazi mass murderers!
Linguists disagree with you, that's proof enough for me, I’ll leave it at that.
Quote:About Draco: It's a Sarmatian and Eastern Military Tradition influencing both the Romans, the Dacians and the Germans, I don't see the Draco as a sign of 'Romanitas', if not should we consider the poor Harold at Hastings Romanized? Or maybe a proto-Roman-Reenactor? 8+)
So you actually accept the draco as a Sarmatian influence on Dacians, or Germans somewhere on the rim of Europe, who then transport it to Britain, instead of accepting this as an object that was used throughout the entire Roman army for about 200+ years (where do you get the notion that it’s only ‘eastern Roman?), and a possible relic of the Roman army in post-Roman regions? Occam’s razor does not apply here at all, because (in gold and bold) ‘there were no Roman units in gaul in the 6th century’ – period? Amazing. :whistle:
Of course Harold was not Romanized, but the appearance of the draco in the Anglo-Saxon army points in my opinion rather more to lingering Roman influences that to Sarmatian, Dacian or ‘eastern Roman’ ones.
Quote:When a state ceases to exist, and the Roman state ceased to exist even earlier than 476, also its military machine ends.
Sure it did, but why would that indicate a sudden tabula rasa? The Franks who took power in the late 5th century did not come freshly crashing across the border did they? They had served in the ranks of the Roman army from the late 4th century onwards, commanded in that army and even rose to very high ranks in an army that had supplied them for the better part of a century. Nevertheless you accept that by 476 that all vanished suddenly? And the Franks, bereft of any Roman influence all of a sudden, had to invent the Frankish army all from scratch? Amazing. :whistle:
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Quote:Is there indeed archaeological proof of Roman units in Gaul during the 5th century
Yes I can think of quite a number of finds of Roman Military equipment, and Romano-Germanic Military equipment.
Quote:Is there archaeological proof of the semispatha?
AFAIK, haven't 3 been found from the Germanic limes dating to the late 3rd century?
Quote:Sure it did, but why would that indicate a sudden tabula rasa? The Franks who took power in the late 5th century did not come freshly crashing across the border did they? They had served in the ranks of the Roman army from the late 4th century onwards, commanded in that army and even rose to very high ranks in an army that had supplied them for the better part of a century. Nevertheless you accept that by 476 that all vanished suddenly? And the Franks, bereft of any Roman influence all of a sudden, had to invent the Frankish army all from scratch? Amazing.
My point exactly. The concept of the complete disappearance of the Roman system was not even one that Gibbon acknoweldged; even he knew there was a transition and adoption of Roman organization.
Carlo I've already mentioned that you are in conflict with your recent argumentation if compared with that you write here.
To quote directly your own words to your picture:
"The ridge helmets were of many kinds and the Arch of Constantinus shows us that the later Frankish helmet of the Carolingian Age was nothing else than a Late Roman model (like the exemplar sculpted on the Arch) that continued its life without interruption till the Carolingian Age. This is probably more likely being happened in Gaul, where this simpler model of ridge-helmet, slightly enlongated on the sides, to protect the neck but also to compensate the absence of the cheek pieces, probably was largely widespread during the last years of the Western Empire, when the Public Fabricae didn't guaranteed anymore the supplies for what remained of the Roman army in Gaul. "
Isn't it somewhat mysterious that you have no problem with some level of direct continuation if it suits your views but denies it completely as fantasy when it does not suit you anymore?
I thoroughly disagree about that ridge helmet too. It's more likely you're just seeing a ridge helmet with the cheekpieces lopped off, or a banded helmet like the Shorwell.
Quote:Is there indeed archaeological proof of Roman units in Gaul during the 5th century
Yes I can think of quite a number of finds of Roman Military equipment, and Romano-Germanic Military equipment.
Me too, but how do you prove it was from a Roman or a germanic in Roman service? I was looking for unit names in roof tiles etc., or on funerary monuments, given the strict interpretation of 'proof' by our opponent..
Quote:Is there archaeological proof of the semispatha?
AFAIK, haven't 3 been found from the Germanic limes dating to the late 3rd century?[/quote]
Short swords yeah, but how do we know it's a semispatha?
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Quote:Me too, but how do you prove it was from a Roman or a germanic in Roman service?
The River Maas Helmet was. The man was a Soldier of Constantine III - not necessarily a Roman, but certainly a Roman soldier.
Drinkwater argues the same thing for the forts on the Rhine and Danube: Archaeological evidence points to these men being Germanic ancestry (mostly Franko-Brugundo-Alemann), but they were "Roman Soldiers" in the professional Roman army, although not "ethnically" Roman.
Quote:Short swords yeah, but how do we know it's a semispatha?
True. An educated guess is probably what it is regarding those blades.
Quote:Me too, but how do you prove it was from a Roman or a germanic in Roman service?
The River Maas Helmet was. The man was a Soldier of Constantine III - not necessarily a Roman, but certainly a Roman soldier.
No proof unfortunately. We have the remains of a helmet, by the finder (metal detectorist) can't/won't divulge where he found it, or where the coins came from - the article rightly has doubts they were found together. Other than that the helmet was Roman-manufactured and the coins minted in the Empire, we have nothing.
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
If there was a helmet AND coins, I would not be surprised if there was a complete burial where he found it. If there was, it means we have a chance of coming across it in the future.
That helmet is like 70 years old, surely the guy who found it is dead?
I thought it dated from before the Intercisa Finds? The Reconstruction is ancient; surely if it had dated from the 90's they would have known the rest of the helmet would resemble the intercisa finds and not a banded helmet.
I've seen the original scraps and frankly (no pun intended) I'm not entirely convinced the helemt was an Intercisa. It might have been! Or not.
Kruyff, Lizet (1998): Romeinse helm met Christelijk monogram gerestaureerd, in: Scarabee 36, p. 15.
Prins, Jelle (2000): The 'fortune' of a late Roman officer, a hoard from the Meuse valley (Netherlands) with helmet and gold coins, in: Bonner Jahrbücher 200, pp. 309-28.
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Wait a moment Mylord Robert the Batavian! We are talking of two different things I suppose ...
I'm not saying the the Roman influence ceased to exist in Gaul, it would be absolutely idiotic!
In fact, we, French, Italians, Spanish, Belgians, Portuguese, Catalan, Romanian and many others we are still speaking Latin, then in Gaul the Roman influence is present everywhere, think that still today in Europe there is an invisible Limes (actually more strong than the old Roman Limes!) running exactly alongside the ancient limes, it's called 'linguistic barrier' separating two worlds: one one side the Romance Languages, direct descendants of the Latin civilization, on the other side the Germanic linguistic area, the Roman civilization didn't die on 476 of course! but this is another matter. Isn't it? :wink:
In fact, actually, here we are talking of Merovingian Units preserving the Roman organization and marching under Roman standards in the VI century! And this this is false. It's false until you can you proof the existence of such Roman Units in the Merovingian Kingdom. Can you? I doubt. Anyway, If you can, I'll be the most happy man of Europe! And you'll be the most famous historian of the last century! Publish the news and your name will be famous like that of Heinrich Schliemann! 8+)
About English, if you can quote one single word that is Latin and not a Norman import in English Language, also in this case I'll be very happy! We have another hidden Romance Language to discover under the old Language of Shakespeare! Sadly also in this case, I have many doubts .... :|
About Draco: I don't see why you insist in telling us that the Saxon Draco was a Roman relic when probably it was simply one of the various Germanic standards used in the Early Middle Age in Europe deriving from the Sarmatians and the Huns.
About words and titles, look: The Langobards used in Italy words as Dux, Comes, Gasindius, Gastaldus, Arimannus, Iudex, Minori Homines, Equites Caballarii, Maiores et Potentes, Sequentes, Minores, and then? Do you think that the use of such a mix of old Latin and Germanic words and titles means that the Langobard Army was organized following a Roman fashion? No, it was not! The Langobard army was organized following the structure of the Langobard society, it was based on the Langobard political structure, and it followed the Langobard social and economic organization based on the 'Fare' , that is, extended tribal clans. The Langobard warfare was based on Duces who fielded armies based on Heavy Cavalry formed by Gasindii and Potentiores, backed by Medium Cavalry formed Minori Homines and then the infantry formed by Arimanni (free men) who were mainly shielded bowmen.
Is there something of Roman in this Langobard organization using Latin words as Duces and Comites? No, there is nothing of course! As there was nothing of Roman in the Merovingian Armies or in the Anglo Saxon Armies, nothing!
The tale of Procopius is only a tale and it is not a proof of anything, as only a tale is the tale of Plato about Ἀτλαντὶς νῆσοςAtlantis)
Plato, Timaeus 24e - 25d (trans. Bury) : "Many great and wonderful deeds are recorded of your state [Athens] in our [the Egyptian's] histories. But one of them exceeds all the rest in greatness and valour. For these histories tell of a mighty power [Atlantis] which unprovoked made an expedition against the whole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an end. This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Herakles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Herakles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya [Africa] within the columns of Herakles as far as Aigyptos (Egypt), and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia [in Italia]. This vast power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our country and yours and the whole of the region within the straits; and then, Solon, your country shone forth, in the excellence of her virtue and strength, among all mankind. She was pre-eminent in courage and military skill, and was the leader of the Hellenes. And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars. But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island."
but this is not a source, it's only a nice tale by Plato! Isn't it?
Why you still insist so strong on it Carlo?How can you know this with such certainty?If you are asking for direct evidence where is your evidence that it is so completely impossible some Roman tradition units were still around only so shortly after the fall of the West when Procopios mentioned it?
To me it seems so much more likely his story is based in reality rather than that your over-confident opinion must be right.
For example I would never so categorically exclude possibility that your favorite Attic style helmets cant be used for much longer time than archeology suggests-and I never done it.
Re the linguistic changes in Britain- heres a link to an oldish article asking why the English don't speak Welsh...http://hildegard.tristram.de/media/tristram_manchester_30-07-07.pdf
In fact, in Welsh, we have a lot of pre Conquest Latin words- pont (bridge). llurig (lorica), ffenestr (window, French fenetre) eglwys (church, eglise) etc etc. Not to say that Welsh is a Roman language- just that it has a large number of loan words.
![[Image: wip2_r1_c1-1-1.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/PaulHB/wip2_r1_c1-1-1.jpg)
![[Image: Comitatuslogo3.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/PaulHB/Comitatuslogo3.jpg)
