Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 103

Thread: the return of the Gallic comitatus

  1. #41

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    Antonio, here somes points i can give you :

    1. diocle is right, the differences between Auxilia and legios weren't as huge as before. There is no more differences in equipment, gear or even combat tactics. They are both comanded by roman officers. More surprisingly, even the soldiers of auxilia were often romans. I don't remember yet the scholar (Vaissière ?) who studied the military tombstones of portogruaro (a cemetary of the end of the fourth century in north italy, where Stilico gathered most of his regular troops) showed than more than half of the milites of the auxilia were roman born.

    2. so when they were created, auxilia where recruited among barbarians (or the "savages" of the empire : in northern gaul and... Illyria), but with times, recruited roman citizens as well, loosing its original "ethnic" character.

    3. Equites dalmati were lights cav units, mass-recuited by gallienus when his empire was limited to Italy, Africa and Illyricum, in order to bolster his armies, depleted by Postumus and Odenat, who seized big parts of the Empire. If i remember well, the notitia still gave more than 60 units of this kind. But as the auxilia before, all those units based for a long time far from illyria were not composed by dalmatian people anymore.

  2. #42
    AntonioHundangir's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Histonium, Regio IV Sabina et Samnium
    Posts
    235

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    i see. thank you! (yes,roman citizens. in late 3rd century also batavian auxiliaries was citizen by now, but they still in an auxilia unit. i guess these tribes, mattiaci, batavi, etc had citizenship, but continued to fight in auxilia units, at least by name. Because i read of "batavian auxilia" in late 3rd century, early 4, but they was by now citizens. on the other side, there was also over foederati (non citizen) also some auxilia palatina composed by barbarians. like placidi valentiniani felices, former galla placidia gothic guard, recruited like a regular unit later, they was gothic court royal guard (veterans of the sack of rome maybe..). i dont think they was citizen. but the majority like batavi, etc was citizen like you sad.
    about dalmatians, yes, i did figure that they was something like sarmatian for example, or alans, etc i mean in 4-5 century.
    thank you!
    i did guess that later they become like mamluks of napoleon (in origin they was real mamluks, but later in 1809-1815, by now the majority was only dressed like muslims, truely they was mamluks born in marseille even....only wears was mamluks. )
    Last edited by AntonioHundangir; October 27, 2016 at 04:11 PM.
    "regina caeli, sive tu Ceres,
    alma frugum parens originalis,
    quae, repertu laetata filiae,
    vetustatae glandis ferino remoto pabulo,
    miti commostrato cibo nunc,
    eleusiniam gleba percolis." - prayer to Kerres (Cerere, Benevolentissima Mater)

    "Respice post te. Hominem te memento. Memento mori.". (look behind you, remember you're a man. Remember you must die.)

  3. #43
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,318
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    We actually have found a burial of a Bucellarius. The Hun from Concesti most likely was under the service of Constantinius III or Aetius.

    I've recently delved quite a bit into the whole debacle regarding the so called "Domain of Soissons" and from what I can tell it technically both did and didn't exist. In reality Aegidius maintained his position as probably Dux Belgicae Secundae until he died in 465ish (I don't recall off the top of my head). After Childeric defeated the Visigoths, Odoacer, and Come Paulinus (probably Comes Tractus Aremoriciani) Syagrius became totally irrelevant and ended up a puppet ruler out of Adecavus (Angers) while Childeric gave Soissons to Ragnachar (Clovis' kinsman). In 486 Syagrius retook Soissons, and the Clovis put down what basically amounted to a rebellion.

    There's a thread on RAT where we had a great discussion on this. I will track it down and post it.

  4. #44
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    Yes, yes bravo! .. A great debate!

  5. #45
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,318
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus


  6. #46
    AntonioHundangir's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Histonium, Regio IV Sabina et Samnium
    Posts
    235

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    I read many versions of that story. Some sayin that siagrius tried to name himself king and so was attacked by clovis, some other that after 476 siagrius abandoned the alliance with franks and make with visigoths. (btw i think clovis would had attacked anycase siagrius. He was a gloomy character for me but thats my opinoon). Ending i dont thrust these versions i read, at least not completely. Like gregory of tours. I m not saying isnt true no one version. Only i find all too unsure. Also the homicide of paolo is unclear. Well, anycase guys, thank you.for the help. i ll come back with other questions about gallic armies of late period.
    "regina caeli, sive tu Ceres,
    alma frugum parens originalis,
    quae, repertu laetata filiae,
    vetustatae glandis ferino remoto pabulo,
    miti commostrato cibo nunc,
    eleusiniam gleba percolis." - prayer to Kerres (Cerere, Benevolentissima Mater)

    "Respice post te. Hominem te memento. Memento mori.". (look behind you, remember you're a man. Remember you must die.)

