Posts: 245
Threads: 41
Joined: Jun 2006
Reputation:
0
Hello
Jens: So including a Bucelarius, in the way we are describing it (an armed servant of a landowner), is not that accurate, for an illustration of the 470's AD?
Best regards
JP Vieira
Visit my Website at
[url:n6bls2l1]http://ilustro.webs.com/[/url]
Posts: 69
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation:
0
JP, my personal opinion:
if u want to show the variety of ALL forms of armed men in late antiquity it is ok to include a buccellarius of a landowner (as I said there were others belonging to that category also, from shieldbearers to sometimes even armed slaves).
BUT - if u want to show a typical fighting force of that time I wont include landowners buccellarii.
JP, if u are especially interested in ad hoc local defence forces we should maybe discuss that matter in more detail, leading away from buccellarii me thinks.
One example of this is an incident in Anatolia late 4th century when a regiment of Greuthungi rebelled, ravaged the countryside and is defeated by locals in a narrow pass. Do you think of such stories?
Jens Wucherpfennig
Posts: 367
Threads: 29
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:There seem to be some misconceptions here about buccellarii...
Buccellarii first (since their first appearence at the end of the 4th century) were SOLDIERS, who were not in regular army units but the personal FOLLOWING OF OFFICERS - but they were still Roman soldiers.
Since the beginning of the 5th century they got their provisions from the emperor and probably also their basic kit. Only their money was paid by their personal masters - who got this money from the emperor.
5th century buccellarii of the highest ranking officers - that is the magistri militum like Aetius and Stilicho - never exceeded some 300 men (this number for example for Sarus, Olympiodor fr. 6). Tribunes are recorded to have some 10 to 30 buccellarii (P. Oxy. I 150). There were no huge private armies numbering thousands.
From papyri we know that buccellarii were structured like regular soldiers in contuberniae.
Apart from buccellarii there were other members of followings, some also used for military service. Famous were the shield bearers who fought alongside their masters (Strategikon 1,3,24ff).
regarding the buccellarii of landowners:
They seem to be overrated. The records we have got nearly all come from egypt and begin in the late 5th century (earliest maybe from 475, P. Ant. II 103). They were no private armies but had security duties. most of the magnates apparently got them as magistrates of the state. There were other magnates who were not such magistrates but who had buccellarii - and only this form was illegal. These buccellarii were only few, used in private feuds only. They might be deserters and as such former soldiers.
I followed Oliver Schmitt: Die Buccellarii, in Tyche 9, 1994.
That is odd, because in the Gothic laws buccelarii are mentioned clearly as private soldiers in the 5th century, and also in the 6th century.
AKA Inaki
Posts: 15,118
Threads: 417
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
79
Hi Jens,
We agree about buccelarii as private armies of high-ranking individuals. These could vary from a band of bodyguards to small armies, used by magnates, but Procopius also mentions an 'exceptional case' of the civil servant John the Cappadocian having a large bodyguard - numbering several thousand men! In 444 Valerian, the wealthy decurion of Emesa, used his private force of 'barbarians' to defeat the governor of the province Phoenicia Libanensis.
These were illegal, but military offficers werer allowed to uise them - they were probably seen as 'coming with the job', as a welcome adddition, but in any case extremely difficult to forbid. Belisarius had as many as 7.000 of them, Narses not 400.
Quote: There seem to be some misconceptions here about buccellarii... [..] regarding the buccellarii of landowners: [..]
These buccellarii were only few, used in private feuds only. They might be deserters and as such former soldiers.
I followed Oliver Schmitt: Die Buccellarii, in Tyche 9, 1994.
I disagree (with Schmitt). True, such buccelarii were illegal (but no-one said they were not), but there is no sign that these were armed retainers used in private feuds only. The Gallo-Roman Ecdicius (son-in-law of Avitus) in 471 broke the Visigoth siege of Arvernis (Clermont) with a private cavalry troop of 18 cavalry. The Life of Daniel the Stylite describes how Leo (457-74) invited a Gallic nobleman with his band of barbarian buccelarii.
Posts: 69
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation:
0
Quote:That is odd, because in the Gothic laws buccelarii are mentioned clearly as private soldiers in the 5th century, and also in the 6th century.
Gothic buccellarii were modeled on the Roman ones, but differ in many aspects (Wolfram: Die Goten, p. 242). I thought we talked about the Roman buccellarii.
Quote:Belisarius had as many as 7.000 of them, Narses not 400.
