Drinkwater J.F. The Alamanni and Rome 213-496 (Caracalla to Clovis)
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
took oV in 360 when he replaced Ammianus’ patron, Ursicinus, as
senior general in attendance (magister peditum praesentalis) in the
east. Ammianus viewed this as unreasonably rapid promotion.26 In
361, he was recalled to help Constantius against Julian.27 Though
Julian emerged victorious he kept Agilo in his serv ice, trusting him
to end resistance in Aquileia.28 Even more surprisingly, Agilo was then
appointed a judge in the trials of the enemies of the new regime at
Chalcedon.29 Around 362 he left the limelight and settled in the east
where he married Vetiana, daughter of Araxius, a friend of Julian and
Libanius and holder of a number of important imperial posts.30 Agilo
thereby became a member of a prominent eastern family. In 365, he
reappeared as one of the usurper Procopius’ senior generals.31 Due to
his inXuence, indeed, Araxius became Procopius’ praetorian prefect of
the east.32 However, he played a crucial role in the usurper’s downfall
by going over to Valens at the battle of Nacolia in 366 and so suVered
only mild punishment for his treachery.33 His was a career remarkable
in any circumstances, and unique among the Alamanni known to us.34
In 354, Scudilo commanded a schola of imperial guards (scutar-
iorum rector/tribunus).35 If, as seems generally accepted, he is to be
identiWed with Zosimus’ ‘Skolidoas’, he had, while already a colonel
of the guards (taxiarchos), like Latinus, distinguished himself before
the battle of Mursa.36 Later in 354, he went to Antioch to persuade
Gallus, under suspicion, to move west to see Constantius. He was
remarkably successful, laying stress on Constantius’ merciful dispos-
ition. Ammianus Marcellinus, somewhat grudgingly, praises his dip-
lomatic talents, ‘a skilled artist in persuasion, under the cloak of a
somewhat rough nature’.37 He died of a painful illness soon after
26 AM 20.2.5; HoVmann (1969: 290–1).
27 AM 21.13.8.
28 AM 21.12.16–18.
29 AM 22.3.1.
30 AM 26.7.5–6; 10.7. Vetiana: PLRE 1.954; Araxius: PLRE 1.94; Waas (1971: 69).
31 AM 26.7.4. PLRE 1.29 has him ‘retired’, then ‘induced to return to oYce’.
32 AM 26.7.6.
33 AM 26.9.7, 10.7.
34 Stroheker (1975: 35).
35 AM 14.10.8, 11.11, 11.24.
36 Zosimus 20.5.2, 3; de Jonge (1939: 105); PLRE 1.811.
37 AM 14.11.11: velamento subagrestis ingenii, persuasionis opifex callidus.
148 Service
Gallus’ execution, according to Ammianus, as punishment for his
part in the aVair.38
GOMOARIUS39
Gomoarius was Agilo’s colleague on the general staV of Procopius and,
like him, soon deserted his commander. In 350, he had been colonel of
a guards regiment (tribunus scutariorum) under the usurper Vetranio,
whom he is also supposed to have betrayed. Constantius named him
Julian’s magister equitum in Gaul in 360 but Julian, distrusting him,
replaced him with another. Also like Agilo, he must then have taken up
residence in the east. Though nowhere explicitly described as such, it
is likely that he was Alamannic in origin.
HARIOBAUDES40
In 359, he was a colonel without regimental attachment (tribunus
vacans). Julian used him to spy out the land preparatory to an
Alamannic campaign, which suggests that he was Alamannic by
origin. He proved worthy of the trust shown to him.41 It is unlikely
that he was the brother and fellow king of Macrianus.42
VADOMARIUS43
Vadomarius Wrst appears in 354 as an Alamannic rex.44 He was a loyal
client of Constantius II, which strained his relationship with other
Alamannic leaders and, later, with Julian. In 361, indeed, he was
38 AM 14.11.24.
39 PLRE 1.397–8; Waas (1971: 84–5).
40 PLRE 1.408; Waas (1971: 85).
41 AM 18.2.2.
42 Cf. below 248; contra Geuenich (1997a: 45).
43 PLRE 1.928; Waas (1971: 108–10).
44 AM 14.10.1.
Service 149
arrested on Julian’s orders while attending a military banquet on the
left bank of the Rhine. He was exiled to Spain.45 Subsequently,
however, he was appointed dux Phoenices.46 As military commander
in an important border province, Vadomarius had real responsibil-
ity.47 It may be signiWcant that two units composed of (or originally
raised from) Alamannic troops were stationed here as limitanei.48 In
365/6 Vadomarius ser ved Valens against Procopius, playing a leading
role in the siege of Nicaea, though this turned out badly.49 He
survived the setback and reappeared in 371 in a hig h position,
Wghting Persians.50 HoVmann suggests that Vadomarius was
appointed dux Phoenices by Jovian, in 363. After Valens came to
power, he dismissed Vadomarius but then re-employed him as gen-
eral without portfolio (comes rei militaris vacans). It was as such that
he fought Procopius in Bithynia and the Persians in 371.51 His son,
Vithicabius, was freed by Julian, became king, but was troublesome;
Valentinian I had him assassinated in 368.52
FRAOMARIUS, BITHERIDUS, AND HORTARIUS53
These were three Alamanni serving in the army in the west in 372,
under Valentinian I, as tribunes and regimental commanders. The
Romans had made Fraomarius king of the Bucinobantes in an
abortive attempt to depose Macrianus.54 After internal troubles
45 AM 21.3, 4.1–6. Cf. below 256.
46 AM 21.3.5; 26.8.2: ducatum per Phoenicen regens/ex duce et rege Alamannorum.
PLRE 1.928 dates the ducate to 361–6.
47 Jones (1964: 609); Elton (1996a: 139).
48 Waas (1971: 110); cf. below 164.
49 AM 26.8.2–3.
50 AM 29.1.2.
51 HoVmann (1978: 308–9). For a diVerent interpretation (of Vadomarius as the
vicarius of the magister peditum praesentalis Arintheus) and chronology see Woods
(2000: 693).
52 AM 27.10.3–4; 30.7.7; Eunapius, Hist. Fr. 19 (Blockley); PLRE 1.971. Cf.
below 281.
53 Fraomarius: PLRE 1.372; Waas (1971: 82). Bitheridus: PLRE 1.162; Waas
(1971: 79). Hortarius: PLRE 1.444; Waas (1971: 86); HoVmann (1978: 309).
54 On Macrianus see below 304–9.
150 Service
forced him to stand down, he received command of a large Alamannic
numerus in Britain.55 Bitheridus was another Germanic noble who
was given a military command. Although nowhere explicitly
described as Alamannic, all that Ammianus says about him points
in this direction.56 Hortarius is paired with Bitheridus by Ammianus,
who records that he was executed for treacherous dealings with
Macrianus and other Alamanni.57 He may have been the son of the
king Hortarius who joined in the alliance against Julian in 357.58
These three are the latest fourth-century Alamanni whom we know
by name. After them, we can identify no one else until the enigmatic
king (or kings) Gibuldus/Gebavultus in the mid-Wfth century.59
In assessing the historical signiWcance of these Alamannic oYcers it is
important to understand their background and upbringing, particu-
larly those of the hig h-X iers: Crocus, Latinus, Agilo, Scudilo and
Gomoarius. Were they primarily Alamannic warriors, or Roman
oYcers? A direct answer to this question is impossible, since we do
not know enough about them. On the other hand, something may be
inferred from other evidence.
This is the career of a high-ranking Germanic soldier who was not
Alamannic: the Frank, Silvanus, who supposedly seized the purple in
Gaul in 355.60 His father, Bonitus, helped Constantine I against
Licinius.61 Assuming that Bonitus Xourished around 320, and calcu-
lating a generation at about 30 years, we can estimate when his
ancestors and descendants were in their prime:
c.260: Bonitus’ grandfather¼Silvanus’ great-grandfather
c.290: Bonitus’ father¼Silvanus’ grandfather
c.320: Bonitus¼Silvanus’ father
c.350: Bonitus’ son¼Silvanus.
This approach looks promising because it produces the ‘right’ date
for Silvanus. We may guess that Silvanus’ great-grandfather was
55 AM 29.4.7. Below 170, 309, 353.
56 AM 29.4.7.
57 Ibid.
58 PLRE 1.444; cf. below 236. Geuenich (1997a: 55) identiWes him as Hortarius.
59 Geuenich (1997a: 73–5), (1997c: 144); cf. below 331–2.
60 PLRE 1.840–1; Waas (1971: 105–7).
61 AM 15.5.33. Bonitus: PLRE 1.163.
Service 151
among the leaders who Wrst raided the Roman Empire in strength
following the capture of Valerian. Silvanus’ grandfather would have
been among the Frankish chiefs brought to heel by the Tetrarchy. He
may have provided troops for the Empire and given up his son,
Bonitus, as a hostage. This would have allowed Bonitus to learn
Roman ways, and so aided his rise through the military hierarchy.62
It is likely that he remained on imperial territory while raising his
family: we are told, indeed, that Silvanus was born in Gaul.63 Thus
Silvanus, for all his ‘Frankish’ origin, would have been brought up a
Roman. We know that he was a Christian;64 and Festy notes his
‘complete assimilation into Roman civilization’.65
This helps us make sense of Silvanus’ ‘usurpation’ against
Constantius II in 355. His enemies at court had striven to undermine
his position by making it seem as if he were plotting to become
emperor.66 This was ludicrous. Apart from Silvanus’ loyalty to
Constantius II, his barbarian blood disqualiWed him from donning
the purple. Silvanus was cleared of the charges in his absence.
Unfortunately, this came too late to prevent him from acting out of
self-defence: either (according to Ammianus Marcellinus) by going
against tradition and proclaiming himself emperor, or (more likely)
by working to proclaim another.67 Nevertheless, the fact that the
original accusation had found some credence conWrms that Silvanus
never looked or acted the Frankish warrior: he was, to all appear-
ances, fully Roman.68 Silvanus had a legitimate son, pardoned by
Constantius II.69 If he had completed his imperial career, that son,
Xourishing around 380, would have enjoyed enormous opportun-
ities. One thinks, for example, of the Frank Bauto, a leading general
62 Cf. above 119, below 154, 187.
63 Aurelius Victor, Caesares 42.15; cf. below 153.
64 AM 15.5.31.
65 Festy (1999: 203).
66 AM 15.5.4–5.
67 AM 15.5.15–31; Drinkwater (1994).
68 Cf. Epitome 42.11: quamquam barbaro patre genitus, tamen institutione Romana
satis cultus et patiens. It is interesting that the Epitomator, unlike Victor, gives
Silvanus only one barbarian parent which, given the propensity of leading Germanic
soldiers to marry Roman wives, appears more likely. Cf. below 322 (Stilicho). In this
case, his Christianity probably came from his mother.
69 Julian, Orat. 1.49A; 2.98C–99A.
152 Service
under Gratian and Valentinian II, whose daughter, Aelia Eudoxia,
married the emperor Arcadius.70
This model of long-standing Romanitas also Wts those early-
fourth-century Alamanni we know, and allows us to envisage them as
integrating into the imperial aristocracy. Crocus, of Silvanus’ grand-
father’s generation (his original association was with Constantius I,
not Constantine I), would have been among the Wrst Alamanni to
commit his future to Rome (though the Epitomator, hostile to
Constantine I, may have exaggerated the extent of his ‘barbarian’
inXuence on the events of 306). Latinus, Agilo, Scudilo and Gomoarius
were of Silvanus’ generation and may, like him, have been born and
brought up in the Empire and owed their success not just to their
abilities but to the inXuence of Romano-Germanic families. 71 They
liveddangerous but generallysuccessfullives as Roman grandees. Their
descendants may have gone on to do even greater things—hidden from
us by Roman names. The main lesson of all this is that we must
constantly bear in mind the likelihood of a considerable degree of
‘Roman-ness’ on the part of leading fourth-century ‘Alamanni’.
As A. H. M. Jones remarked, Julian’s choice of Hariobaudes as a
good linguist makes no sense ‘unless many of the German oYcers in
Julian’s command were at least rusty in their mother-tongue’.72
To answer the question posed above, we should envisage such men
primarily as Roman oYcers. This will be important in assessing
Romano-Alamannic relations as a whole.73 However, ‘primarily’ is
not ‘exclusively’. A. H. M. Jones went too far in concluding that,
‘Those Germans of whom we know anything, those that rose in
service and made names for themselves, certainly became thoroughly
romanised, and quite lost contact with their homes.’ Recent research
has shown that, during the Early Empire, Batavians serving in the
Roman army were capable of keeping in touch with home.74 The
same may be expected of Alamannic oYcers and men in the fourth
century. Ammianus treats Alamannic home-leave as a matter of
70 PLRE 1.159–60, 2.410; Waas (1971: 77–8). Cf. Bury (1923: 1.108): that Eudoxia’s
mother ‘had doubtless been a Roman’.
71 Cf. Tomlin (1987: 115) on the importance of nepotism.
72 Jones (1964: 622).
73 Below 176, 207, 358.
74 Derks and Roymans (2003).
Service 153
course;75 and even the most highly Romanized of military Alamanni
could exploit links with their communities of origin.76 Constant
exposure, via Romanized Alamanni, to the Roman view of ‘Alamannia’
must, indeed, have been an essential element in the region’s population
coming to accept themselves as ‘Alamanni’, that is in the process
of Alamannic ethnogenesis.77 Such links would also have assured
the Empire of a stream of good recruits from families with long records
of service.
But the system was dynamic. First-generation recruitment was also
a feature of the fourth century, as in the case of Hariobaudes,
Vadomarius, Fraomarius, Bitheridus and Hortarius. The most
typical of these appear to have been Hariobaudes, Bitheridus and
Hortarius. As tribunes (‘colonels’), they were mid-way through the
standard career of high-ranking foreign recruits to the Roman
oYcer-corps, probably having held protectorships and looking for-
ward to being promoted dux.78 But this raises the question of their
status in Alamannic society, and why they decided to serve Rome.
These issues are partly resolved by the careers of Vadomarius and
Fraomarius. These show that tribuni and duces could be recruited
from the highest levels of Alamannic society: in their case, from
kings. However, Vadomarius and Fraomarius were recruited in
abnormal circumstances, without much choice. Furthermore, it is
unlikely that recruitment of established kings—which would have
disrupted Alamannic society and so not have been helpful to
Rome—was ever ‘normal’. More likely is that men like Hariobaudes,
Bitheridus and Hortarius were recruited from princes and superior
nobles, otherwise unable to progress further in their own society.79
Such recruitment would have been helped by the Roman habit of
taking young upper-class males hostage to guarantee the behaviour
of their parents. For some, this was a death sentence.80 For others,
75 Below 160.
76 Jones (1964: 622); below 176, 207. I agree with Barlow (1996: 224) that Jones’
interpretation is probably too rigid (for instances of Alamannic and Frankish cross-
border contact see below 160, 312, 318) and that Germanic soldiers maintained
regular links with their home communities.
77 See above 68–9, 119.
78 HoVmann (1978: 316).
79 Above 122.
80 Below 282–3.
154 Service
however, probably the majority, sojourn in the Empire was a valuable
education. The best known example is Mederichus, father of the king
Serapio who opposed Julian in 35781 and probably Serapio’s prede-
cessor, who spent a long time in Gaul and changed his son’s name
from Agenarichus to Serapio after being initiated into Greek myster-
ies there.82 Presumably, Serapio also learned Roman ways. Their
position as heirs is likely to have prevented both from follow ing
imperial careers. However, their experience shows how young, well-
connected Alamanni were exposed to the Greco-Roman world.
New Alamannic recruits, whom serv ice took into the Empire and
who managed to survive the perils of war and politics, will, like their
predecessors, probably have distanced themselves from Alamannic
society, founding new, Roman, families. Thus, as HoVmann has
commented, Ammianus is correct in describing Vadomarius towards
the end of his career as ‘former dux and former king of the
Alamanni’: he will have had no direct involvement with his former
life.83 As always, however, the likely role such people played in
bridging the gap between Germani and Romans should constantly
be acknowledged.
In this respect, it is worth giving further attention to Vadomarius,
who was a major player in the events that brought Julian to power in
Gaul and therefore Wgures prominently in Ammianus’ narrative.
Prior to his arrest, Vadomarius was already no simple Alamannic
chief, but a prominent imperial politician. We Wrst hear of him in
354 when he made a formal agreement with Constantius II. 84 How-
ever, if from c.352 Constantius set Alamanni on to Magnentius and
Decentius,85 it is unlikely that this was the Wrst time Vadomarius had
dealings with him. In 352, Constantius could not have had formal
agreements w ith the Alamannic leaders involved, since any treaties
that existed would have been made by Constans and then, after his
overthrow in 350, by Magnentius. Furthermore, conWned to Italy,
81 Above 119.
82 AM 16.12.25. For the opposite experience see AM 18.2.17: living far from the
frontier, Macrianus was astonished by his Wrst sight of the Roman army on parade
(presumably in the manner of Aurelian: above 73).
83 AM 26.8.2; HoVmann (1978: 308–10), making the same point about the
Frankish ‘count and king’ Mallobaudes.
84 Below 204–5.
85 Below 201–2.
Service 155
Constantius would have had to deal with them over a distance,
through the territory of Vadomarius and his brother. Vadomarius
may, from an early stage in Constantius’ direct involvement in the
west, have acted as broker between the imperial authorities and
fellow Alamannic leaders (as he did later, under Julian).86 The 354
agreement simply formalized an existing relationship.
If,subsequently, all hadgonewell for Constantius,we would probably
have heard no more of Vadomarius. However, the rise of Julian and
Vadomarius’ decision to stand by Constantius caused the game to
continue. Vadomarius was probably intimidated into joining the
Alamannic coalition of 357 and may even have supplied troops for the
battle of Strasbourg.87 However, his inXuence with Constantius (and
the likelihood that he avoided personal participation at Strasbourg)
saved him from retaliation. He then continued to act as an agent of
Constantius in unscrambling the omelette of the defeat of Constantius’
former allies at Strasbourg,88 and then in keeping an eye on Julian
(supposedly even attempting to hamstring Julian’s war-eVort).89 This
suggests that Vadomarius was in regular contact with Constantius’
court. As the employer of professional secretarial staV and the sender
and recipient of imperial messages, both public and private, he may
even be seen as a ‘corresponding member’ of the sacred consistory.90
Like Latinus and his peers, though without formal oYce, Vadomarius
should be regarded as ‘Roman’. And, again like Latinus and the others,
this must have been based on some cultural foundation. Ammianus
emphasizes his acquaintance with Roman ways and with Roman
oYcials on his border.91
Here we may consider the topic of dress. Our evidence for
Germanic dress in general is scarce. We know of no signiWcant
diVerence between Alamanni and other western Germani in this
respect.92 What the poor wore remains a mystery. The inhumations
of the well-to-do show that while women wore native clothes, men
86 Below 247, 251–2.
87 Below 239.
88 Below 247.
89 Below 257–9.
90 Cf. Szidat (1981: 93–4: Vadomarius’ possession of a secretarial staV, on the
imperial model).
91 AM 18.2.17; 21.4.3. Cf. below 255–6.
92 Brather (2002: 153).
156 Service
adopted a version of Roman military uniform.93 The modern parallel
is the similarity between the camouXage smocks, baseball caps and
assault riXes of guerrilla Wghters and the combat fatigues and weap-
onry of their regular opponents. When Vadomarius and his entou-
rage crossed the Rhine to visit members of the imperial garrison,
probably at Kaiseraugst,94 guests and hosts would have looked simi-
lar, would have talked about the same things in the same language—
soldiers’ Latin—and would have eaten oV much the same crockery.95
This returns us to the cultural foundation of Vadomarius’ dealings
with the Empire. A high level of Romanization is likely to have been
true not just of Vadomarius but also of his parents and grandparents.
As in the case of Latinus, Agilo and Scudilo, this would help explain
his ability to operate in the east. It is also worth observing that
Vadomarius must have been admired not just for his diplomatic
but also for his military skills, explaining his ducate and his career
as an imperial general. Overall, he emerges as a complex and impos-
ing Wgure, certainly no brute barbarian.
The earlier career of Vadomarius underlines a particular aspect of
Alamannic engagement w ith the Roman Empire. It is likely that
Rome actively promoted control of the border pagi by established
chiefs.96 The work of such people, Ammianus’ ‘kings’, will have been
as important as that of Alamannic oYcers within the regular army.
Though a number of ruling kings will probably, as hostages, have
lived on imperial territory in their youth, once in power most must
have been encouraged not to pursue imperial careers.97 However, it
appears that they continued to have direct contact with the Empire—
both as a matter of routine with local military commanders at major
border installations (such as Kaiseraugst and, perhaps, Kellmu
¨
nz98)
and, on special occasions, with high imperial oYcials and emperors.
The latter occurred when they travelled to court to receive personal
gifts marking the establishment or renewal of alliances.99 Their
93 Fingerlin (1993: 79); Steuer (1998: 313), citing Bo
¨
hme.
94 Below 255.
95 For eating-habits, see above 105.
96 Above 119.
97 Above 154.
98 Above 99.
99 Below 271, cf. 246.
Service 157