  7. #47

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    Well this turned out to be an interesting discussion.


    IB:Restitutor Orbis Signature courtesy of Joar.

  8. #48

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    Quote Originally Posted by AntonioHundangir View Post
    I read many versions of that story. Some sayin that siagrius tried to name himself king and so was attacked by clovis, some other that after 476 siagrius abandoned the alliance with franks and make with visigoths. (btw i think clovis would had attacked anycase siagrius. He was a gloomy character for me but thats my opinoon). Ending i dont thrust these versions i read, at least not completely. Like gregory of tours. I m not saying isnt true no one version. Only i find all too unsure. Also the homicide of paolo is unclear. Well, anycase guys, thank you.for the help. i ll come back with other questions about gallic armies of late period.
    A think the "domain fo Soissons" is a little bit like the Atlantide :-)
    Once again, i will summarize (very quickly) Penny mc george, who deals with Syagrius and his father Aegidius in a big chapter of her book.

    According to her, Syagrius, obviously member of the powerfull gallo-roman gens (family/clan) of the Syagrii (A consul in 382, Falvius franius Syagrius, and many bishops, counts and generals during the V, VI and VII centuries), inheritated of a land, wich is difficult to estimate, but surely north of loire, and surely having as "centers" modern cities of Soissons and Melun, from his father Aegidius who was the last magister militum per gallias ("Count paulus" seems to have no recognition from Ravenna/Roma). Scholars shows how Soissons was important for Clovis AFTER its conquest : it became the royal estates, provinding taxes, horses and wheat for at least two centuries, more than every other part of the merovingian kingdom. To be very quick, the fact that part of belgicae remained roman for a long time explain why Paris is Paris :-)
    As i wrote in an other post, there is no kingdom or "domain" of soissons de jure : this land, wich is impossible to delimit, has been under local roman rulers for years. Like others barbarians rulers, writers of the era call him rex, in the same way of a frankish regulus like childeric for instance.
    It is surely wrong to find a proper title or organization wich is fitting with that land and era : just a local warlord who was roman, coming from a powerfull family, and who lost his "kingdom" against an another local warlord, Clovis.

    Just to give an example, in the last years of the fifth century, cities like rotomagus (modern Rouen, in Normandy), was ruled by a roman Comes. Comes Rotomagus, obviously a self proclaimed title (and power!), no doubt from a local landlord or roman soldier... Syagrius is just that kind of ruler, but with a bigger background, from a stronger roman stronghold and with more money/influence/soldiers.

  9. #49
    AntonioHundangir's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Histonium, Regio IV Sabina et Samnium
    Posts
    235

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    Agree. Indeed for barbarians (ignorant. Someone like the gloomy clovis, become christian not only for political reasons, but also because the bishops rituals seems to be more powerful than wotan even.....indeed often they had fear the "magic powers" of priests. Severinus of noricus is an example of a "saint" that make in awe barbarians.) aetius, aegidius, and syagrius was something like a dinasty. Some frank thinked that segidius was the son of aetius, (for some barbarian he wasnthe "demi god" that stopped attila s march. The terrible.hun,A monster that make germanics scared. And aetius did stop him at chalons xd.) So aegidius was been tutor of childericis, something like a king of franks for a period, and syagrius the son of aegidius. For many barbarians they was thetree "kings of romans". Xd )
    Last edited by AntonioHundangir; October 28, 2016 at 09:27 AM.
    "regina caeli, sive tu Ceres,
    alma frugum parens originalis,
    quae, repertu laetata filiae,
    vetustatae glandis ferino remoto pabulo,
    miti commostrato cibo nunc,
    eleusiniam gleba percolis." - prayer to Kerres (Cerere, Benevolentissima Mater)

    "Respice post te. Hominem te memento. Memento mori.". (look behind you, remember you're a man. Remember you must die.)

  10. #50
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,318
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    Aegidius was not Magister Militum per Gallias when he died, Agrippinus was. The title was revoked from him in 462 and given back to Agrippinus (who held it from 452-457, likely after Majorian who held it probably from 440-452) which resulted in a power struggle between the two for the last few years of his life. This fact likely resulted in the development of their family into local warlords, along with the fact the majority of the landowners in that region had been removed in the revolt of 442.