We talk about 5th century here. Indeed in 6th century some very very very few East Romans had buccellarii in the thousands. But I am not the only one who doubts the 7000 of Belisar. 1-3000 seems more likely.
Many episodes speaking of someone leading thousands of soldiers against the state/emperor probably dont refer to buccellarii: Gainas, Ricimer, Aetius, Vitalian and others all were famous generals who commanded regular troops who would have followed them against the emperor or other generals.
Quote:The Gallo-Roman Ecdicius (son-in-law of Avitus) in 471 broke the Visigoth siege of Arvernis (Clermont) with a private cavalry troop of 18 cavalry.
Ecdicius was dux, patricius and magister militum. So he definitely fits into the high ranking officer category.
I dont doubt the existance of buccellarii of landowners. But - I doubt their numerical relevance in our period (5th century).
PS Robert - have u read Scharf and/or Speidel in the meantime?
Jens Wucherpfennig
Posts: 367
Threads: 29
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:Aryaman2:rwpivzq4 Wrote:That is odd, because in the Gothic laws buccelarii are mentioned clearly as private soldiers in the 5th century, and also in the 6th century.
Gothic buccellarii were modeled on the Roman ones, but differ in many aspects (Wolfram: Die Goten, p. 242). I thought we talked about the Roman buccellarii. What aspects? could you make a brief summary?
AKA Inaki
Posts: 245
Threads: 41
Joined: Jun 2006
Reputation:
0
If you could provide even a very basic summary of the diferences, it would be great.
Looking forward to it 
Best regards
JP Vieira
Visit my Website at
[url:n6bls2l1]http://ilustro.webs.com/[/url]
Posts: 367
Threads: 29
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
Ok, I have made some research this week.
The main diference between the East and the West, is that the Eastern Part of the Empire tried to suppress Buccellarii, while the Western Barbarian Kingdoms encouraged them.
In 468 a constitutio by Emperor Leo in the Codex Iustiniani says that "buccellarios vel Isauros armatosque servos" are forbidden (CI IX, 12, 10)
OTOH in the Codex of the Gothic king Euricus (c.476) the employment of buccelarii is regulated by law, the Patonus is to provide weapons and to give rewards to the buccellarius, who is considered a freeman, capable of changing Patronus, but in that case he is forced to return everything received from his previous Patronus (CE frg 310). The law is repeated in the Liber Iudiciorum (c.630) except that the name buccelarius is replaced by the expresion "qui in patrocinio constitutus est", and that in chapter of the list of donations by the Patronus, besides "weapons and others" land is alos registered. Itis clear from it that Buccelarii in the West developed into the Feudal retinues of the Medieval period.
As for their look, it is stated that they received their weapons from their Masters, so you can guess they could be a wide disparity, depending on wealth, local traditions (weapons could be made locally) et ceteris.
AKA Inaki
Posts: 69
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation:
0
Sorry for my late answer,
I did not want to be destructive - JP illustrate a buccellarius like suggested if u want.
I just wanted to make clear that buccellarii of landowners were not such a multitude and so super important at the time we are speaking about.
Regarding the difference between Roman and Visigothic buccellarii: most important is what Inaki said: Visigothic became their gear from their patrons.
THAT is different from the Roman ones: At least the law very soon (begin of 5th century) declares that the "official" buccellarii (those of officers and magistrates) should get their weapons from the state (like the common soldiers.
so my 2cents, JP:
if u want to illustrate a "legal" buccellarius of an officer, portray it like a regular soldier.
if u want to illustrate an "illegal" buccellarius of a landowner, portray it - well, i dont know how. More irregular ...
Regards,
Jens Wucherpfennig
Posts: 245
Threads: 41
Joined: Jun 2006
Reputation:
0
Hello
Inaki and Jens: many thanks on your insights to this matter.
Your extra data sure as made my imagination (regarding a future illustration) working fast.
Also, I learned new stuff: a win-win situation 
Thanks again to all that contributed to this thread.
Best regards
JP Vieira
Visit my Website at
[url:n6bls2l1]http://ilustro.webs.com/[/url]
Posts: 245
Threads: 41
Joined: Jun 2006
Reputation:
0
Hello
As for the illustration, a Bucelarius of a landowner, with his more "civilian" and irregular look (like you suggested Jens), seems more interesting.
Many thanks again
Best regards
JP Vieira
Visit my Website at
[url:n6bls2l1]http://ilustro.webs.com/[/url]
|
