More Merovingian- Kingdom of Soissons

[Robert Vermaat]

Aetius had Huns roaming about Gaul on a regular basis. There are several instances of Aetius loosing control of them and having to put them down because they were savaging the countryside.

No doubt. But Some Huns (without proof of a draco) during Aetius' time and a bit more Sarmatians (who most likely were receiving Roman equipment anyway) before that is still no comparison against many many more Roman units carrying a draco with each cohort for a much much longer period of time. :wink:

[Caballo]

Just reading Hallsall's Warfare and Society ( thanks to one of my fellow Ratters!) .

No units seem to have survived, but in seventh century Visigothic Spain "The provinces of the Spanish kingdon continued to be used as military districts with provoncial armies commanded by a dux exercitus provinciae.....As in the sixth century , the army itself was divided into apparently decimally organised sub-units led by tiuphadi ..."commander of a thousand", quingentarii (commanders of 500), centuriones and decuriones."

There is also a reference which seems to mean that lists were kept of those who did military service".- implying some of the old controls and management may also have survived. (Halsall G., Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West 450-900, Routledge 2003, page 60 )

That seems to indicate certainly some organisational survival of the army under a new Visigothic elite?

[ValentinianVictrix]

Is it not just possible that the various barbarian tribes that moved into the Western Empire and remained when it collapsed may have adopted many of the old titles and ranks etc because they anticipated the Eastern Empire to retake the west at some stage? Perhaps by adopting Roman practices they may have believed that the eastern Romans would be able to integrate them into the eastern army?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

That could actually help with the unit sizes debate Cabllo.

[Diocle]

In fact, actually, here we are talking of Merovingian Units preserving the Roman organization and marching under Roman standards in the VI century! And this this is false.
It's false until you can you proof the existence of such Roman Units in the Merovingian Kingdom. Can you? I doubt.

No Carlo, we are not talking of that, we are talking about Units preserving their traditions of the 5th century into the 6th century. No-one here has spoken about the Roman organization, and I don’t recall Procopius saying anything about a Roman army organization either. So no, I don’t need to prove all that because no-one (not even Procopius) is claiming that.

But do me a favor and think on it. The Franks did in large parts of Gaul not drive the Romans out, they were already in charge in large parts of the diocese during the later 5th century. Not as independent Franks, but as rulers of Roman army commands and of some Gallic provinces. After the influence of Rome waned, these men did not move south, nor did the local civic organization change – this was all absorbed by the emerging kingdom of the Merovingian Franks, who are not on record that they started with a blank canvas, but took over the existing institution: organization, taxes, law, defense. There was a late Roman army that was absorbed by the forces of Clovis. Did he disband the units of Roman Gaul? There’s no record of it. Did he leave them be? There’s no record of it.

About words and titles, look: The Langobards used in Italy words as Dux, Comes, Gasindius, Gastaldus, Arimannus, Iudex, Minori Homines, Equites Caballarii, Maiores et Potentes, Sequentes, Minores, and then?

Unfair comparison. The Langobards were no tribe that functioned in connection with the Roman army, or under Roman command as long as the Franks did. They entered Italy when it had been taken over by the Ostrogoths, re-conquered by Belisarius, etc. Of course there was hardly anything left of the Roman army organization. But furthermore, the came as conquerors, fighting the Eastern Roman army – totally unlike the Franks who had been federates for more than a century! ]

So now I’m asking you to prove that all the traditions of the Roman army were lost and that all units were disbanded. Can you?

About Draco: I don't see why you insist in telling us that the Saxon Draco was a Roman relic when probably it was simply one of the various Germanic standards used in the Early Middle Age in Europe deriving from the Sarmatians and the Huns.

Yes, I propose (I do not insist) that the Frankish draco is a Roman relic. I think (assume) that the Saxon draco might also be that, or else a Frankish influence. It’s you that keeps insisting it cannot be either, but so far without any proof of influence.
I’ll repeat it for you then: the draco (we know this!) was a common standard in the Roman army from the 2nd century onwards, and therefore a common Roman standard in Gaul and Britain. Yet you want us to believe that the Franks, instead of this influence, were influenced by a very small number of Sarmatians who were settled there (and soon Romanized) instead? Or even the Huns, who barely touched Gaul but for one campaign? And you can even prove that the Huns used the draco???