    Comes Paulus was likely Comes Tractus Aremoriciani which makes him actually a Dux as that was a Limitanei command.

    As i wrote in an other post, there is no kingdom or "domain" of soissons de jure : this land, wich is impossible to delimit, has been under local roman rulers for years. Like others barbarians rulers, writers of the era call him rex, in the same way of a frankish regulus like childeric for instance.
    It is surely wrong to find a proper title or organization wich is fitting with that land and era : just a local warlord who was roman, coming from a powerfull family, and who lost his "kingdom" against an another local warlord, Clovis.
    This is probably the correct interpretation. Although it's also clear that his position as a warlord was subserviant to Childeric/Clovis who appointed Ragnachar as warlord over the regions of Soissons after Paul was defeated and assassinated.

    Domain would be an accurate way of describing the authority of a warlord. The entire concept of Empire was equated to authority, not to physically controlled lands, in Roman times. That's why they had no concept of borders.

    Just to give an example, in the last years of the fifth century, cities like rotomagus (modern Rouen, in Normandy), was ruled by a roman Comes. Comes Rotomagus, obviously a self proclaimed title (and power!), no doubt from a local landlord or roman soldier... Syagrius is just that kind of ruler, but with a bigger background, from a stronger roman stronghold and with more money/influence/soldiers.
    I'm interested in the source on Rotomagus.
    Last edited by Magister Militum Flavius Aetius; October 28, 2016 at 09:33 AM.

  11. #51
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    Quote Originally Posted by Majorien View Post
    A think the "domain fo Soissons" is a little bit like the Atlantide :-)
    Once again, i will summarize (very quickly) Penny mc george, who deals with Syagrius and his father Aegidius in a big chapter of her book.

    According to her, Syagrius, obviously member of the powerfull gallo-roman gens (family/clan) of the Syagrii (A consul in 382, Falvius franius Syagrius, and many bishops, counts and generals during the V, VI and VII centuries), inheritated of a land, wich is difficult to estimate, but surely north of loire, and surely having as "centers" modern cities of Soissons and Melun, from his father Aegidius who was the last magister militum per gallias ("Count paulus" seems to have no recognition from Ravenna/Roma). Scholars shows how Soissons was important for Clovis AFTER its conquest : it became the royal estates, provinding taxes, horses and wheat for at least two centuries, more than every other part of the merovingian kingdom. To be very quick, the fact that part of belgicae remained roman for a long time explain why Paris is Paris :-)
    As i wrote in an other post, there is no kingdom or "domain" of soissons de jure : this land, wich is impossible to delimit, has been under local roman rulers for years. Like others barbarians rulers, writers of the era call him rex, in the same way of a frankish regulus like childeric for instance.
    It is surely wrong to find a proper title or organization wich is fitting with that land and era : just a local warlord who was roman, coming from a powerfull family, and who lost his "kingdom" against an another local warlord, Clovis.

    Just to give an example, in the last years of the fifth century, cities like rotomagus (modern Rouen, in Normandy), was ruled by a roman Comes. Comes Rotomagus, obviously a self proclaimed title (and power!), no doubt from a local landlord or roman soldier... Syagrius is just that kind of ruler, but with a bigger background, from a stronger roman stronghold and with more money/influence/soldiers.
    Few things and/or personal opinions:

    1 - Romanization and urbanization of Gaul and northern Europe in general were like a thin layer of vanilla sugar spread over a cake; one of the main issues between the two parts of the Roman Empire it was just this: the Western towns could not compete with the ancient and flourishing Eastern towns, the West was still in large part a tribal world in which, under the simulacres of Roman gods they were lying ancient Celtic and Germanic deities. The end of the Roman Empire in the West was simply like blowing off the sugar from the cake.


    2 - I don't think that being "Roman" had still some meaning North of the Po valley during the last part of the V century. There wasn't such a concept as a "Roman" ethnic identity, there was no "Roman Nationalism", the Roman nationalism is a modern concept, there was nothing in the mind and in the heart of those men and women that could be even vaguely related with some form of Roman national identity and political belonging. Your rulers are Huns? Well, if they don't kill me and if I can have some business with them, then also I'm a Hun! Why not? The ethnic identity in the ancient world was very different from our modern concept of national belonging and ethnic identity. Even noble "Romans", belonging to the so called Gallo-Roman elites, such as Gaius Sollius Sidonius Apollinaris, could change identity and cultural belonging very, very quikly, without any problem, just because there was no identity in conflict.


