12-17-2014, 10:44 AM
Hi Evan,
I think we have some basic misconceptions in the discussion, so I’d best rephrase my reply about why I think that the limitanei in NW Gaul were no longer present by the 460s.
Limitanei
Both the Tractus Armoricanus (et Nervicanus) and the parts of the Saxon Shore of Belgica II (and Britain) were on the coast, as we can clearly read in the ND (section XXXVII. Dux tractus Armoricani). This coastal command had been created from the late 3rd. c onwards and developed into the 4thc., which is where we find it in the Notitia Dignitatum. However, that system had lost it’s function when we get to the first part of the 5th c. The forts in Belgica II are all gone even earlier, the area being settled by Frankish federates. The British part of the system is gone too. The limitanei along the lower Rhine in belgica II have by then been gone for more than a century. Those along the Rhine are probably still present, which makes sense because there’s where the main threat comes from. Wwe find many of the limitanei units from the TA already in some field armies, which indicates that Roman high command had indeed a rethink about this part of Gaul. Now I read that you think that only half the troops from the TA were gone, but I wouldn’t know how one could make that stick, because after the ND we have no means to tell which unit served where.
The Notitia Dignitatum
I agree that the ND was perhaps revised c. 419, but only in parts. Many parts were certainly not updated past c. 400, and this fact means that we can’t be sure what the Roman army or its command structure looked like in 420, let alone the 460s. We see however that even during the time the ND was compiled (294-c.419 is the ‘wide’ theory), there are several commands being both created as well as scrapped. Which means that the Roman army was in constant flux, and by no means should we expect a command present in 400 to be there in 460 as well. In fact I would not expect it at all. The treat had shifted to the North and East, and I see indications that the TA had served its purpose already at the beginning of the 5th c.
Towns
Yes, Tours had a garrison and so had probably every other town. Some of those towns were mentioned as part of a Limitanei command, and some aren’t. Fact is, we can’t tell from any source who mentions that a town is defended, whether that means that its defense is part of an organized defense scheme commanded by an officer, let alone if it’s still called by a name last mentioned 50 years or so before. Which is why I believe that town defenses were just that – town defenses. Severin and his limitranei on the Danube are indeed a case in point. Those limitanei cease to exist as the control (and pay) from Italy vanishes. After that, towns are defended by a militia, no more.
And the fact (sure) that Tours had a garrison in 470 does not mean at all that a) Tours was therefore part of the TA, or b) that this means that the TA even existed or c) that Paulus was it’s commander because he was a comes. Comites commanded field armies originally, but in the same way that we see late Roman emperors officially being addressed (again) as ‘rex’, we should perhaps not stick to the limits of the term that we only know existed c. 400. Perhaps (as to be expected), a comes became ‘commander’? As that blasted Arthur of Britain was a ‘dux bellorum’ (whatever that meant at the time)?
Field army
Why would there be no field army in the 460s? Why would “everything else deserted after [Aetius’] death, and there's no indications of anything but Foederati after that” a) be true and b) mean that no field army existed after 454? I see no proof of the Roman forces having melted away, after all there must have been some power base for Avitus, that rebel Marcellus or Syagrius. That’s where federates like the Alans or Huns come in. The regular forces are more and more confined to fortifications (not just Gaul, everywhere) and the field armies are more and more comprised of federates or short-term mercenaries. But with Gallo-Romans between them as well, because there is still an exercitus Romanorum)to be incorporated into Clovis' Frankish army by 486. And I’ve already argued that this exercitus would not have comprised too many limitanei. Yes, it’s possible that Paulus only commanded Franks but I don’t think so. Childeric could have commanded his own Franks (as would the comes Arbogast no doubt) but that would not have counted as a ‘Roman army’ to later sources I believe.
I think we have some basic misconceptions in the discussion, so I’d best rephrase my reply about why I think that the limitanei in NW Gaul were no longer present by the 460s.
Limitanei
Both the Tractus Armoricanus (et Nervicanus) and the parts of the Saxon Shore of Belgica II (and Britain) were on the coast, as we can clearly read in the ND (section XXXVII. Dux tractus Armoricani). This coastal command had been created from the late 3rd. c onwards and developed into the 4thc., which is where we find it in the Notitia Dignitatum. However, that system had lost it’s function when we get to the first part of the 5th c. The forts in Belgica II are all gone even earlier, the area being settled by Frankish federates. The British part of the system is gone too. The limitanei along the lower Rhine in belgica II have by then been gone for more than a century. Those along the Rhine are probably still present, which makes sense because there’s where the main threat comes from. Wwe find many of the limitanei units from the TA already in some field armies, which indicates that Roman high command had indeed a rethink about this part of Gaul. Now I read that you think that only half the troops from the TA were gone, but I wouldn’t know how one could make that stick, because after the ND we have no means to tell which unit served where.
The Notitia Dignitatum
I agree that the ND was perhaps revised c. 419, but only in parts. Many parts were certainly not updated past c. 400, and this fact means that we can’t be sure what the Roman army or its command structure looked like in 420, let alone the 460s. We see however that even during the time the ND was compiled (294-c.419 is the ‘wide’ theory), there are several commands being both created as well as scrapped. Which means that the Roman army was in constant flux, and by no means should we expect a command present in 400 to be there in 460 as well. In fact I would not expect it at all. The treat had shifted to the North and East, and I see indications that the TA had served its purpose already at the beginning of the 5th c.
Towns
Yes, Tours had a garrison and so had probably every other town. Some of those towns were mentioned as part of a Limitanei command, and some aren’t. Fact is, we can’t tell from any source who mentions that a town is defended, whether that means that its defense is part of an organized defense scheme commanded by an officer, let alone if it’s still called by a name last mentioned 50 years or so before. Which is why I believe that town defenses were just that – town defenses. Severin and his limitranei on the Danube are indeed a case in point. Those limitanei cease to exist as the control (and pay) from Italy vanishes. After that, towns are defended by a militia, no more.
And the fact (sure) that Tours had a garrison in 470 does not mean at all that a) Tours was therefore part of the TA, or b) that this means that the TA even existed or c) that Paulus was it’s commander because he was a comes. Comites commanded field armies originally, but in the same way that we see late Roman emperors officially being addressed (again) as ‘rex’, we should perhaps not stick to the limits of the term that we only know existed c. 400. Perhaps (as to be expected), a comes became ‘commander’? As that blasted Arthur of Britain was a ‘dux bellorum’ (whatever that meant at the time)?
Field army
Why would there be no field army in the 460s? Why would “everything else deserted after [Aetius’] death, and there's no indications of anything but Foederati after that” a) be true and b) mean that no field army existed after 454? I see no proof of the Roman forces having melted away, after all there must have been some power base for Avitus, that rebel Marcellus or Syagrius. That’s where federates like the Alans or Huns come in. The regular forces are more and more confined to fortifications (not just Gaul, everywhere) and the field armies are more and more comprised of federates or short-term mercenaries. But with Gallo-Romans between them as well, because there is still an exercitus Romanorum)to be incorporated into Clovis' Frankish army by 486. And I’ve already argued that this exercitus would not have comprised too many limitanei. Yes, it’s possible that Paulus only commanded Franks but I don’t think so. Childeric could have commanded his own Franks (as would the comes Arbogast no doubt) but that would not have counted as a ‘Roman army’ to later sources I believe.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
