Genobaud (3rd century)

Genobaud
The Franks of the 3rd century are located between the Rhine and the Weser upstream to about Mainz. The word Franks does not appear; instead, the previous Germanic tribal names are shown. Outside of this region only the alliance names are shown: the Saxons, the Longobards, the Allemanns. Genobaud was first war leader and then client-king over the entire Frankish alliance. Borders of the Roman provinces are not shown, but the capital of Gaul, Trier, is shown.
Born	Unknown
Died	No later than 306, the execution date of the treasonous kings of the Franks by Constantine.
Allegiance	Franks first, then Roman Empire
Service / branch	Possibly a member of the Bructeri.
Years of service	Unknown
Position	Dux, or "Commander," of the Franks
Known for	Proactive surrender to the Emperor Maximian in 289

Genobaud, also called Gennobaudes or Genebaud, dated to the second half of the 3rd century, was the first Frankish war-leader on record. The Franks at the time were an alliance of Germanic-speaking tribes living on the north, or right, bank of the lower and middle Rhine as far north as the Weser, the border with the Saxons.

There is a terminus ante quem on his life. In 306 the Franks, breaking a treaty with the Romans, which had been granted to Gennobaud earlier, left Frankia to cross the Rhine and assault Batavia and the Gallic lands south of there. Frankia was ruled by the client kings of Rome, of which Gennobaud had been the first.

The emperor, Constantine, returned from Britain to defeat them. The kings were sentenced to death as they had broken their loyalty oath to the Romans. They were exposed to wild animals in the arena of Trier. If Gennobaud was still alive, he must have gone to his death in the arena. The chiefs, in one theory based on Panegyric VII, came from the Bructeri. If Gennobaud was alive then, he probably also came from the Bructeri.

Names

The times in which the 3rd-century Genobaud lived are more important for understanding the early history of the Franks. They appear suddenly in history without precedent. It is universally agreed that the people were well-known to the Romans under previous names. These were tribes of the lower Rhine.

The Franks lived in a period when tribes were uniting into new ethnic groups with new self-styled names, such as Saxons ("axe-men"), Langobards ("long-beards"), and Allemans ("all the men"). There is some evidence that the ethnic Frank was understood to mean "bold" or "fierce."

Each of these alliances were governed by a war-leader, which the Romans called a dux ("Duke"). There must originally have been a Germanic equivalent, not known now. It might, however, be included in Genobaud's name. Josef Van Loon provides a credible partial etymology for Genobaud as follows. Most of the anthroponyms surviving from the Frankish Period, or Early Middle Ages, of northern France and the Lowlands, are compounds of two elements, which Van Loon calls two-stem. The stem idea means that each element can vary on a stem. The elements are Germanic.

Only the aristocracy, or leading families, bear these names, whether because the convention is reserved for princes, or because the sources write only of princes. In the full Middle Ages and later, the names become transmuted into the ordinary names used by moderns. The semantics of the names are known no longer. Hludo-vechus develops from a prince named warrior-of-fame to an ordinary person named Louis or Lewis, known to his friends and family as Lou or Lew. To know the meaning of Louis, one must consult a naming dictionary.

In these names, one element is generally attributive, and the other is the subject of the attribution, regardless of what form the element might take. The order does not matter. For example, chlodo-ricus or Hlodo-ricus is "famous king," but so also is Richi-mer. Hloth-here, Anglo-Saxon "famous warrior" is synonymous with Mero-vech of the Merovingians. This system was not confined to the Franks; in fact, instances can be found from all the Germanics.

Van Loon, the linguist, focuses on the -baud element by collecting -baud names in a single group: Bainobaudes, Balchobaudes, Gennobaudes, Hariobaudes, Mallobaudes, Merobaudes. These are all "the names of Franks who held high offices in the Roman army." In addition a Frank called simply Baudo "was consul in the year 385." Deducing a probable meaning of commander for the baud-element he proposes a proto-Germanic original of *baudiz, an ablaut variation of the root of Dutch gebieder, "commander." The source of geno- remains uncertain.

See also: Name of the Franks

Historic identity

Main article: Franks

Sources

The sources for this early Frankish leader are mainly confined to a single collection of 12 orations termed the Panegyrici Latini. They are not in any special order, but have been arranged as collected. Each was delivered to a high official of the Roman Empire on some special occasion. The chronologies have been more or less deciphered by scholarship. Each oration praises the deeds of subject, often stating events that are dateable. As the orator was unlikely to lie to his emperor or other superior officer, the Panegyrics are given the credibility of a record, whereas histories of individuals written in private from other sources are more liable to personal judgement.

These Panegyrici are not the only panegyrics written through and around this period. Panegyric was recognized as the name of a specific type of oration familiar in the art or oratory and taught in the schools. These Panegyrici Latini are a specific collection of panegyrics that developed probably in library manuscript contexts.

The first Clovis

The last Louis, Louis XVI

Mention of the early Franks in some of the Panegyrici provides only fragmentary information about them. The later career of the Franks is well-documented by such writers as Gregory of Tours in The History of the Franks. Gregory, however, under "The Early Rulers of the Franks (Book II)," working from books available to him then, but lost now, begins with the invasion of Roman Germany by Franks under the 4th-century Genobaud with the assistance of Marcomer and Sunno. The last of the early war leaders and first independent king of the Franks was Clovis I, or Hlodowig, the original "(C)Louis." Book III goes on from his death. There were many more Clovises and then beginning with Charlemagne's son, Louises, as a single Europe became united into the Frankish empire.

Two panegyrics establish the identity of the 3rd-century Genobaud as Frankish: number X delivered in 289, and number XI delivered in 291. They have the same author, and some of the manuscripts identify him as Claudius Mamertinus, but the presence of another Claudius Mamertinus as author of a panegyric 75 years later makes this possibility less likely. Instead the author is usually listed as anonymous. X and XI are the order of presentation in the volume; overall they are the 2nd and 3rd composed. Mention of X in XI establishes a real-time sequence: X, XI. It is continued by VIII, VII, VI, which give valuable reflections on the early Franks, though they do not menton Genobaud.

X tells the basic story of Gennobaud, portraying him as a barbarian king doing the best he can to reach a settlement for his constituents in a difficult historical situation. The relationship between the Germanic-speaking people and the Romans had been troubled since its inception, when joint expeditions of Celts and Germans invaded northern Italy in the Roman Republic.

The Franks and the Roman army

Just before the Roman civil war that created the Roman Empire, Julius Caesar undertook to solve the problem by conquering Gaul. Succeeding, he found that they were being seduced to rebellion by Germanic tribes who crossed the Rhine and attempted to establish states there. He was prevented from a permanent solution by his assassination at the start of the civil war. When it was finally done and Augustus reigned as the first emperor, the Romans fortified the south bank of the Rhine, and established two buffer states of Germanic speakers, Lower Germany, located about where the Netherlands are at the mouths of the Rhine, and Upper Germany upstream. Writers now began to refer to the northerners as barbarians rather than Germans, which is what they are called in the Panegyrici.

The reign of the Roman army

In the middle of the 3rd century the military seized control of the government. They began by assassinating Severus Alexander, emperor 222-235. Considered incompetent by the soldiery, he relied on the advice of his mother, for which he was disrespected. In 234 the barbarians crossed the Rhine-Danube frontier. Hastening to the border, he cultivated an expectation among the men of shortly solving the barbarian problem. His mother, however, urged him to buy them off instead. In a rage, the soldiers killed both him and his mother.

The subsequent 50 years are known as the Crisis of the Third Century. The Senate and the various factions of the army supported approximately 26 emperors, only to have them voted down by murder after a short reign. Formerly the emperors had been aristocrats of senatorial rank, from central Italy, if not Rome itself. These officered the army temporarily on the way up the cursus honorum, or ladder of success. Now they had no wish to be honored with assassination. The only candidates interested were professional soldiers from the provinces, of lower or middle class backgrounds, such as the sons of freedmen or artisans. The economy declined, as the government was unable to perform public business. The empire divided into three states: the Gallic Empire, the Palmyrene Empire, and what was left of the Roman Empire.

The method of trial and error sooner or later turned up some capable emperors, such as Aurelian. These were men of modest means who rose through the ranks for their ability and popularity. Aurelian served as top commander for five years, 270-275, during which time he defeated the splinter states, re-united and restored the empire, with the implication of removing the barbarians from it. He was a ruler of strict discipline, not hesitant to make the hard decisions, such as the execution of his own nephew.

First known mention of the Franks

Aurelian, probably accurate.

It is from his early career that the first historical notice of the Franks comes. The source is not the Panegyrics. There is another, more detailed, which is not considered as reliable: the Historia Augusta. In one of its chapters, The Divine Aurelian, by Flavius Vopiscus, Aurelian was tribune (commander) of the VIth Legion at Mainz when the Franks crossed the Rhine into Gaul yet again and began to devastate it. Aurelian went against them in 238 and won, killing 700 and capturing 300, whom they sold into slavery with garlands on their heads. In 241 a popular song was modified to fit the Persian campaign, saying that thousands of Franks and Sarmatians had been killed, and now the unit was going after thousands of Persians. The passages are the more credible because the author claims to be quoting Aurelian's letters, one of which details regulations for the men. He gives a list of European peoples defeated (in addition to Middle Easterners): Goths, Alans, Roxolani, Sarmatians, Franks, Suebians, Vandals and Germans. Rather than being a duplication, the word German may mean a citizen or Upper or Lower Germany.

Franks on the Black Sea

Decius

In 251 the emperor Decius received information that the Bosphorus region was being plundered by barbarians, in the words of one of the most reliable historians of the period, Zonarus. Decius (r. 249-251) hastened to the scene and engaged the barbarians. He lost and was killed.

What happened exactly is highly controversial. There are two points of controversy, whether the barbarians were Scytho-Goths or Franks, and whether Decius was betrayed by one of his generals, Gallus, collaborating with the barbarians, in a plot to murder by enemy. One need not fall back on some sort of view that such a plot would be overly suspicious, as murder and betrayal were the order of the day in this imperial crisis. The Scytho-Goth theory (see Decius) fingers the Goths as the barbarians and claims that Gallus was never there. This view is the one taken by the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. If it is true, then the historians can claim this barbarian inroad as the first invasion of the Goths.

For the theory of the Franks, Banchich and Lane cite two Byzantine historians, John Malalas and the unknown author of Chronicon Paschale ("Easter Chronicle"), who both assert that Decius and his son departed for "a war against the Franks" in which they were fatal casualties. On the other hand Dexippus as reported by Syncellus and Zosimus refers to the "Scythians, those called Goths."

Location of the Goths 249-251 in the Goth theory. The Roman Empire is colored buff.

The location is right for the Goths, but not necessarily wrong for the Franks. In order to get there the Franks would have had to traverse the entire northern frontier, through the territories of the Allemans, the Marcomans, and many others from whom permission would have been required. These were not weak states. Alternatively one might suppose that somehow an otherwise unknown pocket of Franks lived on the Black Sea. It is not necessary, however, to presume the presence of Franks and Goths were mutually incompatible. There could have been an alliance, in which case the Franks had permission, and both were present.

As to the loyalty of Gallus, he figures in two different main versions of the story of the death of Decius. A view of his guilt is presented by Zonaras. Gallus was a prefect under Decius, going with him to apprehend the barbarians (no mention of which), who were plundering the Bosphorus region. He impounded them. They made him an offer to return the loot if he would set them free. There is no mention of any bribe.

Denied, they were being guarded by Gallus. The latter advised them to escape (again, no mention of a bribe) so as to draw the emperor after them, and to form a line of battle across a hill above a wetlands of quaking mud. In the resulting Battle of Abritus Decius, a son of his, and the attacking Roman army were mired in the mud and perished. Roman artifacts in the area confirm the presence of at least 3 legions.

Gallus

Gallus, the new emperor, took the deal provided the barbarians paid an annual tribute (or maybe it was the other way around) and agreed not to cross the border again. In the Gothic version of the story, the Goths were collecting an unpaid tribute by the Romans. In the alternative stories Decius was defeated fair and square while Gallus was not present. Why the barbarians should make a deal with a defeated enemy is not clear, unless they owed and were threatened by Gallus.

The identity of a character named Volusianus is not clear, even though one Volusianus ended up emperor shortly. Perhaps he was Decius' son, or Gallus' son, or Gallus, or none of the above. Some find the prospect of a son of Decius co-ruling with his father's betrayer an unlikely scenario. Different moderns present different versions, none of which succeed in reconciling all the evidence. A conundrum such as this means all the facts are not represented. In any case there were more episodes of civil war and contention over the imperium until 253, when the victor Aemilianus, who had ruled for 3 months, was defeated and slain by Valerian (see below).

Rise of the so-called Palmyrene Empire

Main article: Palmyrene empire

Splinter empires of 271.

The Franks next appear in the reign of Gallienus (r. 253-268), 15 years, one of the longest-lasting of the crisis period. Officially from 253 to 260 he ruled as junior emperor under his father, Valerian, Gallienus in the west, Valerian in the east. Both of these emperors were before the reign of Aurelian, which at first glance would seem to make this reference the first to mention the Franks. Aurelian was there, however, encountering the Franks as a subordinate officer, earlier than his reign as emperor.

After that earliest encounter, according to Zonaras, Gallienus "warred against the Franks." Apparently he did so on his own, without Valerian. It is possible to distinguish further within the 15-year reign when this war with the Franks might have occurred.

In 260 his father had the rare distinction of being taken prisoner by the Persians, never to be free again. Officially Gallienus became sole emperor, although not all of his general officers had accepted that. Unofficially, Gallienus was alone from the moment Valerian departed for the east, which could have been as early as 253.

Taking advantage of the separation of the two emperors, the barbarians entered the Empire. Zonaras says that some 300,000 Alamanni penetrated as far as Milan, and the "Scytho-Gothic" Heruli invaded Thrace, as well as the Franks, who must have crossed the Rhine. To this account Eutropius adds the loss of Dacia, the devastation of Greece, Macedonia, Pontus, Asia by the Goths, and the depopulation of Pannonia by the Sarmatians and Quadi. Gallienus had but 10,000 men (two legions).

Valerian

Valerian was captured with most of his men at the Battle of Edessa. The Great King, Shapur I, possessed a new secret weapon, unimagined by the Romans: the armored horse. The new heavy cavalry, anticipating the knights of the Middle Ages, were called in Latin catafractarii, "breakers," no doubt from their use against the line of battle. They were also called more informally the Clibanarii, most likely "camp-oven-bearers" sardonically. These were named from the chain mail or scale mail armor they wore, the first of their kind, perhaps innovated by the Iranians. The heavy-armed line of battle would be pierced by new heavy-armed cavalry. Valerian did not stand a chance, which must be why he surrendered so easily. Roman soldiers did not surrender; they came home with their shields or on them.

Shapur used the Romans for various construction projects, such as the bridge and dam, Band-e Kaisar, named after Valerian. He motivated the emperor by promising to release him on completion of the work, but the release never came. Valerian is said to have undergone physical abuse from Shapur. The truth of these stories is difficult to assess, especially since some of the historians were Christian. Valerian and his son were among the last to persecute the Christians, and so his fate seemed to them to be the retribution of God.

