The Whole North Into Gaul

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Does Coello suggest 325 to be a date for the composition of the ND? I think that the current consensus is c. 394-5?

I've had qualms about that sentence too, what I mean to say was that these changes were beginning to be formalized around 325 AD, which would later result in the Notitia. I do need to change that I think to convey my meaning more clearly.

Can you have a grade within a grade? If the palatinae units are a subdivision of the comitateneses? You thereafter mention the scholae palatinae and the protectores domestici as a grade next to the limitanei and comitatenses as a personal army for the emperors, but isn't that what the auxilia and legiones palatinae were also meant to be?

I don't equate the Schola and Protectores as a grade next to the Limitanei. The Palatina units were part of the mobile field armies (comitatenses) ergo it is logical to group them in that category.

Your quotes of Sidonius, while interesting in a discussion about the Roman field army c. 455, do not offer arguments in a discussion about the troops themselves. For a Roman field army could (and now I'm assuming the role of devil's advocate) consist of Germanic volunteers as easily as men drawn from the provinces, and still be large, under full Roman command, and addressed as scholae, agmen, turmae and palatinae. I mean, it's been assumed that especially the guard units attracted many Germanic volunteers, so we could argue either way.

Germanic recruits in a professional Roman army are still Roman soldiers. Aetius relied entirely on Romanized Alans for his cavalry which the Gallic Chronicle of 452 implies were organized into military regiments and not serving as separate bands of Foederati. (Actually, I should mention that...) .

My point is to say that there was still a professional Roman army in existence, even if it wasn't composed of Roman recruits.

About quoting ancient sources, it's of course very good to use the Original text, but for many readers it would be more helpful to use the English translation in the text of the article and perhaps the Latin in the notes.

I use the Latin here because its important for the interpretation of Sidonius' two passages (well... not really the first one). Elsewhere I use English.

How do you see that? Limitanei were bound to their station by law, but that does of course not mean that their units could not be ordered to new stations, or taken up into the field army.

Frankly I'm just going off of Liebschuetz's argument there. Should cite that.

Your suggestion that the word 'ripuarii' refers to Germans stationed along the Rhine while not referring to the Ripuarian Franks I find a bit mystifying - either you have limitanei units (called ripuarii) which could be quite Germanic or you have federates settled to free/replace those units for the field army, but still quite Germanic. The origins of the Ripuarian Franks, it seems, is as federates settled by the Romans, so there might not be a problem to begin with, even though the term 'Ripuarian Franks' is encountered later.

My argument here is that "Ripuarii" is a corruption of the word "Ripenses" or "Riparienses." The point I'm trying to make is that you have a mix of Germanic-recruited Limitanei and Federates (like Severinus records in Noricum) on the Rhine which resulted in a unique culture that became the Ripuarian Franks.

Are you referring to the Comes Britanniae, the Comes Britanniarum or the Comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam?

I meant the Comes Britanniarum, thank you. And it's Dux Britanniae, I do believe, not Comes.

I’d say it would be less challenging to say that these units no longer existed, and leave the manner of their disappearance open?

Agreed, although some were most certainly destroyed by the Vandals (the African field army for sure, was annihalted in 3 consecutive battles with Gaiseric under Bonifacius, Sigisvult, and Aspar between 430-432.)

Once more I think you are making very bold while detailed statements. Why would ‘the’ Aremoricans have the control of the comes Britanniarum’s army? Even if Jones is correct and this army was created post-418, by 454 it may have been moved out of Gaul? The number of men taken from a Gallic field army (12.736 and not 12.735 or 12.737?) seems way too detailed to defend? Similar for the other numbers – I think you should mention rough amounts and perhaps mention the detailed numbers in a note as a result of the computations made above?

I'm basing this off of Halsall, who states that the Aremoricans and Britons probably were the old British units that were moved to Gaul.

The numbers are very precise due to the computations but I mention that in my final estimate and round them off to a rough amount.

It's not finished overall, still have to add some stuff from Hugh Elton's "Warfare in Late Antiquity" and other books. Thanks for all the comments Robert, this helps a lot.