    3 - As I wrote there, on that disgusting place: could you please give us one, just one, small, minimal archaeological and/or material proof about the existence of such things as Roman units with their standards and unit identificatives, in Gaul during the VI century after the death of our Lord Jesus Christ?


    A suggestion: loose not your time, there is none.

  12. #52
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar δούξ θρᾳκήσιου
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,318
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    diocle is right, the differences between Auxilia and legios weren't as huge as before. There is no more differences in equipment, gear or even combat tactics. They are both comanded by roman officers. More surprisingly, even the soldiers of auxilia were often romans. I don't remember yet the scholar (Vaissière ?) who studied the military tombstones of portogruaro (a cemetary of the end of the fourth century in north italy, where Stilico gathered most of his regular troops) showed than more than half of the milites of the auxilia were roman born.
    The differences between the regular Comitatensian Legions and the Auxiliae Palatinae were that the Auxilia were probably some form of specialist troops, organized differently (into Numeri: only one of them was created out of an old Auxilia regiment from the Principate and we know this because it is listed as a Cohors and was upgraded from a Limitanei regiment in Britain), pay, and legal privileges.

    I'd also be interested in this because Walter Goffart's studies in his Warfare in the Late Roman West shows 3/4ths of the Roman army consisted of Romans while the other 1/4th consisted of peoples from outside the empire who were recruits distributed in professional units. (I should note that Halsall states his methodology is flawed, but sufficient in results.)

    3. Equites dalmati were lights cav units, mass-recuited by gallienus when his empire was limited to Italy, Africa and Illyricum, in order to bolster his armies, depleted by Postumus and Odenat, who seized big parts of the Empire. If i remember well, the notitia still gave more than 60 units of this kind. But as the auxilia before, all those units based for a long time far from illyria were not composed by dalmatian people anymore.
    We're not really sure. The evidence only points to units being named Equites Dalmati, likely vestigial units from the crisis of the 3rd century but functionally we don't know what kind of role these cavalry served in.

    1 - Romanization and urbanization of Gaul and northern Europe in general were like a thin layer of vanilla sugar spread over a cake; one of the main issues between the two parts of the Roman Empire it was just this: the Western towns could not compete with the ancient and flourishing Eastern towns, the West was still in large part still a tribal world in which, under the simulacres of Roman gods they were lying ancient Celtic and Germanic deities. The end of the Roman Empire in the West was simply like blowing off the sugar from the cake.
    This is just blatantly and utterly wrong. The archaeological evidence shows that Romanness was thoroughly entrenched in all parts of the empire except the most remote regions (parts of Wales, Basque Country, and Isauria, the latter of which was Romanized in the 6th century). Entrenched to the point that there were distinctions between the Roman and non-Romans in Barbarian Law into the 7th century.

  13. #53
    AntonioHundangir's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Histonium, Regio IV Sabina et Samnium
    Posts
    235

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    Well, but i guess there was some "roman identity". The request of help by romano british to aetius, and the request of milan embassy to belisarius for example. Not etnic. Cultural i think. Between civilization and barbarism. Time ago i read aletter of a bishop, (i ll post nextly when i ll find it on fb) that wrote: we should recruit again an army of citizens. Rather than recruit goths, and let they come here armed, we should empty the country for hire an army of romans. There was at least a common roman identity, at least in surface. Majorian was killed also because many senators didnt want let him to hire their colonists in the roman army, so they supported ricimer. Thats mean thay majorian (he understood the cause.of the decline, and tried.to resolve, but failed because was alone) want recruit an army of roman citizens, for not live under the treat of barbarian merxenaries. In eastern empire indeed, isaurian generals line zeno. Cleaned the army by barbarians, recruiting "a roman army" ( macedonians,greeks, syrian, egyptians etc, aspar story is an example. And also stilico story. Thays mean that they had an common "roman identity" over the etnical, cultural. Etc.divisions. i guess
    "regina caeli, sive tu Ceres,
    alma frugum parens originalis,
    quae, repertu laetata filiae,
    vetustatae glandis ferino remoto pabulo,
    miti commostrato cibo nunc,
    eleusiniam gleba percolis." - prayer to Kerres (Cerere, Benevolentissima Mater)

    "Respice post te. Hominem te memento. Memento mori.". (look behind you, remember you're a man. Remember you must die.)

  14. #54
    AntonioHundangir's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Histonium, Regio IV Sabina et Samnium
    Posts
    235

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Militum Flavius Aetius View Post
    The differences between the regular Comitatensian Legions and the Auxiliae Palatinae were that the Auxilia were probably some form of specialist troops, organized differently (into Numeri: only one of them was created out of an old Auxilia regiment from the Principate and we know this because it is listed as a Cohors and was upgraded from a Limitanei regiment in Britain), pay, and legal privileges.

    I'd also be interested in this because Walter Goffart's studies in his Warfare in the Late Roman West shows 3/4ths of the Roman army consisted of Romans while the other 1/4th consisted of peoples from outside the empire who were recruits distributed in professional units. (I should note that Halsall states his methodology is flawed, but sufficient in results.)



    We're not really sure. The evidence only points to units being named Equites Dalmati, likely vestigial units from the crisis of the 3rd century but functionally we don't know what kind of role these cavalry served in.



    This is just blatantly and utterly wrong. The archaeological evidence shows that Romanness was thoroughly entrenched in all parts of the empire except the most remote regions (parts of Wales, Basque Country, and Isauria, the latter of which was Romanized in the 6th century). Entrenched to the point that there were distinctions between the Roman and non-Romans in Barbarian Law into the 7th century.
    Indeed some barbarian ruler, used distinction between they. In some region there was something similar to an apartheid sometime (maybe. Espexially between arians and niceans. Some barbarian would live like romans. Others thinked to romans like strangers.). Majority of the barbarians wasnt so. But someone was proudly against any mix with roman population. And thats pushed romano people sometimes to help an invasion. Like in spain with the arabs. Were romans/niceans and romans/jews helped the arab imvaders because they feel maybe oppressed by visigoths.
    Last edited by AntonioHundangir; October 28, 2016 at 10:17 AM.
    "regina caeli, sive tu Ceres,
    alma frugum parens originalis,
    quae, repertu laetata filiae,
    vetustatae glandis ferino remoto pabulo,
    miti commostrato cibo nunc,
    eleusiniam gleba percolis." - prayer to Kerres (Cerere, Benevolentissima Mater)

    "Respice post te. Hominem te memento. Memento mori.". (look behind you, remember you're a man. Remember you must die.)

  15. #55
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Militum Flavius Aetius View Post
    This is just blatantly and utterly wrong. The archaeological evidence shows that Romanness was thoroughly entrenched in all parts of the empire except the most remote regions (parts of Wales, Basque Country, and Isauria, the latter of which was Romanized in the 6th century). Entrenched to the point that there were distinctions between the Roman and non-Romans in Barbarian Law into the 7th century.
    Do you know what actually is blatantly wrong here? It's that you use such language (such words as blantantly and utterly wrong) without even having visited or studied the history of just one single Western European and/or Middle Eastern city in your life! Without even knowing anything about the History of Urbanism in Western Europe and Middle East! You talk of Paris, Mainz, Koln, Lyon, or Antioch, Mileto or Ephesus, without even knowing their 'forma urbis' and the complex history of the territories which have created that special and unique 'forma urbis' through the ages, the territories of Alexandria and Antioch, of Ephesus and Miletus were incredibly richer and more ancient than the Gallic plains sourrounding Paris or Mainz! Around Mainz there was nothing, around Ephesus and the Arthemision there was .. Ionia!

    Proposed Game: Find the name
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    For North Europe (Belgium, Netherlands, Northern Germany and the East bank of the Rhine) the Merovingian age and the Carolingian age were more relevant than three centuries of rapacious Roman colonialism, during that luminous era, known by the English peoples as "The Dark Ages" (only they know why!), which is actually the Early Middle Age, a new map of Europe was borning, new markets, new routes, new centers of life and power were changing the history and the map of the continent, the South was leaving place to the North, a new life was being born where previously there was just the "Barbaricum", Rome was now only the shadow of an ancient nightmare.

    You talk of places and territories whose history you don't know and that you cannot even imagine, and actually this is utterly wrong, but what can we do? Nothing. We have only to understand that it's a sign of the times we live ..

  16. #56
    AntonioHundangir's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Histonium, Regio IV Sabina et Samnium
    Posts
    235

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    Dont bicker guys. and go to ib: conquestus britanniae thread to read my aar about my assassination of aella, bretwalda of saxons (hidden commercial. Xd)
    "regina caeli, sive tu Ceres,
    alma frugum parens originalis,
    quae, repertu laetata filiae,
    vetustatae glandis ferino remoto pabulo,
    miti commostrato cibo nunc,
    eleusiniam gleba percolis." - prayer to Kerres (Cerere, Benevolentissima Mater)

    "Respice post te. Hominem te memento. Memento mori.". (look behind you, remember you're a man. Remember you must die.)

