the very last roman soldiers

[Q Rutilius]

This is a good topic. Can anyone post any pictures of "the last Roman soldiers" (foederati too). This would be helpful to non-experts like me. And as the saying goes: a picture is worth a thousand words.

[JP Vieira]

Hello
I plan to post images of these soldiers (but I must draw and paint them first :wink: ).
Until them, a foederati is basically a foreign soldiers hired by the roman : It has a special status (allied), and if He was a German He looks like all Germans .
My question in the beginning was the appearance of the last Romans.
I am starting my initial sketches and already have a composition idea that, I believe will transform it into a great illustration.
Cheers
JP Vieira

[Robert Vermaat]

Until them, a foederati is basically a foreign soldiers hired by the roman : It has a special status (allied), and if He was a German He looks like all Germans

No no no, that's not correct. You had your mercenaries, soldiers who were hired straight from the tribes along the border and beyond - these were dismissed after the campaign was over. They could serve under Roman officers bit if they came in 'bulk' so to speak they could serve under their own leaders.

Now your foederatus (pl. foederati) were on the next step of the ladder. These were men serving under a foedus (treaty) - these men usuall came from groups settled either inside the empire or just outside, and the treaty stipulated usually that they had to send men in times of need. The Teuxandrian Franks are a a good example, but also defeated peoples outside the empire like the Goths (by Constantine the Great) still sent men long after their defeat (to support the usurper Procopius).
Now these (especially those settled inside the empire) were outfitted by the Roman military, and will therefore have looked very much like Roman troops.

The next step would be regular troops, a status that was craved by Alaric for his troops. In effect, a barbarian king could become Roman regiona commander (dux) or even higher (magister militum), and his troops (in effect his barbarian dependents) were paid and outfitted as a Roman army.

[sonic]

Until them, a foederati is basically a foreign soldiers hired by the roman : It has a special status (allied), and if He was a German He looks like all Germans

No no no, that's not correct. You had your mercenaries, soldiers who were hired straight from the tribes along the border and beyond - these were dismissed after the campaign was over. They could serve under Roman officers bit if they came in 'bulk' so to speak they could serve under their own leaders.

Now your foederatus (pl. foederati) were on the next step of the ladder. These were men serving under a foedus (treaty) - these men usuall came from groups settled either inside the empire or just outside, and the treaty stipulated usually that they had to send men in times of need. The Teuxandrian Franks are a a good example, but also defeated peoples outside the empire like the Goths (by Constantine the Great) still sent men long after their defeat (to support the usurper Procopius).
Now these (especially those settled inside the empire) were outfitted by the Roman military, and will therefore have looked very much like Roman troops.

The next step would be regular troops, a status that was craved by Alaric for his troops. In effect, a barbarian king could become Roman regiona commander (dux) or even higher (magister militum), and his troops (in effect his barbarian dependents) were paid and outfitted as a Roman army.

I'm not sure I agree with you over some of these ideas. For example, although I accept that the foederati were bound by treaty to support Rome by providing troops, I have never read that they were equipped identically to the Roman troops.

Furthermore, I have never read that Alaric - or any other Germanic leader - craved for his troops to become regular Romans. In fact, there always seems to have been a split of opinion between the 'kings' and their followers, with only the 'kings' wanting the prestige of a Roman title; the Germanic followers do not seem to have wanted anything similar for themselves.

From my reading, both the foederati and the mercenaries retained their original weapons and style of fighting. The foederati were led by their own leaders, the mercenaries either by Roman officers, or - especially later - by their own leaders.

I would be very interested to learn of your source for these claims, since I have no knowledge of them myself.


___________________________________________________

Ian (Sonic) Hughes

[Robert Vermaat]

I'm not sure I agree with you over some of these ideas. For example, although I accept that the foederati were bound by treaty to support Rome by providing troops, I have never read that they were equipped identically to the Roman troops.

Not identical, but as they seem to have been equipped from the Roman army warehouses.
Böhme, H.W. (1986): Das Ende der Römerherrschaft in Britannien und die Angelsachsische Besiedlung Englands im 5. Jahrhundert, in: Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 33, pp. 468-574.
Böhme, H.W. (1996): Söldner und Siedler im spätantiken Nordgallien, in: Die Franken, Wegbereiter Europas, pp. 91-101.

Furthermore, I have never read that Alaric - or any other Germanic leader - craved for his troops to become regular Romans. In fact, there always seems to have been a split of opinion between the 'kings' and their followers, with only the 'kings' wanting the prestige of a Roman title; the Germanic followers do not seem to have wanted anything similar for themselves.

Well, I'm interested where you found those last ideas. Mine are based on (from the top of my head):
Kulikowski, Michael (2007): Rome's Gothic Wars, (Cambridge University Press).
Liebeschütz, J.H.W.G. (1990): Barbarians and Bishops, Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom, (Clarendon Press, Oxford).
Liebeschütz, J.H.W.G. (1992): Alaric’s Goths: nation or army?, in: Drinkwater, J.F. and Hugh Elton eds.: Fifth-century Gaul: a Crisis of Identity?, (Cambridge), pp. 75-83.

From my reading, both the foederati and the mercenaries retained their original weapons and style of fighting. The foederati were led by their own leaders, the mercenaries either by Roman officers, or - especially later - by their own leaders.

I show you my sources, you show me yours. :wink:

[Q Rutilius]

Sounds great JP. I, for one, can't wait to see them. In light of the discussion maybe you shjould draw more than one foederatus.

[sonic]

I show you my sources, you show me yours. :wink:

I would, if I could remember them offhand! cry:

However, there are two factors that stand out here:

Firstly, have you got any primary sources for the claims? I wouldn't be surprised if there exists a long line of authors who disagree entirely with the references you gave, simply due to inconsistencies within the primary sources, or due to different interpretations of the evidence.

Secondly, my own studies of late have tended to be concerned with the later period, after the Fall of the West, and specifically around the reconquest of Belisarius. There is no suggestion in the sources that these later foederati were equipped by the Romans; instead, the little evidence we have suggests that they were almost certainly equipped in their traditional manner. Furthermore, at this late date, the Germanic peoples fighting against Belisarius were utterly divided, with some (especially the nobles) desiring to make an agreement with Justinian and go to the East in order to enter his service, whilst others - especially many of the Goths - choosing to continue fighting rather than trust the Emperor.

I have to admit that, as usual, my limited time and poor typing skills has not allowed me to delve into what is, after all, a very complex subject, thus leaving me with my usual 'egg-on-face' syndrome where I have to admit that the situation is less clear cut than my previous post suggested. :oops:

Having said that, I do remember reading somewhere that the rank and file troops of Alaric's army were not interested in fighting for the Romans; they wanted to be allowed to settle down and farm land of their own without fear of attack by outsiders. I still get the feeling that, on the whole, it was the leaders of the invading Germans that wanted high-ranking imperial service, their followers simply wanting to settle down in peace and security. When I get chance (which won't be for quite a while, given the condition of the house at the minute!), I'll go through and see what supporting evidence I can find.

I accept that it is possible that Alaric wanted his troops to become Roman soldiers; after all, if that happened then he would no longer be honour-bound to furnish them with the supplies, equpiment, cash and/or booty that they expected - which would have been a great relief!!. Their acceptance into the army would enable him to concentrate solely upon his attempt to climb the Roman ladder of promotion, knowing that he would have a (probably) loyal core of supporters within the Roman Army when he neared the top.

Yet I have never seen primary evidence for this assumption (then again, it is now well over a decade since I was at University, so if you were to prove me wrong I wouldn't be at all surprised!! :lol: ). Even if there was primary evidence, it is likely to have been a Roman writer relying upon his imagination in order to find a reason for Alaric's 'travels' around the Empire, so its reliability may be in doubt.

Maybe I'm just being too cynical, :roll: but my one outstanding recollection from University is that a small piece of evidence that might possibly support a desired conclusion can be distorted to become 'accepted' history.

However, my main request is for primary evidence that the foederati were equipped with Roman equipment from the Imperial arsenals. This I have never heard of before, although, as I say, I might actually have heard of it but forgotten in the intervening years!! :?

In the meantime, thanks for the secondary sources VS, and as soon as I can I'll try to dig out anything I can find to support my own hypotheses. We're hoping that within a fortnight we'll be able to begin moving things back to where they belong. At that point, I'll get to work - if two-year-old anklebiter permits!! :lol:

_________________________________________

Ian (Sonic) Hughes

[JP Vieira]

Hello
The basic idea for the drawing is decided as is the composition of the figures (3 to 4).
I will wait for the discussion about the appearance of foederati before I make the final drawing; or, as Tom suggested to make two different looking (as for type of equipment) foederati.
This exchange of ideas is great.
Best regards to all for all your knowledge.
JP Vieira

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

Salve,

When you say the last Roman Solider, could you tell me the date you’re looking at?

The reason I’m asking is this… I have read and been told been that the word ‘Byzantine’ was a modern French word, applied to the ‘Romans’ (or what was left of the empire) after or during the rein of Zeno. I remember reading (but cannot find the source) that the ‘Byzantines’ always considered themselves to be Roman and identified themselves as Romans.

However; in retrospect, looking at the Roman Empire from our vantage point in history, I would agree that the Empire fell after the Vandals smashed them.

By the way… do you realize that we still use the word Vandal even though they are long since gone? What an impact they must have had, for us to this very day, to still call you a vandal when you destroy someone’s property or home…. You don’t “Gaul itâ€

[JP Vieira]

Hello Anthony
The date I am refering is the traditional fall of the West Roman Empire (around 475 AD).
I am collecting data for the appearence of the diferent soldiers that could be integrated in a "tactical" Roman unit of this time.
Best regards
JP Vieira

[petrinus]

thoroughly enjoyed this article, currently reading the decline and fall,....and i see alot of the arguments and ideas supported, i have my own as well but i intend to address them in another thread, exclusive to my conclusion of this marvelous read.