About English, if you can quote one single word that is Latin and not a Norman import in English Language, also in this case I'll be very happy! We have another hidden Romance Language to discover under the old Language of Shakespeare! Sadly also in this case, I have many doubts .... :|

Well, let’s make you a happy mean! Easy, all it took was a few minutes on the internet, and I did not even have to turn to my books at home about the linguistic origins of Old English. One single word? Hope you're happy now ?

http://www.orbilat.com/Influences_of_Rom...glish.html[/quote]

Less than 300 words? and great part of those 300 miserable words reintroduced later? And you call this surviving of the Latin in ancient Anglo Saxon Language? :o

- Now I understand why you see the continuation of the Roman military traditions in Merovingian France as a believable tale! :wink:

- About proofs! No, sorry but in this case to you the 'Onus atque honor' of the burden .... I would not steal it from you, for any reason in the world!

[AMELIANVS]

Less than 300 words? and great part of those 300 miserable words reintroduced later? And you call this surviving of the Latin in ancient Anglo Saxon Language? :o

Well it is hard to argue with you Carlo if you automatically mock everything(indeed-EVERYTHING!) which not suits you as not a real evidence.I am convinced that even if some barbarian of that age might talk to you and his words were against what you promotes you would again continue in the same style saying:"It's not a real proof" :wink:

Robert,Me,and everyone who joined this discussion are not saying nowhere that what we believed in must be necessarily truth.Only that it seems more likely possibility to us from stated reasons than what you promots.But you don't seem to care about any reason if they go against your opinion.
You on the other hand are the only person in this debate who fanatically insist that his opinion is right and must be definitely the only right and possible opinion.

Is it really so hard to admit that you might be wrong as well(maybe you are right and I am not- but to me it is no problem to admit this possibility contrary to you)and that other opinion different to yours might be potentially right?You would probably rather die than admit you might be wrong and not necessarily right.

You know as long as I cant prove so clearly what I prefer to believe in, you also did not proved your believe sufficiently enough.Which is no wonder if we talk about period so poor on this kind of direct evidence.

[Diocle]

Less than 300 words? and great part of those 300 miserable words reintroduced later? And you call this surviving of the Latin in ancient Anglo Saxon Language? :o

Well it is hard to argue with you Carlo if you automatically mock everything(indeed-EVERYTHING!) which not suits you as not a real evidence.I am convinced that even if some barbarian of that age might talk to you and his words were against what you promotes you would again continue in the same style saying:"It's not a real proof" :wink:

Robert,Me,and everyone who joined this discussion are not saying nowhere that what we believed in must be necessarily truth.Only that it seems more likely possibility to us from stated reasons than what you promots.But you don't seem to care about any reason if they go against your opinion.
You on the other hand are the only person in this debate who fanatically insist that his opinion is right and must be definitely the only right and possible opinion.

Is it really so hard to admit that you might be wrong as well(maybe you are right and I am not- but to me it is no problem to admit this possibility contrary to you)and that other opinion different to yours might be potentially right?You would probably rather die than admit you might be wrong and not necessarily right.

You know as long as I cant prove so clearly what I prefer to believe in, you also did not proved your believe sufficiently enough.Which is no wonder if we talk about period so poor on this kind of direct evidence.

No I don't mock anyone here.

I'm only saying that the amount of only 300 words, of which only half actually used, only by clergy, on a whole High Germanic Language made of thousands of words ... well, I'm saying that it cannot be considered a proof a Latin presence in the Ancient Anglo Saxon Tongue, as the inventions of a Byzantine writer who never see even a tree of Gaul, they cannot be considered a proof of anything.

But if you love the idea of a Roman Legacy inside the Merovingian Military Traditions, well, this is a nice personal opinion, but it's only a personal opinion, or better a dream, and nothing more.

So, while I repeat that I'm still waiting for sources about the Roman-Merovingian dreams of Procopius of Caesarea, and while I repeat you: take your time guys, I can wait .... certainly you'll understand me if I take this opportunity to remind you that:

THE ROMANS USED EXTENSIVELY LEATHER MUSCULATA ARMORS DURING THE LATE ANTIQUITY.

Also this is a dream, but at least, it's dream with some inherent realism and also some hundreds of artistic evidences backing it! :wink:

Pavel: If History is Science, in the Scientific World, to change the actual knowledge about some matter, you have to bring proofs and sources, then these proofs and sources have to be rationally verified and then if they hold up the impact of the scientific verification, you can say that you have a reasonable hope being right!
This is not your case!
While I stay with the actual historical knowledge, telling us that there is nothing supporting the crazy idea that the Merovingian Warlords brought in battle Roman Vexilla or Roman Insigna.
So, until you bring us some new proof, backing up your Merovingian dreams, I have the Scientific Right to tell you that your Merovingian Dreams or Nightmares, are only your personal Dreams and Nightmares, and nothing more, anyway, you're allowed to dream, but you're not allowed to say that your dreams are the historical truth, if you cannot prove this assertion in some way.
On my part saying that there is no proof of Roman Military Traditions surviving in the weird Merovingian so called 'Kingdom of Soissons' (if it ever existed some political entity with this name! and I have maaaaany doubts on the whole matter .....), it's not only a factual truth and not a personal opinion, but it's also the only factual truth you can find on the matter.
End of the story.