  17. #57

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Few things and/or personal opinions:

    1 - Romanization and urbanization of Gaul and northern Europe in general were like a thin layer of vanilla sugar spread over a cake; one of the main issues between the two parts of the Roman Empire it was just this: the Western towns could not compete with the ancient and flourishing Eastern towns, the West was still in large part a tribal world in which, under the simulacres of Roman gods they were lying ancient Celtic and Germanic deities. The end of the Roman Empire in the West was simply like blowing off the sugar from the cake.


    2 - I don't think that being "Roman" had still some meaning North of the Po valley during the last part of the V century. There wasn't such a concept as a "Roman" ethnic identity, there was no "Roman Nationalism", the Roman nationalism is a modern concept, there was nothing in the mind and in the heart of those men and women that could be even vaguely related with some form of Roman national identity and political belonging. Your rulers are Huns? Well, if they don't kill me and if I can have some business with them, then also I'm a Hun! Why not? The ethnic identity in the ancient world was very different from our modern concept of national belonging and ethnic identity. Even noble "Romans", belonging to the so called Gallo-Roman elites, such as Gaius Sollius Sidonius Apollinaris, could change identity and cultural belonging very, very quikly, without any problem, just because there was no identity in conflict.


    3 - As I wrote there, on that disgusting place: could you please give us one, just one, small, minimal archaeological and/or material proof about the existence of such things as Roman units with their standards and unit identificatives, in Gaul during the VI century after the death of our Lord Jesus Christ?


    A suggestion: loose not your time, there is none.
    it is A VERY nice discussion we are having here ! :-)

    1. I'm not as extremist as you Diocle : yes, nothweastern Gaul has never been "romanized" as southern, but still, maybe in an "hellenistic" way, roman cities have been indisputable centers of civilization, which left a lasting imprint. Augusta Treverorum for instance is more than an oasis in a desert. Population, buildings, institutions, army forces, church, it spread romanity for centuries. Just to give an another example, Britannia, on wich we can all accept that romanization as been very light, well its inhabitants tried to carry a roman way of living for more than a century, even abandoned by Rome, without any troops and suffering strong invasion from almost all parts.

    2. Let me say how much i disagree on that precise point !! :-) First of all because we're absolutely not dealing with Romanity as an ethnic concept, but politic. That is precisely, imho, the reason of the roman success for centuries : they didn't care about blood, origins, even beliefs of non-roman people. You want to serve the Empire and accept the Emperor as your FIRST (not your only) god. Welcome ! Give us your blood, your energy and you will be roman. It is even written in the law ! Quite normal for a nation of lawmakers and lawyers as the Romans were.
    And let me say that if they is ONE region in the Empire wich embrassed Romanity, it is Gaul. In its way, with its particularism. Gaul has been so romanized that at the end of the Empire, it provide a SECOND senate, an elite wich felt ROMAN AND GAUL. And remember Postumus. Even during this crisis, in Gaul nobody wanted to go back to a "celtic identity". Funny thing, today (and i imagine even more during the fifth century), the celtic population of France is precisely the immigrants from britannia, who came in Bretagne. Do you know how are called the two "populations" of Bretagne, even TODAY ? Les "bretons", the guys who have "celtic" origins, you can find from Brest to Rennes,and.... the Gallo !!!! Yes, even now, in 2016, the non-celtic inhabitants of Bretagne have for nickname the gallo-romans. Can you believe this ? ;-)
    And we're not talking about southern France, where EVERYTHING remained Roman until the Rennaissance : language (Langue d'oc, versus the langue d'oil more germanic, spoken north of the Loire), institutions (the Law was TOTALLY from roman origin. I have a master in public law, and one of my first lesson in first year of university was precisly : how roman we are, Frenchmen are the last of Romans, no kidding ), architecture, culture...

    Gaul has been romanized, it is a fact, more obvious i can describe here i'm afraid.

    3. Zero, you're right. Unfortunately, except for some Justinian units, it is the same everywhere. I think it shows, more than the end of regular units(wich occurs obviously, but imho later), the end of sources. No more historian fan of military details in Gaul (or in Spain, Africa, Ilyria...). Gregory of Tours has no army background, as Hydatius in Spain etc etc...
    those units didn't vanished. They evolved slowly.

    sorry for my bad english, i hope what i just wrote is understandable !

  18. #58
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    Quote Originally Posted by Majorien View Post
    it is A VERY nice discussion we are having here ! :-)

    1. I'm not as extremist as you Diocle : yes, nothweastern Gaul has never been "romanized" as southern, but still, maybe in an "hellenistic" way, roman cities have been indisputable centers of civilization, which left a lasting imprint. Augusta Treverorum for instance is more than an oasis in a desert. Population, buildings, institutions, army forces, church, it spread romanity for centuries. Just to give an another example, Britannia, on wich we can all accept that romanization as been very light, well its inhabitants tried to carry a roman way of living for more than a century, even abandoned by Rome, without any troops and suffering strong invasion from almost all parts.

    2. Let me say how much i disagree on that precise point !! :-) First of all because we're absolutely not dealing with Romanity as an ethnic concept, but politic. That is precisely, imho, the reason of the roman success for centuries : they didn't care about blood, origins, even beliefs of non-roman people. You want to serve the Empire and accept the Emperor as your FIRST (not your only) god. Welcome ! Give us your blood, your energy and you will be roman. It is even written in the law ! Quite normal for a nation of lawmakers and lawyers as the Romans were.
    And let me say that if they is ONE region in the Empire wich embrassed Romanity, it is Gaul. In its way, with its particularism. Gaul has been so romanized that at the end of the Empire, it provide a SECOND senate, an elite wich felt ROMAN AND GAUL. And remember Postumus. Even during this crisis, in Gaul nobody wanted to go back to a "celtic identity". Funny thing, today (and i imagine even more during the fifth century), the celtic population of France is precisely the immigrants from britannia, who came in Bretagne. Do you know how are called the two "populations" of Bretagne, even TODAY ? Les "bretons", the guys who have "celtic" origins, you can find from Brest to Rennes,and.... the Gallo !!!! Yes, even now, in 2016, the non-celtic inhabitants of Bretagne have for nickname the gallo-romans. Can you believe this ? ;-)
    And we're not talking about southern France, where EVERYTHING remained Roman until the Rennaissance : language (Langue d'oc, versus the langue d'oil more germanic, spoken north of the Loire), institutions (the Law was TOTALLY from roman origin. I have a master in public law, and one of my first lesson in first year of university was precisly : how roman we are, Frenchmen are the last of Romans, no kidding ), architecture, culture...

    Gaul has been romanized, it is a fact, more obvious i can describe here i'm afraid.

    3. Zero, you're right. Unfortunately, except for some Justinian units, it is the same everywhere. I think it shows, more than the end of regular units(wich occurs obviously, but imho later), the end of sources. No more historian fan of military details in Gaul (or in Spain, Africa, Ilyria...). Gregory of Tours has no army background, as Hydatius in Spain etc etc...
    those units didn't vanished. They evolved slowly.

    sorry for my bad english, i hope what i just wrote is understandable !
    - No, wait I'm not asking for historical sources (not only), I don't ask so much! For me it would be enough having a mosiac, a fresco (actually they'd be enough even small fragments of mosaics and frescos) or the remaining of some archaeological site, displaying the clear signs of the fact it was hosting Roman regular units during the VI century. I'm asking for primary sources yes, but for me (and for great part of the public) they would be enough small archaeological finds, small objects, textile fragments, parts of equipment and similar stuff, clearly showing the proof that in Northern Gaul during the VI century, they were there regular Roman soldiers, enlisted in regular Roman units, displaying official Roman Vexilla and Signa clearly showing their political belonging. For me it would be enough even some very questionable find, I ask just for something, however small and questionable I don't care, just SOMETHING.
    Consider that sadly for me the words of Procopius about Romans in Northern Gaul during the VI cent. mean nothing, nothing at all; being in fact Procopius a Byzantine officer and an engaged intellectual, serving the foreign policy of his master, and supporting his idiotic policy of "reconquista" of the West, being Procopius a man who probably never set a foot Norther than Milan (if he ever saw Milan during his life), his words are not proof of anything, (if not just of the fact he was a great writer and a man loyal to his country's interests), ideed they are proof of the opposite: the disperate need of inventing something, something to support a strategy politically unconvincing, unmotivated and radically idiotic.

    So, with St. Thomas I say: make so that I can believe, please!

    - About Gaul: you break an already open door my friend! If you read my posts here, you'll discover that I'm fighting for years now in the name of the Romanitas of the most Romanic among the Romance peoples of Europe: the French!
    But North is North, North of the Loire is North of the Loire, the linguistic barrier on the Rhine is the linguistic barrier, the language spoken in the Low Countries is the language spoken in Low Countries, the example of Sidonius is not questionable, the switch between Roman-Barbaric world of the V century and the Barbaric-Romanized world after the Fall is unquestionable and fast; fast, as least, as can it be fast the the flowing of time in the life of an old (Gallo-)Roman aristocrat eager to become a Frank bishop, then .. Roma? What's that?

    - About Gallic and Germanic towns (if we consider Mainz, Koln and Trier as Germanic towns of course, and I don't think we want to begin a new war for Alsace and Lorraine! Don't we? ), yes of course they were Roman towns born in a Romanized territory but .. what was lacking there, it was the connective tissue, ie the background, which for millennia had made it possible the emergence and the development of The Urban Civilization in the Eastern centers, European towns (and for some respects even the Italian Roman towns) were very young compared to their counterparts in the East, where the towns were old as the history of mankind itself.



  19. #59
    AntonioHundangir's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Histonium, Regio IV Sabina et Samnium
    Posts
    235

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    Well, there s a reason if we call them.barbarian invasions and germab historian simply migrations of peoples we cant put something in the ground without find an ancient thing. and i guess everyone can notice the past of his homeland, (me for example discovered that there was the grave of a veteran near my home. Gaius aufidius veteranus. That caius didius the commander of caesar s fleet was a frentanum of my hometown, a little town, and that several others character lived here. not a big town, but with a continuos story from the late bronze age to now.) And i guess is the samething for all you guys, there s a reason if we re latin stock people, with traits, etc etc that remind this. There was some region were the romanization wasnt. Like bagaudae republics, where.many people (also romans, like deserters)was proudly celtic. Or other culture. The same marcellinus, historians think that he was possibly of southern italy, because he was greek speaker andnin v century only magna grecia was so in the west. An aetian general, that revolted against usurpers and ricimerus, a true late roman warlord, greek speaker. Over the romanitas, he did mantain his own greek language. He was proudly pagan too (for that was hated by galla placidia) thays mean he did mantain his own idea of romanits.So i think guys you re right both.
    Last edited by AntonioHundangir; October 29, 2016 at 01:33 PM.
    "regina caeli, sive tu Ceres,
    alma frugum parens originalis,
    quae, repertu laetata filiae,
    vetustatae glandis ferino remoto pabulo,
    miti commostrato cibo nunc,
    eleusiniam gleba percolis." - prayer to Kerres (Cerere, Benevolentissima Mater)

    "Respice post te. Hominem te memento. Memento mori.". (look behind you, remember you're a man. Remember you must die.)

  20. #60
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: the return of the Gallic comitatus

    Good post Antonio.
    Possibly when a political organism is dying, the peoples in need of symbols and reasons to stay together go in search for those symbols and reasons in their past, so we have the so called "Celtic Revivals" in Gaul and Britain during the late V and VI century, the Age of Arthur I mean, but also the "bagaudae" movements, which had not the good luck of living today and of being considered "freedom fighters", so, they are still remembered as "brigands and deserters".
    "Identity" is a weird and dangerous concep when applied to human groups, it runs on the thin border separing political correctness and the abyss of what today is called chauvinism, nationalism and ethnicism, it's a dangerous territory, a minefield on which we are forced to move our steps, if we want to understand something of the Western European history during the V, VI and VII centuries.


    Side note about the concept of Identity:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Politically correct use of the word "Identity", guide for noobs:

    - When associated with adjectives denotating collective/social behaviors and appartenece, "Identity" is OK!
    So, concepts as Cultural Identity, Political Identity, Artistic Identity, Musical Identity, Lingusistic identity and so on, are good and you can use them.

    - When associated with adjectives denotating individual features extended to a group, "Identity" is bad and it becomes a higly inappropriate word, indicating that you're an uneducated scum!
    So, the following definitions (and their derivates): Ethnic Identity, Racial Identity, Sexual Identity or even Human Identity, are bad and you should avoid the use of them, otherwise you clearly show that you're Facist, Ethnicist, Racist, Sexist and Animals hater disrespectful of the Nature!

    - Exception: in association with the concept of Religion, even though Religion can be considered a collective social appartenence, "Identity" is bad, so that the concept of "Religious Identity" is almost always bad and inappropriate; this rule is always true apart one single particular case concerning one particular religion, which is an exception in the exception by the "Holy Globalist Inquisition". See foot notes for more details.

    Of course, as everybody can easily understand, this is just obscene crap, but nowadays this indecent crap can save your ass on many internet sites ruled by the "Holy Globalist Inquisition", so, on the Net, don't forget to be careful in the choice of the adjectives to be put in relation with the word "Identity", be cautious, be smart and .. save your ass!

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •