Abstract
Parnell examines identity in military service and argues that the ethnicity of officers was generally of less importance than their behavior and service record. The Byzantine army of the sixth century made considerable use of non-Roman military men. Over the course of the century, about one quarter of soldiers were non-Roman in identity. The chapter also examines the way the term ‘barbarian’ was used. The term seems to have primarily been applied to non-Romans in Byzantine military service when the individuals in question were behaving poorly and to have been withheld from those non-Romans who had a good service record. This suggests that officers were not uniformly prejudiced against non-Romans serving alongside them and held them to generally similar standards as Byzantines.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It is beyond the scope of this book to provide a complete bibliography of this popular subject, but as a starting point one might consider Conant 2012, Amory 1997, and Geary 1983. See also Pohl and Heydemann 2013 and, generally, the studies produced as part of the European Science Foundation’s ‘The Transformation of the Roman World’ series, especially Pohl and Reimitz 1998.
- 2.
As a reminder, in this book the terms Byzantine and Roman are used more or less interchangeably, as the Byzantines considered themselves to be, and were in fact, Romans. Compare Page 2008, who combines the two terms and refers to ‘Byzantine Romans.’
- 3.
Menander Protector History 6.1.505–6.
- 4.
Agathias Histories 3.21.6, 4.18.1.
- 5.
This kind of change was not new to the sixth century. Roman identity had been forged in a similar way since the Roman Republic. As peoples (Gauls, Spaniards, Thracians, Cappadocians, Armenians) were assimilated into the Roman state they adopted Roman naming conventions over the course of generations.
- 6.
See Mitchell and Greatrex 2000, Pohl 1998, Kaldellis 2007, Kaldellis 2013, Pohl 2012, Armstrong 1982, Anderson 2006, Poole 1999.
- 7.
Mitchell and Greatrex 2000, xi.
- 8.
Kaldellis 2007, 43. Kaldellis prefers to call the Romans a nation-state rather than simply a cultural group, and Page prefers to call the Romans an ethnic group (Page 2008, 11–14).
- 9.
Mitchell and Greatrex 2000, xii.
- 10.
Amory 1997, 14.
- 11.
Kaldellis 2007, 83–88. Cicero had recognized that Romans could simultaneously hold a regional ethnic identity along with their Roman identity centuries earlier. In Book 2 of De Legibus, he acknowledged that men could have two patriae, one of birth, and one by citizenship. He stressed however that loyalty to Rome took precedence over loyalty to the patria of one’s birth. Cicero De Legibus 2.5, cited by Ando 2000, 10–11.
- 12.
Kaldellis 2007, 97.
- 13.
See Conant 2012 and, less persuasive but still cited routinely, Amory 1997.
- 14.
See discussion in Kaldellis 2007, 45–47. While Kaldellis argues that the Byzantines really were Romans, others are less certain and continue to see the Byzantines as only ‘superficially Roman’ or as one of three ‘post-Roman’ cultures along with the West and the Islamic caliphates. See for example Amory 1997, 31 and Pohl 2012, 22.
- 15.
See, for example, Mango 1980, 13–31 and Ahrweiler and Laiou 1998, 2. For a summary of this common view, see Kaldellis 2007, 75 and Cameron 2014, 55–57.
- 16.
Kaldellis 2007, 43. Kaldellis further elucidated his views in Kaldellis 2012 and Kaldellis 2013. But see the criticism of Cameron 2014, 55–57. More recently, Kaldellis doubled down on his argument by positing that the Byzantine state was a monarchically-ruled republic (Kaldellis 2015).
- 17.
Stouraitis 2014, 179–185. Stouraitis argues that Roman identity in the sense described by Kaldellis was the mentality only of the ruling elite, which is probably pressing his point too far (206). That lower classes experienced Roman identity differently is reasonable to consider. That lower classes felt only to be beleaguered and oppressed by a Roman elite is not. In a similar vein to Stouraitis, see Page 2008, 50 but see also the criticisms of Kaldellis, Review of Page, Being Byzantine, in The Medieval Review, April 2009.
- 18.
For a more detailed examination of how Caracalla’s edict changed the nature of Roman citizenship and raised it above descent identification, see Mathisen 2006.
- 19.
Dauge 1981, 805–809, Lechner 1955, 294.
- 20.
Cicero De Republica 1.58. On the characteristics of the barbarian in Roman eyes, see Dauge 1981, 424–436 and Revanoglou 2005, 207–212.
- 21.
For further analysis of the Roman evolution of the term from its Greek origins, see Woolf 1998, 58–60.
- 22.
Kaldellis 2013, 10.
- 23.
Pohl 1998, 18.
- 24.
Kaldellis 2007, 91–92; Woolf 1998, 59.
- 25.
Geary 1983, 16.
- 26.
Noble 2006, 16.
- 27.
Pohl 1998, 18.
- 28.
Kaldellis 2007, 43.
- 29.
Kaldellis 2007, 97, argued something similar, stating that ethnic references used to differentiate Romans from one another were actually more geographic than ethnic.
- 30.
Compare Teall 1965.
- 31.
Procopius Buildings 2.8.21, 2.9.15.
- 32.
The Frankish army is simply ‘the barbarians’ (Agathias Histories 2.1.3).
- 33.
Greatrex 2000, 278.
- 34.
See the section ‘Did Cultural Distinctions Impact Relationships in the Army?’ in this chapter below.
- 35.
A partial exception may be made for Roman mutineers such as Stotzas (see Jones, Martindale, and Morris 1971 [Hereafter PLRE], Stotzas, 3:1199–1200) and Gontharis (see PLRE 3: Guntharis 2), who certainly did not cease to be Roman when they mutinied against the emperor. Instead they believed they were carrying on the true tradition of the Roman military, and in that sense were still Roman, even if their loyalist opponents might not have agreed.
- 36.
Procopius Wars 5.9.1–7. Only a few lines later, Procopius has Belisarius declare that he is moved about the fate of Naples, because it has ‘for ages been inhabited by both Christians and Romans’ (5.9.27).
- 37.
Procopius Wars 1.15.21–25, Procopius Buildings 3.6.9–14. For more on the link between isolation and barbarism, see Procopius Buildings 4.5.9.
- 38.
Procopius Buildings 6.4.11–13. By identifying the Gadabitani as atheists, Procopius probably meant that they worshiped gods that he did not recognize.
- 39.
We know that most Goths were Arians or were expected to be Arians. As Wolfram points out, however, there is no evidence that an Arian Goth converting to Catholicism lost his Gothic identity (Wolfram 1988, 17). Similarly, however, there is little evidence that Goths were encouraged to become orthodox and even some evidence that Theoderic discouraged Romans from converting to Arianism (Amory 1997, 275).
- 40.
Procopius Wars 4.8.9.
- 41.
Procopius Wars 4.14.12.
- 42.
Procopius Wars 4.14.13–15.
- 43.
Codex Justinianus 1.5.7. The inescapable conclusion is that this law represents a tacit acknowledgment of the existence of individuals from other religious ‘sects’ in the army. More generally, it is likely that Arians served in the army because most Goths deserting to the Byzantines were not described as also converting to orthodox Christianity.
- 44.
Anonymous of Valois 12.58, 12.60.
- 45.
Procopius Wars 4.4.15, Agathias Histories 3.8.8. Kaldellis has convincingly argued that Aeetes is an example of Agathias’ mythological mimesis, that the Lazian probably never existed, and that the speeches outlined in this passage never occurred (Kaldellis 2003). Here it is not the historicity of either Aeetes or his speech that matters, but the fact that both Agathias and his audience could presume that a barbarian would not be a good speaker and be surprised when that presumption was contradicted.
- 46.
Procopius Wars 7.14.36.
- 47.
Procopius Wars 7.26.24. Gilacius’ lack of knowledge of Greek or Latin does not seem to have prevented him from being considered Roman.
- 48.
Amory 1997, 102–106. He argues that there ‘can be no doubt’ that all Goths spoke Latin and some spoke Greek. His argument that Gothic was merely a ‘military pidgin’ goes too far.
- 49.
Jordanes Getica 24.22, 25.133. Jordanes’ disdain for the Hunnic language may be due to the fact that it was not within the Indo-European language group.
- 50.
Procopius Wars 5.2.6–20.
- 51.
Agathias Histories 1.14.3, 2.7.4, Procopius Wars 3.12.10.
- 52.
On poor behavior of Roman military officers, see Chap. 4.
- 53.
Agathias Histories 4.4.1.
- 54.
Pohl and Reimitz 1998, 42–64.
- 55.
Procopius Secret History 7.8–10, 14.2. Although neither Justinian nor these youths actually became barbarians through these actions, these anecdotes do say something about the (negative) opinions of contemporaries with regard to the appearance of unassimilated barbarians. In the fifth century, Priscus of Panium also distinguished a Hunnic haircut. See Priscus Frag. 269.
- 56.
Anonymous of Valois 14.83.
- 57.
Menander History 2.24–27.
- 58.
Evagrius Ecclesiastical History 6.14.
- 59.
John throughout his text identifies Philadelphia as ‘my Philadelphia’ (John Lydus On Magistracies 3.26, 3.58, 3.59). It is tempting to suggest that this possessive indicates attachment, but it is equally possible that it was merely meant to indicate which Philadelphia he was describing. John was greatly assisted in his career by the prefect Zoticus, also from Philadelphia in Lydia (3.26).
- 60.
This was done to avoid confusion with, for example, Philadelphia in Arabia (modern Amman in Jordan).
- 61.
Procopius Wars 1.8.3.
- 62.
Kaldellis 2007, 94.
- 63.
See Parnell 2010 for the complete database and further explanation of its creation. For another attempt to sort knowledge of individuals into a database, see Whately 2013.
- 64.
A complete list of the sources used to construct the database: Procopius, Agathias, Malalas, Marcellinus, Menander, Chronicon Paschale, Theophylact, Theophanes, John Lydus, John of Ephesus, John of Epiphania, Evagrius, Corippus, Pope Gregory I, and PLRE, which draws on additional sources including inscriptions and seals. For full citations, please see the bibliography.
- 65.
The figure of 700,000 men was reached by estimating that the average term of service in the sixth-century army was about 20 years. The figure of 150,000 men in the comitatenses was then multiplied by the number of years covered (92) and divided by the average years of service (20). The exact result (690,000) was then rounded up to the more approximate figure of 700,000. This is of course only a very general estimation and should not be considered a completely accurate representation of the army. Only the comitatenses were included in this calculation because most of the men in the database served in these units. If the limitanei are also included, there were approximately 1.5 million men in the army during these 92 years, and then the database figure of 772 represents only about 0.05% of the total.
- 66.
Elton 2007, 300–301.
- 67.
See Chap. 6.
- 68.
For determining identities through name alone, the following resources are particularly useful: Justi 1895, Maenchen-Helfen 1973, Schönfeld 1911.
- 69.
Amory 1997, 87–91.
- 70.
Amory 1997, 464–465.
- 71.
Elton 2007, 300–301.
- 72.
Pohl and Reimitz 1998, 10.
- 73.
For Jones, Romans ‘greatly predominated’ in the army (Jones 1964, 1:668). Elton’s analysis of the names of magistri militum mentioned above also came to a conclusion of approximately one quarter of non-Romans (Elton 2007, 300–301). Teall came to a different conclusion, arguing that during Justinian’s reign what had previously been primarily Roman armies became to a large degree barbarian (Teall 1965, 296).
- 74.
This has been a subject of some debate in Late Antique historiography. Teall argued that crises in the 540s caused the empire to recruit more non-Romans than before (Teall 1965, 303–7). Whitby, writing later, doubted that conclusion (Whitby 1995, 108).
- 75.
Justin II’s novel 148, preface, as quoted by Whitby 1995, 119.
- 76.
This might be taken as confirmation of Teall’s hypothesis that crises in the 540s caused the empire to recruit more non-Romans than before (Teall 1965, 303–7) if one wanted to draw a conclusion from this admittedly small shift.
- 77.
Examples abound in Pope Gregory the Great’s letters, including Guduin, duke at Naples in 603 (Gregory Epistle 14.10) and Aldio, general in Italy in 599 (Gregory Epistle 2.32).
- 78.
See Chap. 2 for more on the ranks and positions of the sixth-century army.
- 79.
The data in the charts counts each individual’s rank, as might be expected, but there is one additional twist. All officers who are known to have received promotion are counted for each step of their career. For example, an individual such as John Mystacon, Maurice’s general of the East (magister militum per Orientum), is counted only once, at the rank of general, while Belisarius, who started his career as a guardsman of Justinian and later served as a duke in Mesopotamia before being promoted to general is therefore counted three times, in each of these categories. Only 40 of the 772 total men in the database were definitely promoted and thus counted multiple times, but this undoubtedly reflects the incompleteness of the sources rather than any real lack of promotion in the army.
- 80.
For ideas on the relationships between officers and their soldiers, see Chap. 7.
- 81.
Cf. Greatrex, who notes that there appears to be ‘little consistent hostility or prejudice towards particular ‘barbarians’ in the sources of the sixth century’ (Greatrex 2000, 276).
- 82.
See Parnell 2010, 83–84, and appendices.
- 83.
For a summary of these events, see Stein 1949.
- 84.
Agathias Histories 4.20.7.
- 85.
Procopius Wars 2.3.22–27.
- 86.
See the below section ‘Did Cultural Distinctions Impact Relationships in the Army?’ for further analysis of praise of non-Romans in military service.
- 87.
Compare Greatrex 2000 on political loyalty as the primary defining feature of Roman identity in this period. As mentioned above in the section ‘The Distinction between Romans and Barbarians,’ I would argue there were many different criteria that together defined Roman identity.
- 88.
We have to be wary that Procopius might have used barbarians as a foil to indirectly criticize Justinian or Belisarius. Cf. Kaldellis 2013, 21–25 but see also the caution of Greatrex, ‘Procopius and the Barbarians’ (forthcoming).
- 89.
Procopius Wars 4.4.29–31, translated by Dewing 1914, 2:243.
- 90.
Procopius Wars 4.4.9–25.
- 91.
For the career of John the Armenian, see PLRE 3: Ioannes 14. For the career of Uliaris, see PLRE 3: Vliaris 1.
- 92.
Procopius Wars 4.4.16–17.
- 93.
For the career of Pharas, see PLRE 3: Pharas.
- 94.
Procopius Wars 1.13.19–20.
- 95.
Procopius Wars 1.14.32–33.
- 96.
Procopius Wars 1.14.39.
- 97.
Knaepen 2001, 401; Rubin 1954, 144; Kaldellis 2004, 187.
- 98.
Pazdernik 2006. See also Kaldellis 2013, 20; Wood 2011, 439–440; and Sarantis 2011, 396.
- 99.
Xenophon Hellenica 4.1.34–36.
- 100.
Pazdernik 2006, 176–182, esp. Figure 1 on 180.
- 101.
Procopius Wars 4.6.15. For another individual being made to admit his own barbarism, see the confession of Basiliscus in Life of Daniel the Stylite 84 (in Dawes and Baynes 1977). I am indebted to Geoffrey Greatrex for this reference.
- 102.
Similarly, Basiliscus’ admission of barbarism in the Life of Daniel the Stylite complements his acknowledgement in the same sentence that he is ‘not able to understand the depths of the holy faith.’
- 103.
On barbarism and illiteracy, see Taragna, 2000, 87–88. For a parallel to Pharas’ admission of poor speaking skills, see Agathias’ description of Aeetes the Lazian (Agathias Histories 3.8.8).
- 104.
Pazdernik 2006, 183–184, 197–201.
- 105.
Procopius Wars 4.6.22.
- 106.
Pazdernik 2006, 201.
- 107.
Kaldellis 2004, 132; see also Procopius Secret History 30.21–31.
- 108.
Cf. Wood 2011, 439–440; Sarantis 2013, 773.
- 109.
Procopius Wars 6.14.36, translated by Dewing 1914, 3:413. See also Greatrex 2000, 269–270.
- 110.
Historians who focus on Procopius’ general criticism of the Heruls as a people and ignore his favorable opinion of the Heruls he actually knows easily miss this clash. Conant uses this passage condemning the Heruls as support for his general claim that Procopius believed ‘attempting to reach an understanding with barbarians was useless’ (Conant 2012, 256–7). For further focus on the negative view of the Heruls, see Revanoglou 2005, 209–210, 234–236. Not all historians ignore positive attitudes to the Heruls, see Sarantis 2013, 773 and Sarantis 2011, 387, 389.
- 111.
The closest Procopius comes to calling Pharas a Roman is the announcement, in the form of Pharas’ letter, that Pharas is ‘in the service of an emperor’ (Procopius Wars 4.6.22). As we have seen, however, this is not the same as actually being Roman.
- 112.
But note the warning of Kaldellis that Late Antique authors ‘were not uncritical imitators of ancient tropes’ and that ‘ancient theory… was more a useful tool than a mental straitjacket’ (Kaldellis 2013, 9). Cesa also argues that Procopius was cautious about utilizing traditional clichés (Cesa 1982, 211–212).
- 113.
The criticism of Heruls in general might have also had something to do with the fact that those not serving in the Byzantine military apparently regularly plundered the empire from their base at modern Belgrade (Procopius Wars 7.33.13–14). See Sarantis 2011, 395.
- 114.
Procopius Wars 3.12.17–18, translated by Dewing 1914, 2:115–17.
- 115.
Procopius Wars 3.12.16.
- 116.
Cf. Wood 2011, 429–430.
- 117.
Agathias Histories 1.20.3, translated by Frendo 1975, 28, modified.
- 118.
Agathias Histories 1.20.6, translated by Frendo 1975, 28, modified.
- 119.
For the career and identity of Kurs, see PLRE 3: Cours.
- 120.
Menander Frag. 18.6.
- 121.
Theophylact History 1.9.9.
- 122.
Evagrius Ecclesiastical History 5.14. On the identification of Evagrius’ Kurs with Theophylact’s Kurs, see PLRE 3: Cours.
- 123.
Procopius Wars 4.2.3.
- 124.
Compare PLRE 3:361, which posits that his behavior in this battle perhaps ended his career, because he is not attested after this. Getting fired, of course, would not really be a barbarian-specific problem either.
- 125.
On jealousy in the sixth century, see Peter and John the Glutton informing Justinian about Belisarius’ alleged plot so that they could get the general out of the East (Procopius Secret History 4.1–16) and the protracted conflict between Belisarius and Narses and their supporters in Italy in 538–539, culminating in John and Justin telling Belisarius that they ‘would do nothing except what Narses commanded’ (Procopius Wars 6.21.13–16). These episodes are examined in greater detail in Chap. 5. The pride and jealousy of politician-generals in the Late Republic is well known. See Gruen 1974 for a classic study of the issue.
- 126.
Contra Pohl, who argues that ‘Procopius did not much approve of the non-Roman composition of the Roman military’ (Pohl 2006, 18). On the other hand, Wood argues that Procopius ‘is prepared to see virtue in those beyond the bounds of the Roman world’ (Wood 2011, 446).
- 127.
Examples are to be found throughout the works of Procopius, Agathias, and other sixth-century authors. For select examples used in this chapter, see Procopius’ first reference to Pharas (Procopius Wars 1.13.19), Procopius’ reference to Sisifridus (Procopius Wars 7.12.12) and Menander’s reference to Kurs (Menander Frag. 18.6). For additional examples, see Procopius’ references to Sunicas and Aigan (Procopius Wars 1.13.20), Procopius’ reference to Asbadus (Procopius Wars 8.26.13), and Agathias’ references to Balmach, Cutilzis, and Iliger (Agathias Histories 3.17.5).
- 128.
Kaldellis 2012, 393 and Page 2008, 44. Similarly, Mathisen argues that a barbarian simply settling in the empire did not automatically become a Roman citizen; he had to make use of Roman laws and behave as a Roman citizen for that to occur. See Mathisen 2012, 754.
- 129.
Procopius Wars 7.12.12.
- 130.
Compare Greatrex 2000, 268–269 and n. 9.
- 131.
See, for example, Agathias Histories 2.7.4. In this case, the Heruls, although generally loyal to Narses up to this point, slipped into what Agathias exasperatedly labeled ‘irrational’ barbarian behavior.
- 132.
On ethnicity as a matter of curiosity rather than import under certain circumstances, see Kaldellis 2007, 95 and Greatrex 2000, 268.
- 133.
Compare Greatrex 2000, 274: ‘Naturally traditional distinctions between Romans and barbarians continued to be drawn, but they had decreasing relevance to current realities.’
- 134.
Compare Pohl 2006, 18–19, who suggests that ‘the analogy between barbarians and passionate behavior was deep-rooted in a Roman’s mind’ and therefore Romans could not really separate the generally inappropriate behavior of a soldier from the specific prejudice against barbarian behavior.
- 135.
Compare Pohl 2004, 448 and Greatrex 2000, 274.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Parnell, D.A. (2017). Identity in the Army: Romans and Barbarians. In: Justinian's Men. New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56204-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56204-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-56203-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-56204-3
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)