[Diocle]

Less than 300 words? and great part of those 300 miserable words reintroduced later? And you call this surviving of the Latin in ancient Anglo Saxon Language? :o

Well it is hard to argue with you Carlo if you automatically mock everything(indeed-EVERYTHING!) which not suits you as not a real evidence.I am convinced that even if some barbarian of that age might talk to you and his words were against what you promotes you would again continue in the same style saying:"It's not a real proof" :wink:

Robert,Me,and everyone who joined this discussion are not saying nowhere that what we believed in must be necessarily truth.Only that it seems more likely possibility to us from stated reasons than what you promots.But you don't seem to care about any reason if they go against your opinion.
You on the other hand are the only person in this debate who fanatically insist that his opinion is right and must be definitely the only right and possible opinion.

Is it really so hard to admit that you might be wrong as well(maybe you are right and I am not- but to me it is no problem to admit this possibility contrary to you)and that other opinion different to yours might be potentially right?You would probably rather die than admit you might be wrong and not necessarily right.

You know as long as I cant prove so clearly what I prefer to believe in, you also did not proved your believe sufficiently enough.Which is no wonder if we talk about period so poor on this kind of direct evidence.

No I don't mock anyone here.

I'm only saying that the amount of only 300 words, of which only half actually used, only by clergy, on a whole High Germanic Language made of thousands of words ... well, I'm saying that it cannot be considered a proof a Latin presence in the Ancient Anglo Saxon Tongue, as the inventions of a Byzantine writer who never see even a tree of Gaul, they cannot be considered a proof of anything.

But if you love the idea of a Roman Legacy inside the Merovingian Military Traditions, well, this is a nice personal opinion, but it's only a personal opinion, or better a dream, and nothing more.

So, while I repeat that I'm still waiting for sources about the Roman-Merovingian dreams of Procopius of Caesarea, and while I repeat you: take your time guys, I can wait .... certainly you'll understand me if I take this opportunity to remind you that:

THE ROMANS USED EXTENSIVELY LEATHER MUSCULATA ARMORS DURING THE LATE ANTIQUITY.

Also this is a dream, but at least, it's dream with some inherent realism and also some hundreds of artistic evidences backing it! :wink:

@Pavel: If History is Science, in the Scientific World, to change the actual knowledge about some matter, you have to bring proofs and sources, then these proofs and sources have to be rationally verified and then if they hold up the impact of the scientific verification, you can say that you have a reasonable hope being right!
This is not your case! While I'm with the actual knowledge, telling us that there is nothing supporting the crazy idea that the Merovingian Warlords brought in battle Roman Vexilla or Unit's Signa.
So, until you bring us some new proof, backing up your Merovingian dreams, I have the Scientific Right to tell you that your Merovingian Dreams or Nightmares, are only your personal Dreams and Nightmares, and nothing more, you're allowed to dream but you're not allowed to say that your dreams are the historical truth if you cannot prove this assertion in some way.
End of the story.

[Robert Vermaat]

Carlo,

First you quote my entire reply without answering my question.
[Mod mode on]Carlo we have rules about quoting. Please stick to the rules.[mod mode off]

So now I’m asking you AGAIN to prove that all the traditions of the Roman army were lost and that all units were disbanded. Can you?
I doubt it. And you can push the ‘burden of proof’ back to me of course, but I have presented my arguments twice already and you still haven’t. I take it then that we have to accept your case ‘because’ you say it and no more?

Same with the draco, an empty quote and nothing more? Sure Carlo, everything you say.

But what I will not deal with is your endless change of position. First you say:

About English, if you can quote one single word that is Latin and not a Norman import in English Language, also in this case I'll be very happy!

Then, I provide not one but many many words from Latin for you and the only thing you do is mock and ridicule again, now calling for not one, but more than 300 words:

Less than 300 words? and great part of those 300 miserable words reintroduced later? And you call this surviving of the Latin in ancient Anglo Saxon Language?

So what’s next? I provide a 1000 words and you call again for 2000? But you are still right of course, and you still haven’t supplied any proof for your own position. You did not even read that website, did you?

Of course you want me to retain the burden of proof Carlo. Easy to understand! You have no argument whatsoever yourself. Just a stubborn and mocking insistance that you are right and the rest of us are idiots.

