Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Late Roman Army Questions
#16
(11-19-2015, 07:14 PM)Urselius Wrote: auxila and auxilia just meant help/helpers.

That's true: I notice on second glance that the phrase maxime auxiliantibus Gothis I quoted above actually means 'especially helped by the Goths' (or something) - the word 'auxiliaries' has been added by the translator!
Nathan Ross
Reply
#17
It's not Always easy to discern the details of a 'barbarian band' and a 'barbarian leader'. Barbarians served in the Roman army before leading tribesmen: we see that with both Civilis in the Batavian uprising as well as Arminius before him. So when we hear of 'barbarian kings' leading (e.g.) Alaman tribesman in Roman campaigns we can't say for sure if these are purely barbarian groups gone over to Rome and then used in a campaign. We might equally deal with men who became leaders after first doing several tours with the Roman army before gaining a 'gefolgschaft' back home. Such officers could raise high into the army ranks by themselves, and some no doubt chose to follow that road, instead of returning home to gain an equally high status.

The later we get in Roman military history though, the more we see non-Roman troops being commanded by non-Romans. The later 4th century seems to have been a turning point, especially after the battle of Adrianople, when Roman influence no longer managed to gain control of some non-Roman groups within the borders, and had to rely on treaties with barbarian commanders.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#18
(11-23-2015, 10:23 AM)Robert Vermaat Wrote: It's not Always easy to discern the details of a 'barbarian band' and a 'barbarian leader'... We might equally deal with men who became leaders after first doing several tours with the Roman army...

Yes, there is a marked difference, I think, between the earlier type of barbarian troops and the later post-Adrianople 'foederati' arrangement, and with their leaders too. But we should remember that, even before Adrianople, Rome was enlisting large bodies of barbarians - the Saracens who ended up defending Constantinople, for example.

There's an interesting crossover period, though, around the later 3rd to the mid 4th century. At the beginning of this period we have what appear to be barbarian groups serving, probably under their own native leaders, as temporary auxiliary forces in field armies. By the end of the period the 'barbarians' (mainly Franks and Alamanni) are present in the regular army and officer corps in large numbers.

An example of this change might be Silvanus and his father Bonitus. Silvanus first appears as tribunus scholae armaturum in 351, changing sides at the battle of Mursa. He went on to become Magister Peditum in Gaul, apparently at a very young age, before being acclaimed emperor in 355 and being assassinated by Constantius's agents shortly afterwards.

Aurelius Victor (Caesars 42.15) tells us that Silvanus was 'born in Gaul of barbarian parents, of the military class' (in Gallia ortus barbaris parentibus ordine militiae). Ammianus Marcellinus (15.5.32) mentions "the valiant deeds of [Silvanus's] father Bonitus, a Frank it is true, but one who in the civil war often fought vigorously on the side of Constantine against the soldiers of Licinius."

Silvanus apparently retained links with the Franks on the far side of the Rhine, and considered fleeing to them in 355, but one of his officers (another Frank) told him he'd be put to death: either the trans-fluvial Franks did not care for their cousins in Roman service, or for usurpers, or both!

But for Silvanus to be 'born in Gaul' his father Bonitus (a 'barbarian') must either have been a miliitary officer already serving in the Roman army, or (perhaps more likely, given the early date) the leader of a group of Frankish laeti or similar who had recently settled in Gaul. Either way, he appears to have been a senior commander - perhaps of Frankish troops - in Constantine's army in c.316-324. Bonitus's son could have been born c.320, and perhaps given a place in the protectores domestici as a reward for his father's service, which would have offered a fast track to higher command at a young age.

One interesting point, of course, is that both men had 'Roman' names - if our sources had not told us otherwise, we'd have assumed they were native-born Romans!
Nathan Ross
Reply
#19
(11-23-2015, 08:02 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: One interesting point, of course, is that both men had 'Roman' names - if our sources had not told us otherwise, we'd have assumed they were native-born Romans!

Alternatively, their Roman names are probably good indicators that they and their families had become assimilated to Roman cultural norms.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#20
(11-23-2015, 08:02 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: [quote pid='332756' dateline='1448274227']
But for Silvanus to be 'born in Gaul' his father Bonitus (a 'barbarian') must either have been a miliitary officer already serving in the Roman army, or (perhaps more likely, given the early date) the leader of a group of Frankish laeti or similar who had recently settled in Gaul. Either way, he appears to have been a senior commander - perhaps of Frankish troops - in Constantine's army in c.316-324. Bonitus's son could have been born c.320, and perhaps given a place in the protectores domestici as a reward for his father's service, which would have offered a fast track to higher command at a young age.
One interesting point, of course, is that both men had 'Roman' names - if our sources had not told us otherwise, we'd have assumed they were native-born Romans!

[/quote]

I think that paints a nice picture of how Roman and barbarian society were fluid enough to become indistinguishable at times. We see the slow intermingling of Franks in the Roman military, and how this, a century later, would become impossible to pull apart.

No doubt, after the 5th c., we will see Roman children being given Frankish names.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#21
(11-30-2015, 01:04 PM)Urselius Wrote: their Roman names are probably good indicators that they and their families had become assimilated to Roman cultural norms.

Yes. Bonitus's father was presumably one of the various Frankish chiefs allied to Rome, and so gave his son a 'Roman' name as a mark of admiration for Roman ways (as with the Alemannic 'Serapio', who fought against Julian at Strasbourg). Unless, of course, Bonitus adopted a new name when he took up Roman military service. Since he was a prominent soldier in AD316-324, he would probably have been born in the closing decades of the 3rd century; so this sort of exchange goes further back than the 4th century.

Either way, it's a good illustration of the cultural permeability of the Roman/Germanic frontier at this point.
Nathan Ross
Reply
#22
Ammianus gives the names of a number of 'barbarian' Kings, Chiefs  etc who attained the highest ranks in the Late Roman army. Richomeres was a Frank, Victor was a Sarmatian, Vadomarius was Allemanni as was Frigeridus. There are a number of others mentioned as well.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#23
Don't forget both Merobaudes (One in the 380's and of course Aetius's in the 430's and 440's).
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Late Roman Army during the 5th century Robert Vermaat 89 17,329 01-11-2024, 04:34 PM
Last Post: Magister_Officiorum13241
  Late Roman Army Ranks - Numeri/Limitanei jmsilvacross 14 1,745 11-17-2021, 01:42 PM
Last Post: Steven James
  Late Roman Army - seniores and iuniores Robert Vermaat 46 20,666 10-15-2020, 10:16 PM
Last Post: Steven James

Forum Jump: