Book Notes: Barbarians Within the Gates of Roman: A Study of Roman Military Policy and the Barbarians, 375-425 AD (by Thomas S. Burns)

 

This is another book I read because it was recommended (or the author was recommended) in the bibliography presented in Guy Hasall's Worlds of Arthur.  

Burns examines in considerable depth and detail Roman military policy after the defeat at Adrianople in 378 CE.  As with Goffart, there is considerable discussion of the nature of the Empire's frontier, and this is the first work where I began to really think of the "invading barbarian armies" as more like refugees seeking to enter the Empire, wherein while the short-term intent of crossing the frontier and "invading" might be simply to scoop up undefended food stores, the long term hope was probably to be "settled" into the Empire either by being absorbed into the military (a choice assignment - army forts and camps are still supplied regular grain from Egypt and Africa) or the accommodation process described by Goffart.

In the post-Adrianople context, Burns shows how quickly the Empire was able to contain the Gothic army despite the destruction of a large Roman empire and death of the Emperor Valentinian.  The surviving emperor Valens and then Theodosius resolved the Gothic crisis by accommodation means. Burns then moves on to the situation thereafter, where "armies" of Goths have been brought into the Empire and are part of its military apparatus, but in a very secondary status as auxiliaries. There is an examination of the internal threat powerful Roman generals have come to assume in the empire - Stilicho, named guardian of Emperor Honorius by the dying Theodosius, leans heavily into recruitment of "barbarian" troops from the frontier zone. 

The Goth Alaric, dismissed from Roman auxiliary service, essentially becomes an outlaw general and an army of similar barbarian discontents rally around him. The Empire fails to confront this army, both because multiple competing internal usurper and rebel generals, and because Alaric's army is a useful counter to these threats.  Alaric jockeys for a "true" generalship and incorporation of his troops into the official Roman military system (and its regular meals), sacking Rome and creating a puppet usurper Emperor of his own. The Emperor Honorius freezes grain shipments from Africa to Italy and starves Rome and its occupier.  The Western Empire remains in flux with multiple usurpers and outlaw generals in competition and cooperation.  Finally, the Goth general Wallia and his people/army is settled in Aquitaine in 418 by the Emperor Constantius, to act as a buffer against the Vandals in Spain and as a reserve force in Gaul.  Most notably, however, for the first time ever, the Emperor acknowledge Wallia as King of the Goths inside the Empire.

Burns' point is that the process from Adrianople to Wallia was still process and one where Roman leadership was making the choices, so that "as long as Roman generals possessed forces to balance the barbarian auxiliaries, they called the tune."  That balancing involved the use of other barbarian auxiliaries, alliances with usurpers, or the arrival of eastern Imperial troops.  However, as seen in Goffart, the skeletal structure of the early medieval/feudal period has been put in place - where once there were Roman provinces, there are now "kingdoms" which will ultimately outlive the Empire of which they are supposed to be a piece of.

Book Notes: Barbarians and Romans: A.D. 418-584: The Techniques of Accommodation (by Walter Goffart)

I read this book because it was recommended in the bibliography presented in Guy Hasall's Worlds of Arthur.  

Goffart had studied Late Roman and Early Medieval tax law and the basic query of this book is that despite the "fall" of the Western Empire and its division into the "barbarian" kingdoms of the Lombards, Visigoths, Franks etc., a clear continuity in taxation runs through this transition, and the Roman origins remain evident and in place. 

Goffart almost exhaustively breaks down the idea of massive, multiple waves of coordinated and organized invasions of "Germanic" peoples overrunning and carving up the Western Empire.  Rather, these invasions are uncoordinated and quite separate from each other. Many of these people had previously existed, often for a long time, adjacent to the Empire on its frontier - they interacted with and knew who Romans were and, perhaps more importantly, what life in the Empire had to offer.  Due to pressures from other tribes or other factors, occasionally "large enough to matter" masses of barbarians would successfully cross the (fortified) frontier penetrate into the mainly civilian lands beyond. Maybe there would be some fighting, but in many occasions the Empire deemed it easier to take in the invaders as military auxiliaries.  

To this Goffart is focused on the process of how the empire legalistically handled this "accommodation."  The answer was to basically assign a portion of a given landowner's tax liability to a given barbarian or barbarians.  Because that tax income would usually be used for defense of the empire, and because the accommodated barbarians provide military service, one can see how this somewhat cleverly does very little to upset the status quo for the Empire.  Tax liability is not increased but the same level of defense is still provided.  One can see how early medieval feudal structures might grow out of this.

I do not recommend this book for casual reading. Goffart is very much doing the academic historian's labor of assembling and presenting his probative evidence.  The first, second, sixth (discussion of the granting of hospitalitas) , and final chapters are probably most instructive, with the middle five focusing on specific case studies for 5th century Italy, the Visigoths, the Burgundians, and the Lombards, respectively. 

The granting of hospitalitas in chapter 6 and indeed the whole book is at the heart of the "accommodation."  Older Roman military law required hospitalitas in a billeting of troops sense.  Goffart argues that earlier historians have mistaken the granting of hospitalitas to barbarians as either the outright reallocation of land from Roman owners to new barbarian owners, or the creation of a sort of early feudal lord-serf relationship. This interpretation of course fits very neatly into a "conquering invaders" narrative.  Goffart's more nuanced view is that above tax reallocation in exchange for service, which is considerably less dramatic, and, more importantly, does much to keep the source of authority with the Empire (the tax allocation is given in exchange for service - the implication is that it can be taken away), albeit over time these tax allotments will devolve and reconsolidate into the early medieval states.

Book Notes: Worlds of Arthur: Facts & Fictions of the Dark Ages (by Guy Halsall)

Halsall's prose is very easy to read and this book seems aimed slightly more at the general public than the academic market. There are no footnotes or citations, and some of the drier probative text required in most academic books where the author has to show their work is mostly absent. In the latter instance there is little need to show probative work, because Halsall isn't really doing original research here - this is more a bibliographic overview and critique of the historical basis for a historical King Arthur.

Worlds of Arthur starts with an overview of how written and archeological sources have previously been strung together to create what is understood as the historical Arthur. Wargamers who have dabbled in Arthurian (or Subroman or Romano-British or Late Roman - choose your label) wargaming will no doubt be familiar with this version of Arthur.  

Halsall then moves to a closer examination of those same sources. The written sources are rather quickly exposed as suspect, either because (1) the "sources" almost immediate start having problems with being written years after the events they describe, even centuries, (2) the author's intent is sometimes contrary to recording things factual, and (3) Arthurian-believers have basically cherry-picked the best supporting evidence and ignore what doesn't fit.

Now, many "Arthurian" wargame rulesets will actually state that a historical Arthur did not likely exist, but what's more problematic is the manner in which the imagined historical setting of a "historical Arthur" is doubtful.  This is the stuff of the ignored "pleas of the Britons" and the building of forts along the "Saxon Shore" that builds up an image of a Roman Britain in crisis falling before a invasion/migration of Saxons, Angles, and Jutes. This storyline is is the prerequisite for a Briton warlord, like Arthur, to fight at Mount Badon.

Halsall notes the D-Day inferences of images like this. 

Accordingly, the balance of the book is an assessment of the historical setting of 5th and 6th century Britain and northern Europe.  Was there a massive violent invasion of entire peoples into Britain? No, not really. Were professional Roman troops drained out of Britain to Gaul (and beyond) in the service of usurper generals-turned-emperors? Yes.  Were these drained garrisons re-manned with "barbarian" troops (refugees, really, to use a modern context) who would gladly take the stability of regular meals and shelter in a government-supplied fort?  Certainly seems so. 

