Tribigild's Revolt

[Lothia]

I have a question about the Tribigild/Gainas rebellion.

When Tribigild was on the rampage in Asiana and Constantinopolis sent Leo to put him back in the box, where were the Soldiers in the Imperial Presence I & II.    What were they doing that prevented them from shutting down both  of those two men?

Thank you in advance

Tom

[Nathan Ross]

where were the Soldiers in the Imperial Presence I & II.    What were they doing that prevented them from shutting down both  of those two men?

That's an interesting question! The apparent inactivity of the regular army of the east in 399-400 is similar to that of the western armies in 408-410. Where were all these soldiers, and why could they do nothing to stop various barbarian warlords rampaging about the place?

I suspect the division of the eastern praesental army might postdate the Gainas revolt, and have been a reaction to it - the army may have been divided to stop one single general having too much power. However, as far as I'm aware we don't know who the eastern Magistri might have been; between the death of Timasius in 395 and the appointment of Gainas in 399, none are mentioned. Leo seems to have been comes rei militaris (according to PLRE 2).

After his appointment in 399, of course, Gainas was supposedly in command of the praesental army himself (or at least one of them, if there were two at this date), although it seems that he preferred to use his own foederati troops in his coup d'etat. So we still have the question of where the regular troops might have been.

A few options spring to mind:

1. The praesental armies were billeted in towns across the hinterland of Constantinople, and due to the misgovernment of Eutropius there was no commander with the authority to bring them into the field. This left warlord commanders like Gainas - who could perhaps order his own foederati into the field without direct authority - as the only men capable of taking independent action. Only with the appointment of Fravitta as Magister Militum did the empire have a commander of sufficient authority and ability to muster the praesental armies against Gainas and his foederati.

2. As in the western empire, the 'regular' Roman army by this date was largely a garrison and reserve force, with the foederati fighting the field battles. This meant that Gainas was able to turn the foederati against the central government and operate almost unopposed, until another foederati commander - Fravitta - arrived to oppose him. This situation would therefore have been similar to Italy in 408, when Alaric effectively seized control of the foederati troops and turned them against the emperor, leaving the regular troops shut up in their fortified garrison towns.

3. The 'barbarians' that Gainas led against the emperor actually were the praesental army! This would fit with Synesius, in de regno, who wants us to believe that the army had been almost entirely replaced by barbarians. However, this is not such a fashionable view nowadays!

[Robert Vermaat]

I was under the impression that the Praesental army had been in the West as of 394 or thereabouts and under the control of Stilicho, until he was forced to let it go back East?

[Nathan Ross]

the Praesental army had been in the West as of 394 or thereabouts

As Anthony Kaldellis points out in his recent book (which I've read since my earlier post on this thread), the army that returned east after Frigidus is not described as praesental - in fact it appears that the term does not exist in our sources before c.440 (except, of course, in the eastern ND, which Kaldellis dates to c.450...)

This force was commanded by Gainas himself. It reached Constantinople on November 27th 395, when Gainas met the Praetorian Prefect Rufinus at the Hebdomen and put him to death. It seems that Gainas was not then Magister Militum, and so the force he was leading was not a field army as such (whatever that might have comprised at the time!), and perhaps no more than a large force of the foederati that Theodosius had taken west for the Frigidus campaign.

So the mystery of the strangely-absent eastern field armies continues - but Kaldellis's book is a good place to start in resolving it, I would say.

[Lothia]

Thank you guys for your input. Very helpful. Seems Kaldellis' books are pretty pricey. I will wait to get a copy.
Again, thanks.

[Robert Vermaat]

the Praesental army had been in the West as of 394 or thereabouts

Gainas was not then Magister Militum, and so the force he was leading was not a field army as such (whatever that might have comprised at the time!), and perhaps no more than a large force of the foederati that Theodosius had taken west for the Frigidus campaign.

So they disagree with Hoffmann who made hay of the issue between Constantinople and Stilicho, who (as it was claimed) had decided to keep the Eastern forces in the West. If Theodosius had only taken a temporary force of foederati to subdue the Western rebellion, why would you think that such a fuss was made over it? Maybe it was the 'praesental army' (avant la lettre) that only in a later redaction received that name?

I'm going to aquire that book for myself, but even when I've always been a big fan of a big Western Roman army c. 440, I've read quite a bit since my Rosemary Sutcliff days to somehow have big doubts about the possibility of such a large force around that time.