I’m done discussing this topic with you.

[Robert Vermaat]

Well it is hard to argue with you Carlo if you automatically mock everything(indeed-EVERYTHING!) which not suits you as not a real evidence.I am convinced that even if some barbarian of that age might talk to you and his words were against what you promotes you would again continue in the same style saying:"It's not a real proof" :wink:

It's impossible to discuss this with him Pavel, best let it go. He always, always calls for proof, provides NONE of his own and every argument against him is no argument because he says so.
See? He's now arguing about those 300 words, whereas he first called for one word. It will never be enough and he's always right, as you say.
And of course there is the leather musculate again, which was I think not even discussed here on RAT but on another forum, and apparently a big frustation for him. :-P

EDIT; immature image removed by me.

[Diocle]

Well it is hard to argue with you Carlo if you automatically mock everything(indeed-EVERYTHING!) which not suits you as not a real evidence.I am convinced that even if some barbarian of that age might talk to you and his words were against what you promotes you would again continue in the same style saying:"It's not a real proof" :wink:

It's impossible to discuss this with him Pavel, best let it go. He always, always calls for proof, provides NONE of his own and every argument against him is no argument because he says so.
See? He's now arguing about those 300 words, whereas he first called for one word. It will never be enough and he's always right, as you say.
And of course there is the leather musculate again, which was I think not even discussed here on RAT but on another forum, and apparently a big frustatrion for him. :-P

Just these words: :woot:
[attachment=9276]troll.png[/attachment]

You call me Troll because I dared to ask you to provide sources supporting your positions but actually .. you was not able to show us one single source, one single text, one single archaeological find or even one single artistic work (inscription, sculpture, painting, mosaic whatever would be good for me ...), instead, you asked me to prove my thesis, that is, as you know very well, this one:

There aren't sources to support the presence of any kind of Roman Insigna, vexillum or Draco or uniform or whatever else in the Merovingian Kingdom.

Now probably also you are able to understand that asking someone to prove the inexistence, the absence of any proof is a little .... complex and also meaningless ....

Anyway, in the end, , not knowing what to do better, you've thought to call me Troll, I'm a troll because:

I'm asking for sources from my first post in this thread,

so on RAT Forums, asking for sources, is considered Trolling! Interesting, thanks!

About English: you know very well that 150 words used by clergy are not a significant Roman Legacy in the Ancient Anglo Saxon Language, anyway I think that even if I said that Britan is a big island you would have found a good occasion to disagree with me, because the point here, is that you disagree with the poster not with the post ....

OK, I'll leave RAT, because I don't like being called troll especially if I'm not trolling, so, now happily I vanish.

But, before leaving and without trolling, let me add only two last observations:
- First: Thanks for this awesome example of politeness, style and fairness. Thank you very much.
- Second: This is more a Legacy for those passing here in the future: I leave, but the wait for some evidence no, it doesn't leave, it stays here .... take your time ....

[Robert Vermaat]

OK OK, I apologise for the nasty image. I should not do that. I will remove that from my post, it's quite immature of me. :oops:

But I did not use it because you asked for sources in your first post Carlo. I became quite exasparated with your replies to me and other AFTER your first post. I have told you why several times now, no need to repeat that.

[AMELIANVS]

Because you still repeat yourself Carlo like if you not understand I will also repeat myself.

-You still did not answer not even one of those questions you are repeatedly conforonted with and which are evidently uncomfortable to you to answer so you ignore it like if it's invisible for you.

-Your opposition on the other hand provide you evidence both pictorial as well as written.I dont say its so strong evidence to show your opinion as false but I insist that it is strong enough to relativize it and shows clearly that it MIGHT be wrong.But does it metter at all if you automatically declass it as too week for you to take it as,if not an evidence,at least as something which demonstrates that your opinion doesn't have to be necessarily the right one?I will answer it myself: NO-of course is completely hopless debate if any argument of your opposition is thereated by you as no real argument and it does not metter what argument.

And you know what?We at least presented you some evidence although you would rather die than admit it but what you had presented to us?Your argumentation in this matter is almost exclusively based on:"I say it so it is the best opinion and it must be true."

[ValentinianVictrix]

Did the Merovingian rulers want to depict themselves as Roman Emperors?

From coins they minted it could be argued they did. Take this wikipage link-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merovingian_dynasty

Some of the images are obvious copies of Late Roman coins. The Late Roman head with the diadem, the figure wearing armour with oval shield and spear, all influenced by Late Roman features.

[AMELIANVS]

Carlo would likely comment it as:"This have nothing to do with Romans it is only a coincidence and maybe they got it from the Huns :wink: