Frankish Limitanei in Lazica (revised)

FRANKISH LIMITANEI IN LAZICA, 2009

Before being totally destroyed, Imperial security system actually had shown three gradual phases of development. Huge number of the Italian colonists with the best technologies, swift and comfortable communications, the most prominent industrial output, Roman citizenship, municipal freedom – that was the Roman gift for the Western provinces in the 1st-2nd centuries A. D. Sincere intimacy with the metropolis had been founded as a direct result of complete satisfaction. It paved the way to the Romanization. As for the Greeks, the Romans reserved a quite life and economic stability. Still beyond the Roman Rhine, Danube and Pontus there were others favouring to this concept of Pan-European integration. The happy client kings used to be awarded with the Roman citizenship. And for the Julio-Claudians, these client kingdoms formed the first defense-line of the Imperial territories. A little behind, the whole perimeter had been dotted by solid legionary concentrations, proving the system to be impregnable. No cardinal changes took place in the Antonine era, except of annexation of the client kingdoms and breaking the big concentrations in favour of scattering the legions along the whole frontier. In the both cases, after defeating comparatively weak enemy at the border, the Romans usually attacked their territory. This system of security is called forward defense. Greeks and the Romans were sending more and more hands towards industry, but not to manufacture the means of production. As a result, population was growing, but not amount of industrial goods per capita. Prices rushed high for the Italian produce, demanding damping for provincial food and raw materials, thus weakening the sympathies between the European subjects of the Roman Empire. Some even started to search for a relief beyond Rhine and Danube. Many things had happened that completely changed the defensive strategy, namely: 1. economic crisis; 2. weakening of the integratory links; 3. socio-economic animation of ‘Barbaricum’; 4. financial chaos and some professional regiments converted into limitanei. From now they are to stand the first strike and evacuate the whole frontier folk into citadels, thus wearing down the enemy. And there were large and mobile field armies deployed far behind that self-contained strongholds to cut down any invasion into the depth. This system shaped in the times of Diocletian is called defense-in-depth. But before this new system was finally established, the Romans had been fighting those already easily passing the border wherever they could manage to concentrate large army-units. In the early days of Empire, Praetorians formed the only imperial reserve. And now Gallienus recruited special mobile reserve-regiments. Name for the defensive system is elastic defense. Security-system had to be changed at least because of emergence of the Germanic seaborne attacks from the 3rd century everywhere at the seas that prolonged the line of the frontier.[1] Full-time units, legions, alae of cavalry, cohortes of infantry and mixed cohortes equitatae served the forward defense-system. Part-time border force of limitanei had appeared and auxiliary alae and cohorts had disappeared; and regular mobile reserve – comitatenses – substituted legions, fixed at the border. All they served new security system – defense-in-depth. The whole 3rd century saw these changes, finally shaped in the times of Constantine I. Septimius Severus was the first to form a certain kind of reserve. He stationed II Parthica in Albanum, increased Praetorian and Urban cohorts in number. And Gallienus created special cavalry units to serve as a reserve.[2] In the 3rd century large federations of Franki and Alemanni began to threaten the Rhine-frontier. And the Goths had already reached Dniester by 238.[3] Franks attacked Gaul, Alemanns – Italy. From the great deeds of Emperor M. Aurelius Probus (276-282) the most important is the deliverance of seventy Gaulic cities. He drove back Franks and Alemanns, four hundred thousand of them being killed. Probus passed the Rhine, and returned back with considerable tribute of corn, cattle, and horses. Sixteen thousand Germanic recruits were dispersed among the Roman units. Other captive or fugitive barbarians gained a new status, that of part-time peasant-soldiers (limitanei). Emperor transported a considerable body of Vandals into Cambridgeshire, great number of Franks and Gepidae were settled on the banks of the Danube and the Rhine, Bastarnae – in Thrace. Pontic (The Black Sea) coast was reserved for some more Franks.[4] But which one exactly? This is to be discussed. According to Ed. Gibbon, Franks settled at the sea-coast of Pontus had to check the Alani inroads. A fleet stationed in one of the harbors of the Euxine fell into their hands, and they resolved, through unknown seas, to explore their way from the mouth of Phasis (River Rioni in the West Georgia, Ancient Colchis/Lazica – T. D.) to that of the Rhine. They easily escaped through the Bosphorus and the Hellespont, and cruising along the Mediterranean, indulged their appetite for revenge and plunder by frequent descents on the shores of Asia, Greece and Africa. City of Syracuse was sacked by the Barbarians. Franks proceeded to the columns of Hercules, coasted round Spain and Gaul, and steering their course through the British channel, at length finished their voyage by landing in safety on the Batavian or Frisian shores.[5] What is this whole story based on? Zosimus and one panegyric to Constantius Chlorus contributed to it. Narrating about the events in the past, in the times of divine Probus, author of this panegyric mentions undeserved success of the small Frankish band, who, sailing from Pontus on the captured fleet, ravished Greece and Asia, damaged Africa, stormed Syracuse, and passing through the columns of the Hercules, reached the ocean (‘Recursabat quippe in animos illa sub diuo Probo paucorum ex Francis captiuorum incredibilis audacia et indigna felicitas, qui a Ponto usque correptis nauibus Graeciam Asiamque populati nec impune plerisque Libyae litoribus appulsi ipsas postremo naualibus quondam uictoriis nobiles ceperant Syracusas et immenso itinere peruecti oceanum, qua terras irrumpit, intrauerant atque ita euentu temeritatis ostenderant nihil esse clausum piraticae desperationi, quo nauigiis pateret accessus’).[6] Zosimus tells us about the Franks having applied to the Emperor, and having a country given to them. A part of them afterwards revolted, and having collected a great number of ships, disturbed all Greece; from whence they proceeded into Sicily, to Syracuse, which they attacked, and killed many people there. At length they arrived in Africa, whence though they were repulsed by a body of men from Carthage, yet they returned home without any great loss.[7] There is no mention of mouth of the river of Phasis as a spring-board for the expedition in the sources. Then, what was in Gibbon’s mind? Perhaps, logics, excluding the possibilities. Indeed, the Northern Black Sea coast is beyond the Roman rule. The Western shores, and the Balkans are already packed with the Barbarians. Southern littoral had been less used for receptio. While Lazica and Pontic Limes can not be argued. And something strange had happened to this limes in the 3rd century. Now threat comes not from the front, the Romans have Lazi client king dwelling there, but – from behind, because of the Goths living at the Northern shores. We can only guess that the Franks were in Lazica as limitanei. But we really know nothing about how they were coordinating with the full-time units, their number before and after the revolt, what was the life like for those who stayed loyal. Still, it seems quite reasonable that the bargain of receptio-system should had been distributed among all Roman provinces to keep the centre undisturbed from the Barbaric influx. In the 3rd century Empire is able to do this, not after.

SETTLEMENT CHANGE ACROSS MEDIEVAL EUROPE OLD PARADIGMS AND NEW VISTAS, 2019

With the arrival of the Lombards in the Italian peninsula (AD 568), the region between Lazio and Campania, geographically characterised by the presence of the Garigliano and Volturno River Valleys flowing into the Tyrrhenian Sea, starts to be configured as a ‘borderland’. Indeed, more than a real frontier, this wide area, located between the Roman towns of Aquinum and Capua, would play the role of a buffer zone between the Lombard Duchies of Spoleto and Benevento and the Duchy of Rome, namely part of the Byzantine Exarchate of Ravenna, practically ruled by the popes of Rome. A revision of former studies and a new season of research are bringing to light a composite reality, where conversion of economic activities, transformations of settlement patterns, acculturation phenomena, alteration of the social and ethnical assets, and changes in the communication networks occurred in towns and countryside. This paper presents this new data and discusses the changes, focusing on the period between the infiltration and the settling of the Lombards (during the last 30 years of the 6th century AD) and the arrival of the Carolingians (at the start of the 9th century).

This study focuses on the period of rapid change that attended the end of Roman political power in Gaul after 476, centering around the Franks who filled that vacuum. The ways in which power was obtained and maintained over the Roman population and other Germanic tribes will be observed primarily through the reign of Clovis I (481-511 CE) as it laid the foundations built upon by later Merovingian rulers. This paper will examine the factors most commonly attributed by modern historians for Frankish political gains, such as the inheritance of Roman institutions and the Catholic compatibility of Franks and Gallo-Romans. It will also show that there were further elements that possibly played an integral part in Frankish domination such as a high degree of Romanization prior to conquest, a positive disposition of Romans toward Franks, inherited military prowess, the continued control over homelands, and natural geographic advantages. It will be revealed that these elements possibly played a larger part in Frankish expansion than history usually gives credence.

