Military priests in Late Empire armies?

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

Aue!

I am searching information about the existence (or not) of military Christian priests in late Empire armies (specifically in all Western Empire, Eastern Empire and Visigothic armies) and which 'rank' would they have been (i.e. presbyter? diakonos? mmm...).

Resources are apparently scarce, I'd appreciate any pointers (web resources better).

Now that I'm asking for help, I'd also appreciate pointers to late IV and early V Centuries Catholic or Arian ceremonies that may have been performed "in campaign".

(I'd really appreciate info about Arian ceremonies! Arianism was apparently wiped out after those Nicaea and Constantinople Concilia!)

As for the utility of all this, I've just begun to write a Historical Fiction novel telling the life of Alaric, king of the Visigoths, and I'm beginning with his death in Cosenza. I'm having an Arian Visigothic priest (or a Roman Catholic one "borrowed" from Rome after of the sieges, it depends) attending him on his death bed. Thus I need "Historical Fiction depth", which is as much as it's enough to create a good suspension of disbelief and as historically correct as possible, but not more... :-) )

thank you very much!

salue!

PS- I'll probably post questions and RFCs here and in the Enemies of Rome forum from now on, lots of things to sort out before having anything "decent". I'll probably redirect the blunt of the discussion to my blog, "de praeterito tempore" at praeter.blogspot.com, where I also have my 'Greeks" work-in-progress info... thanks!

[Mithras]

Useful too, for Late Roman groups wanting to represent religion in the ranks. I've been wondering about the type of spiritual support that took over from the pagan priests of the earlier legions...

[Arahne]

Division of churches was in 1054. A.D.

[Carlton Bach]

At this point I'm afraid all I can offer is speculation, but I am sure the actual data is somewhere to be found. If there was one group that was as anal about writing stuff down as the Roman Army, it's the Imperial Church in Late Antiquity.

Now for me speculating:

First of all, unlike in the pre-Christian army, there could be no priests of any kind in the military. By Canon Law (or rather, by its precursor), no ordained priest or deacon could serve in the military or the civil service in any capacity, and I can't see the church handwaving this one. We do not know hos this was handled with the irregular, locally varying ranks of 'sub-clerical' grades - lectors and below.

Secondly, no priest could - technically - operate outside the authority of a bishop and be considered orthodox. I know of no 'military bishops' in Late Roman times, though today IIRC that is how many Western nations run their armed services chaplaincies.

Bishops in Late Antiquity were mostly still the independent, elected heads of local Christian communities. In some parts of the Empire - notably Egypt - the Metropolitan bishops were the actual superiors of the local ones, but this pattern did not yet obtain over the whole Empire.

Until well into the fifth century, there were no requirements for soldiers to participate in Christian services, so there was no objective need to provide for clergy. At the same time the state was eager to support the church, so we can assume that Christians in the army would have been given the opportunity to practice their religion.

The relationship between the army and the church cpould be close and cordial, and some former military men became priests after retirement, so there is no evidence of any kind of 'disconnect'.

The sacramental Doctrine of the early church did not actually require the ministrations of an ordained priest on a regular basis the way the medieval system did - no compulsory confession, no required attendance at Eucharist or Extreme Unction. The most important services for an army on campaign - leading prayers, comforting the injured and dying, and burying the dead - could be handled by subclericals (in some dioceses, there were specific grades for attending the sick and the dead). We have no evidence for these in the army that I know of, but there is no legal reason why serving soldiers could not have this function (though, again, these grades were local and regulated by tradition and we can not exclude local practice prohibiting soldiers from holding them).

There was not, as yet, a parish organisation. The lowest level of church organisation was the diocese, usually coterminous with the polis or civitas. All clergy in the diocese were under the direct authority of the bishop, and the system often seems almost military in nature (the church probably did adopt some practices from the army outright, and where theological dispute took on a more robust bend, deacons and subdeacons, but especially monastics, received some combat training). Bishops often detailed their clergy to specific tsasks and locations, often for years on end. There were alsao preioersts in the retinues of powerful men who, while technically under episcopal authority, most likely did not owe any but technical allegiance.