There is also a somewhat deep dive into what it means to find "grave goods" in a "Saxon" grave.  What does it really mean that some graves have swords and jewelry etc. in them and others do not? The older, traditional interpretation is that graves with treasure are pagan Saxons/Angles/Jutes, and the graves without are Christian Romano-Britons.  Halsall, convincingly, I think, breaks down this interpretation based on grave locations and dating. What made more of an impression on me was the idea that grave goods represent a society/locality that is unstable/destabilized.  In a stable community, leadership will be stable, because life is good.  When a community is in crisis and unstable, leadership and status will also be unstable, because the community will question its leadership.  Accordingly, in a community in crisis, when a community leader dies, his or her heirs will include grave goods as a way of showing and asserting through display of symbols of wealth and power that leadership should continue in them.  This may not seem like a particularly earth-shattering conclusion, but the idea of unstable or destabilized communities needing to make conspicuous displays of power has really stuck with me and I've found it a useful way to look to at early and pre-modern history outside of late roman Britain.

The ending sections of the book work to frame "Arthurian" Britain in the wider context of the Western Empire at the time (usurper emperors and the steady influx of "barbarian" troops, for example).  This fits more with Halsall's specialty which is the Western Empire.

If I taught a 'Intro to History' class, I would probably assign this book, mainly for the excellent analysis of the written sources, and secondly for the analysis of archeological sources.  Halsall's analysis of the written material is the practice of history at work: not only a critical reading of the source as a whole (no cherry picking) but also contextualizing the writer and their aims as much as possible.  The archeological material was illuminating because I am not familiar with how archeology can support or undermine written sources.  In the context of the late Roman period, where written sources are few and usually incomplete, archeological evidence can be critical determining veracity of written sources.

Finally, there is an excellent bibliography, from which I chose several books which I purchase and read.  Because they (mostly) deal with the same specific subject matter, I sometimes have trouble remembering which book said what, and hence the reason for these notes.

This book is easily found for sale online and at low cost. Recommended.

Alan Horse Archers

I purchased these 20 Alan Horse Archers last August to bolster my Late Roman (i.e. Barbarian West) armies, which seemed to be sorely lacking any horse archer contingents.  The Alans (or Alani) were an Iranian nomadic peoples (the name may refer to an amalgamation of several tribes from that region), who were notably settled by Aetius in the vicinity of Orleans in Gaul in 442 CE.  The Alani fought alongside Aetius against the Huns, and other groups of Alani were also subjects of the Huns, so they will make great additions to a Roman or Barbarian army.

Old Glory Alan Horse Archers.

These use the same two-part casting for the rider as the Bulgars, with the legs and torso as separate pieces that you can then join so that the rider is shooting his bow forward, to the side, or even over his back. However, some of the torsos have too slim of a waist to match up with the legs half. You can disguise this a bit by painting as part of the belt and it is not really noticeable.

These were easy to paint but I am not satisfied with how the brown jackets came out - I was hoping for a sort of leathery-look but instead it blends with the horse and the brown fur trim too much, I think.

Kings of War Historical (in the Barbarian West)

Too much going on non-gaming wise so another solo Kings of War Historical solo game, this time with the Late Romans. 1,250 points per side roughly which worked out to four heavy infantry regiments, three archer troops, two cavalry troops, and a regiment of cataphracts for the Romans, up against six regiments of warriors, three archer troops, and three cavalry troops for their Germanic opponents (mostly Goths with some Frankish allies).

I used my terrain cards random draw system to set up the table and a random deployment table to deploy the armies.  The result was that the Romans ended up in a single line but behind the woods.  The Goths were deployed in two divisions.  The Romans accordingly split into two divisions and used the woods to anchor a flank for each division.

End of Turn 1.

Roman archers.

Roman legionnaires.