In contemporary Roman historiography and archaeology the process of Romanisation is studied from two opposite viewpoints. Post-processualists and structuralists usually define Romanisation as a construct of Mommsen’s school of thought, whereas traditionalists believe that the process of Romanisation is one of the evident cultural and political processes that marked the Roman civilisation. For traditionalists it represents a process of cultural transformation that helped indigenous communities to integrate into the Roman Empire. Perhaps the best solution to this problem was offered by Curchin who believes that instead of giving up on the term Romanisation it’s better to deconstruct this term and revise it as a useful descriptor of an important cultural process in the Roman world. The inland of the Roman province of Dalmatia can serve as an exact example of the methodological analysis of the aforementioned historiographical problem. Although the 1st century in Dalmatia was marked by construction undertakings of Publius Cornelius Dolabella, the basic parameters of Romanisation in the inland can be observed not until under the Flavian dynasty. This is the period of first municipia in the inland: municipium Bist(uensium), municipium Malvesiatum, municipium Raetinum, municipium Arupium, municipium Doclea. We observe that local, pre-Roman aristocracy continues to reign in these municipia as part of the Roman administrative machinery. Therefore, even with Roman citizenship, indigenous elite did not renounce their pre-Roman identity. This can be inferred from epigraphic monuments of decuriones from the abovementioned municipia who, although being granted Roman citizenship, retained onomastic elements of Western Balkans (Illyrian) origin within their nomenclature (Bato, Blodus, Tatta, Epicadus, Laedio , Aplius and Annia). Local aristocracy evidently played a key role in spreading the Roman political power, because it took over the role of military prefects under the Julio-Claudian dynasty.

The study of the urban history and topography of the Italian quarters in Frankish Tyre is presented through detailed analysis of medieval texts, charters and inventories. The thirteenth-century report and inventory by the Venetian official Marsilio Zorzi is given particular attention due to its elaborated descriptions of several parts of the city. This is the first attempt to map Frankish Tyre and study its commercial quarters. The reconstruction of each quarter is followed by a discussion of the role played by the commune in the Frankish city and its contribution to it. It is demonstrated that the Venetian, Genoese and Pisan communes contributed significantly to the urban design of the city, incorporating the existing markets, bakeries and bath-houses, adding others and supplementing them with new churches and loggias.

Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in …, 2007

2019

lio Lo Cascio Preface Edward Bispham Boundaries in Strabo’s Italy: Space, Time and Difference Elvira Migliario Ethnic Affiliations and Political and Cultural Boundaries between the River Po and the Alps Federico Santangelo Roman Senate and Civic Territories Franco Luciani On the Margins of Civic Territories in Roman Italy: Defining, Shifting and Locating Boundaries Marco Maiuro Between City and Fisc: Caesaris n(ostri) on an Italian Boundary Stone Davide Faoro Beyond the Borders of Tridentum: A Textual Interpretation of Claudius’ Edict in the Tabula Clesiana Alberto Dalla Rosa Imperial Properties and Civic Territories: Between Economic Interests and Internal Diplomacy Carolina Cortés-Bárcena Demarcation and Visibility of Civic Boundaries in the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire Giovannella Cresci Marrone Afterword: About Boundaries Bibliography

This paper aims at studying the Imperial ideology in the Early Middle Ages, through the perception and attraction of the romanitas in the Italo-Greek eyes. As it is well known, during the 9th and 10 th centuries, Southern Italy was the main field where the two Christian Empires coexisted because of the great importance this region had for both of them : the Carolingian, then Ottonian Emperors considered the Southern Italy as a part of their domination, and a place to be defended against the Islamic threat, while the Byzantine Empire saw in Southern Italy a strategic place to be kept firmly under the Emperor’s power (and also to be defended against the Islamic threat…). The renovatio imperii Romanorum induced by the Ottonian emperors, above all Otto III, increased a proximity between two political institutions that wanted to embody the romanitas ; this proximity is perceptible through the hesitations and ambiguities of the Italo-Greek literature, such as the hagiographical texts, on the definition of what and who is Roman. Our analysis will then give us the opportunity to precise the links between romanitas and Empire in the Italo-Greek context, and to explain why, on the one hand, Otto III searched the proximity of Italo-Greek monks; and why, on the other hand, the city of Rome and the Latin sovereigns seem sometimes more attractive for the Italo-Greek monastic élites, than Constantinople itself.