Thus, my guess is that the soldiers in garrisons came under the purview of the local bishops. Based in cirioes, they would attend services in the churches there. In countryside garrisons, they would be served by rural priests detailed by the bishop, though often enough patchily. Troops in courts or retinues would be served by the priests that were part of these retinues. Larger military facilities probably had dedicated places of worship with clergy detailed to their service, again under the authority of the local bishop. These clergymen (fully ordained priests, but also deacons or subdeacons, most likely not lectors or subclericals) might well have accompanied the troops on campaign. There is ample precedent for prists travelling, and while a hishop had the authority to supervise or even bar an outside priest holding services in his territory, given the attitude of the Late Roman army to meddlesome civilians, we can speculate this would have been an unwise move. Senior officers probably travelled accompanied by their personal priests, who also served their bodyguard and oficium/apparitores. Finally, Late Antiquity was very tolerant towards a subset of charismatic ascetics and 'preacher-men' more reminiscent of today's sadhus than the well-orderd clery of later eras, and there is no reason to think these would not have accompanied the troops at times.

Now, this is all idle speculation so if anyone has actual literature or sources on the topic - point the way.

[Theodosius the Great]

Wow, great question, David.

When you say "late Empire armies", where exactly do you make the cut off point to distinguish between the late antiquity and medieval periods ?

Because I think I remember reading about soldiers in Justinian's time (sixth century) where they were required to abstain from communion for a short time after having killed their enemies in battle. That's the earliest time I can think of when the church starts to codify rules for Christian soldiers.

[Carlton Bach]

Because I think I remember reading about soldiers in Justinian's time (sixth century) where they were required to abstain from communion for a short time after having killed their enemies in battle. That's the earliest time I can think of when the church starts to codify rules for Christian soldiers.

Isn't there a part in the Gospels where the proper conduct for a soldier who becomes Christian is laid down? (do not extort money, no gratuitous brutality)

(I'm not claiming that Jesus said that verbatim, but this apparently was an issue at the time of the apostolic church already)

[tlclark]

David,

Carlton is quite right on the structure of military clerical/relations in the late period. The local bishop would have been the person most likely consulted by soldiers for the two rites that seemed to have been practiced before arrival on campaign: blessings of protection, and the eucharist.

In many ways this is probably not all that different than in pagan times. While there were attached pagan priests in earlier times, military leaders were not above consulting any local religious leaders for blessings, or augury.

A centurion who sought out a local Christian Bishop to bless his troops, hear confessions or offer the eucharist, would not be all that different from Roman leaders who sought out local pagan ascetics or sybils to perform the same function.

Also Metropolitans had numerous officers and deacons to assign to various duties. It is not impossible that he would assign a clerical officer, at least on a temporary basis, to a military unit, if requested.

As far as Arian rites go, the truth is that they were probably not all that different, if different at all. Certain invocations about the Trinity which are common to the liturgy, would doubtless be different, but I know of no recorded formula for the Arian trinity in the liturgy.

In large part it wasn't a dispute over ritual as much as theology. When Ravenna is re-conquered under Justinian, the only significant changes to the Churches of San Apollonaire Nuovo are to remove images of Theodoric and the ruling family and that's a political consideration, not a religious one. Likewise, the Arian baptistery continues to be used with little or no modification until much later, and that was largely for practical reasons. Though the presence of the Orthodox baptistery would suggest a new facility was warranted, it's almost impossible to decide what is "Arian" about the earlier one.

You wouldn't catch an Arian using the Creedal formulas, but other than that, I'm not sure what they would have done that would have been so different.

Travis

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

I'll deal with the other replies later...

Wow, great question, David.

When you say "late Empire armies", where exactly do you make the cut off point to distinguish between the late antiquity and medieval periods ?

Thanks, but it's the fruit of necessity, not of my ingenuity... :-) )

For late Empire I guess I talk from Antoninus Pius until the Battle of Châlons...

But the ones I'm most interested in right now (considering the wild changes in that time-frame) are, specifically, the armies of Valens's, Theodosius's, Eugenius's (and Arbogast's) (he was a pagan, but I doubt all of his legionnaires were, and even then Pagan rites would be to be observed as well), Arcadius's and Honorius's (i.e. Stillicho's).

And all this applied to both the Romans-only armies (comitatus) and to the mostly-barbari ones (limitanei; specially applied to Alaric and his Visigoths under Theodosius and Arcadius)...

In earlier times (i.e. Roman Republic and Early Empire) armies would have access to augures and other sacerdotes either from their own ranks (e.g. Pompeii was an augur, and Iulius Caesar was Pontifex Maximus; and so on) or sent by the Senate and the appropriate Collegiate/School...

Problem is later times, which I know worse.