Kings of War Historical continues to hit a lot of sweet spots for me. Movement/charges are not subject to the whimsy of dice, which puts the onus on the player to make the right move at the right time. Combat is not too swingy. Shooting is not overly effective. The 'Heavy Warrior' Roman legionaries held their ground against lighter 'Warrior' Gothic infantry. A six turn limit to the game with victory points awarded for moving your units across the table disposes with tendency to 'turtle up' or to wait for other side to make a mistake. The moral bonus of Generals is small but not insignificant.

Roman right gets into line.

End of Turn 2.

Things I am less sure about include whether Kings of War Historical can support multiplayer games (with two or even three players sharing a side), and also what would happen if terrain and especially deployment were not randomized. Especially with deployment, I think competitive thinking by players would result in some more gamey, less realistic battles.

Goth left looking towards Roman line.

Scattered state of affairs on opposite flank.

Goth cavalry has routed a troop of Roman archers but taken some casualties from ranged attacks.

Things getting heated on right Roman flank. Gothic cavalry taking casualties from Roman cavaly and cataphracts.... 

...while Roman legions push through Gothic archer screens.

Infantry finally getting in range of eachother on Roman left.

Roman cataphracts (by Old Glory miniatures).

Roman legions (finally) clashing with Gothic warriors.

For this game the basic arc was that the Roman right, which included its big regiment of cataphracts, was easily able to cross the table middle point and push back the Goths, while on the opposite flank, while the Goths were able to cross the middle point (but not push back the Romans), the point total of the handful of warrior units was not greater than the entirety of the Roman right.  So, a Roman victory, which was clearly how the game was flowing anyways.

Late Roman Battle with the Ancient Portable Wargame

I'm preparing for a map-based Italian Wars campaign to be remotely played with Jamie, using the French-Spanish "War for Naples" in southern Italy in 1501-1503 as the setting.  We wanted to look at the map and push counters around on it to make sure it would work reasonably well, and if we were going to be a video call, we may as well have a game, too, so I set up a Late Roman game using various bits and pieces of my battle generators.

Barbarians. Mostly Goths with a few Franks.

The Barbarians were the attackers and ended up deployed with all infantry in center, and their only cavalry unit on their right.  The Roman infantry was mostly deployed in center, but with a cavalry and infantry unit on each extreme flank as well.  Because the barbarians were lower on total Strength Points, they were upgraded with two additional light infantry archer units, which could be deployed further forward than the rest of the army.

The Roman left. The numbered papers give grid references for the remote player.

My first instinct was to class both the legions and the barbarians as simple heavy infantry but with a 2-grid ranged attack (javelins and other short distance weapons), with the legions perhaps elite instead of average.  Then I figured the legionaries suggested in the Developing the Portable Wargame ancients rules were fine as is (5 SP with ranged attack, but average).  I was less sure of the "Barbarian Tribesmen" stat line in DtPW, which seemed more appropriate for linebreaking Gauls or ancient Germans ambushing out of a forest, but then I figured the 3 SP, 3 movement, and +1 to attack if moving at least two squares in the charge move additions could also abstract a group that took courage in a first massed attack and but which could not hold up in an extended combat with a Roman line.  So, Legionaries and Barbarian Tribesmen as suggested in the book it was!  The Chance Cards used in the previous Belle Epoque game, as described at Grid Based Wargaming, were used again.

Roman center.

As you can maybe surmise from the photos, my continued slide towards larger infantry units continues, with the heavy infantry for both sides being increased to six 40mm square stands of three figures each (so 18 figures/unit) rather than the intended four stands (12 figs/unit).   Cavalry has oddly shrunk to five figures per unit, and the light infantry units are just three stands (9 figures/unit).  Jamie had chosen to be the barbarians, so I played the Romans.  

After the Roman cavalry on Roman left has been destroyed.

I pulled my infantry on the flanks in towards the middle, and sent my cavalry on the left forward to disperse the light infantry skirmishers.  Although I drove a unit back several squares, the cavalry lost two out of three SP in the process, and on his turn Jamie was able to destroy that unit. 

The Barbarian infantry prepares for a mass charge.

Because the destroyed cavalry was opposite the lone Gothic cavalry squadron, the barbarians now sent said Gothic cav around the Roman flank, with three full units of light archers getting a lot of 6s on their hit rolls and knocking off an SP here and there on the left flank of the Roman infantry line.

Roman legionaries in line.

Then, a familiar disaster. The Roman general's unit takes a hit and rolls a "6" indicating that he has been slain.  Because he counts as 6 SP lost towards the Romans' exhaustion point, what was a even game at 3 or 4 SP lost per side now suddenly has the Romans on the brink of exhaustion.

Goths slowly advancing into charge range. Last known photograph of Roman leader before he was slain by a Goth arrow or spear.

The Romans were in a decent enough position, with a well formed line, but really at this point the Goths could just hang back and let their longer range archers continue to chip away at the Romans, with no fear of counterattack.

Goths in close combat with legions.

And that is exactly what Jamie did, although he did line up his big infantry charge, it was never necessary as the archers, with the help of a few javelin attacks by the heavy infantry and cavalry, were able to push the Romans past 50% lost SP quite easily.

Corner of the Roman "L", with 4 lost SP markers on it.

After the game, Jamie felt that the Goths ending up with four light infantry archer units was too much for the Romans to handle. I said it was my own fault for not sending both cavalry units out on each flank to harass the skirmishers (I only sent one and when that one failed I held the other back).  My decision to deny the entire left flank to a single Gothic cavalry unit was an over-reaction - I should have kept advancing on his heavy infantry with the entirety of the legionaries). We both agreed that the dead commander counting as 6 SP for calculation of exhaustion was too much. I was willing to keep the notational value of 6 SP but only have the commander slain on double 6s on 2d6 instead of a single 6. I think we have agreed to keep it to the 6 on a 1d6 test, but with a notational value of 1.

End of game or close thereto.  The legionaries on the corner will break with loss of their fifth SP, which combined with earlier loss of the cavalry unit and lost SP up and down the line, will push them past 50% lost. 

As always, the real solution for a better game might be more miniatures - I still want to paint up more Late Romans and play Roman vs. Usurper Roman games (each with Barbarian allies - this seems to be the most common historical occurrence), and I have Alan horse archers to paint up that would add another layer to the troop dynamics.  I'm also eyeing a pack of Byzantine arcubalistarii, which would add some fun visual variation, and could be fielded as "close order archers" for the Romans.  The same Old Glory line also has a mixed skirmisher pack of staff slingers and javelins which could give the Romans some additional unique skirmish units.

Jovinus at Chalons (366)

Next up in the Alamannic Invasion of 366 was the decisive battle between Jovinus and the Alamanni near Chalons in 366 (not to be confused with another battle in same area in 451).  The Romans were outnumbered here, but Jovinus deployed across the valley in such a way to trick the Alamanni into thinking the forces were more evenly matched. The Alamanni eventually realized the deception and advanced.  After a long day of hard fighting, the Romans emerged victorious.  I used the same force compositions from the previous game but added to the Alamanni the three Gothic cavalry units I had just finished painting a few days before.  

Freshly recruited Gothic cavalry supporting the Alamanni.

This pitched 13 Alamanni units against 10 Roman ones. I meant to class all the Roman heavy infantry as Elite (which in The Portable Wargame only increases likelihood that they will have the option of falling back and not losing a SP) but I completely forgot to implement this, although I don't know if it would have made a difference.  I did use the card-draw method of activation suggested The Portable Wargame.  You divide the number of units in each army by two and round up, then take all the cards in one color equal to that number, plus all the cards one higher and one lower, and put them in a stack. So for the Romans, they had 10 units, so their activation deck had two each of red 4, 5, and 6.  The Alamanni (decisively, perhaps) had two each of 6, 7, and 8.  A joker is also in the deck which will reshuffle the deck. I should have bumped all the Roman cards up at least one (so, 5, 6, and 7) to represent Jovinus' good generalship during the campaign (and perhaps one more so as to be even with the Alamanni, to reflect high morale at the end of a successful campaign).

Late Roman heavy infantry and close-order archers.

Starting positions, Romans at bottom. Bits of rock from paver base are used to mark the grid.

As things played out, the Alamanni had 4 of the first 5 activations (6, 6, 8, 7 respectively) and were able to bring a mass of six heavy infantry (in two lines of three) across the table in quick order.  The front line softened up the Romans with short-range missile fire (throwing axes and javelins and such), and the second line then charged through the first line and engaged in melee.

The Alamanni are able to occupy the middle of the field quickly... while the Roman line has only barely advanced from its starting positions...

Romans brace for the charge...

There is a gap in the Roman center, and lost SP markers accumulating along the rest of the Roman line, while almost the entirety of the Alamanni host advances.

The Alamanni attack along the entirety of the Roman lines.

Laying out casualties across the Roman line and creating a gap in the center, the rest of the Alamanni host advanced, including the cavalry.  As the Alamanni infantry attacked, the Roman heavy cavalry attacked the Alamanni's Gothic cavalry. This cavalry battle went back and forth, but in the end the Romans took the worse of it.  The Romans did not fare much better in the infantry fight, and the Romans suddenly found themselves on the brink of their exhaustion point (I like how this moment creeps up on you in The Portable Wargame).

And most of the Roman lines are pushed back.

Roman lines fall back to their starting positions, with exception of some flank units.

After an army hits its exhaustion point, it cannot take offensive actions anymore, nor move towards the enemy.  Anticipating a defensive battle, the Romans attempt to dress their lines by aligning roughly at their original starting positions. 

Romans have hit their exhaustion point. Roman right flank falls back in line with the rest. Roman left flank is attacked by Alamanni foot and cavalry in turn. In the bottom right is extremely beat up Roman cavalry.

The Alamanni, meanwhile, are just shy of their exhaustion point. They have clearly won control of the field. They exchange short range missile fire, move the rest of their foot up the field, and launch a flank attack on an isolated Roman unit stuck out by itself.

Isolated Roman infantry on the left under attack.

Jovinus holding the Roman line.

Cavalry engaged with isolated Roman infantry on the left.

Isolated Roman infantry on the left under attack. I've recently started snipping off dracos, replacing the pole with steel wire and then drilling out and mounting the metal windsock on that. Much more durable and you can get an extra mm or 2 of height on the pole which looks smart.

In the end, the Romans get a round of decent shooting attacks off from one end of the line to the other, and trip the Alamanni over their exhaustion point. The game is now over. 

Endgame. Both sides have reached exhaustion points. 

I was going to award victory points for control of the field, which the Alamanni easily won in terms of having moved their entire army across the half-way point of the field. However, both sides had only lost a single unit, and the Romans still securely held their original positions.  If the fighting had stopped for the day, one could imagine either or both of the armies slipping away under cover of night. Probably a draw then. 

I don't know if I'll use the card draw system again. The higher number of activations possible for the Alamanni, combined with a strong run of draws at the very beginning of the game, gave them a big head start at the beginning of the game - the Alamanni were able to attack in depth (cool to see that actually work, though) and the Romans were on their heels the whole game.

What is clear is that I need some better defined victory conditions or scenario goals for games using The Portable Wargame, which itself only tells you when a game ends (when both sides have reached their Exhaustion Points, which is 1/3rd of their total SP).  Personally I prefer abstracted VP which reward players for being in control of the field strategically, and less so causing more casualties (although I use that metric as well). Flipping through many of my other rulebooks, winning a game is heavily dependent on removal of units, which does not fit well for The Portable Wargame, where unit removal seems to be rare (in two games played, only one unit per side been actually destroyed each time).  

I am still enjoying the abstraction and speed of play with these rules.  And I think most wargamers would agree that its more fun when almost all units tend to stay on the table for the entire game!