The situation is fun, though, because after Julian's death, the situation is "fun": Western Christian Emperor with a mostly Pagan Senate, and most of the armies a sane mix of religions: Roman, Celtic, or Germanic pantheons, plus Mithraism, Isis-ism, Ishtar-ism, Christianism and other Eastern religions.

Of the Christians (who would be pretty mixed (I understand) with the Mithraists) there were several 'currents' but Arianism was widely spread out and most Germanic tribes were in the process (or had already done) to convert to Arianism, despite the Concilium of Nicea (and later on, of Constantinople). And then the Catholic Church was starting to flesh out, and had confrontations both with the Western Senate and the Eastern Court (not the XI Century schism, but it was probably a hint).

The period I'm specifically interested in for this project is from ca. 370 CE to 410/411 CE... It is, however, a very turbulent period, with blody battles and lots of shifting and shuffling of powers...

thanks for your help!

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

Carlton, Travis,

thanks for your replies, they make a lot of sense....

I'm trying to reconcile them with the fact many times an army would be in campaign, there would not be local bishops nor local christians (and the local pagans would probably be of a different religion, think campaigns in Germania, Dacia, Pannonia, Armenia, Syria, etc...) But unless a classical reference is found, it's a hard question to ponder, true...

The second thing that makes me wonder is that while most of the movements of Alaric's were just military ones, the last entry on Italy was a full, blown-out migration, with women, children, elders and whatnot... In that case, I'd venture they would have taken the local priests with them, right?

...

As far as Arian rites go, the truth is that they were probably not all that different, if different at all. Certain invocations about the Trinity which are common to the liturgy, would doubtless be different, but I know of no recorded formula for the Arian trinity in the liturgy.

...

You wouldn't catch an Arian using the Creedal formulas, but other than that, I'm not sure what they would have done that would have been so different.

Travis

Thanks for this explanation, I see what you mean... If you happen to have pointers to any texts to help me out, it'll be really helpful. Not being Christian, I barely know the most important current prayers; the old ones are surely beyond my knowledge at the moment!

thanks a lot

[Salvianus]

Isn't there a part in the Gospels where the proper conduct for a soldier who becomes Christian is laid down? (do not extort money, no gratuitous brutality)

Yep - the words of John the Baptist, after telling the tax collectors to “Collect no more than what is appointed for you.â€ÂÂ

[Robert Vermaat]

Secondly, no priest could - technically - operate outside the authority of a bishop and be considered orthodox. I know of no 'military bishops' in Late Roman times, though today IIRC that is how many Western nations run their armed services chaplaincies.

Bishops were for a large part powerful men turning to the church.
Some of them were wealthy civilians, some retiring civil servants, some military men.
For instance, we have St. martin of Tours who supposedly was a commander. Or St. Germanus of Auxerre who is said to have held a rank in the defence of Armorica, and who lent some assistance against Saxon raiders in Britain as a bishop.
When Arbogast, the Frank who held Belgica I, delivered his province to Clovis in 486, he may well have been ordained bishop of Carnotense (Chartres) or taken the office voluntaruily - it was not without influence.
The Emperor Avitus was deposed in 456 and forced to become a bishop on the spot (though some say he was strangled or starved).
The usurper Glycerius abdicated in 474 and became bishop of Salonae (Salona).

[Carlton Bach]

Secondly, no priest could - technically - operate outside the authority of a bishop and be considered orthodox. I know of no 'military bishops' in Late Roman times, though today IIRC that is how many Western nations run their armed services chaplaincies.

Bishops were for a large part powerful men turning to the church.
Some of them were wealthy civilians, some retiring civil servants, some military men.
For instance, we have St. martin of Tours who supposedly was a commander. Or St. Germanus of Auxerre who is said to have held a rank in the defence of Armorica, and who lent some assistance against Saxon raiders in Britain as a bishop.
When Arbogast, the Frank who held Belgica I, delivered his province to Clovis in 486, he may well have been ordained bishop of Carnotense (Chartres) or taken the office voluntaruily - it was not without influence.
The Emperor Avitus was deposed in 456 and forced to become a bishop on the spot (though some say he was strangled or starved).
The usurper Glycerius abdicated in 474 and became bishop of Salonae (Salona).

Ah, sorry, misunderstanding. I didn't mean 'no bishops with military ties'. I meant 'no bishops whose diocese is the military forces'. In Germany, for example, one Lutheran and Catholic bishop each are 'military bishops' running the military chaplaincies. Today, they are also bishops of regular dioceses, but in the past, the 'military bishop' was an independent member of the episcopate.