After Valerian was gone, Gallienus stopped the practice of persecuting Christians, but by then it was too late. He was considered a person of bad character, to whom all the ordinary attributes of bad character were attached. Eutropius said of him and his father: "The reign of these princes was injurious, and almost fatal, to the Roman name, either through ill-fortune, or want of energy." The deficit of activity applies to Gallienus, who in the opinion of Eutropius evidenced "disgraceful inactivity and carelessness." Apparently these prejudiced historians, without much military knowledge anyway, chose not to be cognizant of the fact that, faced with hundreds of thousands of enemies, Gallienus had exactly two legions to employ. His use of them to counter one threat after another on the run is now considered nothing less than brilliant.

Surviving example of a Roman tavern.

Aurelius Victor said: "During these events Gallienus himself frequented taverns and eating-houses, kept up his friendships with pimps and drunkards and abandoned himself to his wife, Salonina, and to his shameful love-affair with the daughter of Attalus, a king of the Germans, whose name was Pipa." His Gallienus is out-of-character and his behavior is not just wrong, but is incompatible with the circumstances. Taverns and eating places usually were founded by retired legionaries. They serviced the men of the road stations and camps. Commanding officers under any circumstances did not hang out with the soldiers in the barrooms, a principle expressed today by the officers' club. This commander had no time to hang out anywhere. Victor would suggest that he deserted his legions in the field while he debauched in the taverns, a ridiculous concept, and one which, if true, would have led to his arrest and execution on sight.

Gallienus

A note of the Loeb Edition of The Historia Augusta says: "The modern point of view ... represents Gallienus as an active and able ruler." The note recommends Zosimus and Zonaras as the more objective sources. Zosimus is the more detailed. His accounts differ quite a bit from Aurelius Victor and the various accounts of the Historia Augusta, which are persistently vituperative beyond all possibility. The editors of the Historia supply quite a bit of correction.

According to Zosimus, although Valerian and Gallienus were both Augusti, Valerian was still commander-in-chief. He had raised Gallienus to Augustus, and left him in unequivocal command with specific orders to use the two legions in Europe for defense against invasion, while he took another 4 legions to Persia. He did not rule long in Europe. The first barbarian threats to Gallienus were in the window 254-258, so by then Valerian was gone.

The Germans began the debacle by harassing the Gauls on the northern frontier. The location of Gallienus is nowhere stated, but leaving a contingent to serve as a reserve in case Italy, Illyricum, or Greece were attacked, he led a contingent north to the Rhine. As they took up station at various fording places, Gallienus perceived that he lacked enough men to cover them all. He made a mutual defense alliance with "one of the German princes," not further identified in Zosimus, but probably the same as mentioned by Aurelius Victor, Attalus, chief of the Marcomanni of Bohemia.

The Roman frontier, 3rd century, with the peoples bordering it.

The Marcomanni, however, were outflanked on the east by peoples further down the Danube: the Borani, Gothi, Carpi, and Urugundi, none but the Goths being Germanic. They pillaged Italy and illyricum from one end to the other, inviting the Scythians to join them. This restlessness of Iranian-speaking peoples of the steppe under the tutelage of the Goths was seen by the Romans as barbarian invasions into the Roman Empire of the 3rd century. Some hypothesize that the ultimate cause was the expansion of Turkic peoples in the Far East, but the Germanics were unfamiliar with these.

Together the Scythians and other barbarians took Greece and crossed into Asia Minor. The Goths under the name Heruli made multiple incursions into Greece, 260-270, the worst being in 267 and 268. In 267 they destroyed Athens, rendering it from an urban capital of a country to a rural settlement set among desolate ruins being constantly mined for stone for private buildings.

In 268 the Heruli crossed into Asia. The next lowest layer of Roman commanders, the prefects, seeing that neither emperor was of any help; indeed, needed help, being ambitious themselves declared an independent state with the assistance of the local powers, called by the historians the Palmyrene Empire, with capital at Palmyra, Syria. They pushed out the Iranians.

Rise of the so-called Gallic Empire

Main article: Gallic empire

A large part of the 3rd century crises of the Roman Empire was the voluntary detachment of the city of Rome from imperial operations. The emperors were no longer ethnically Roman. The Senate did not see any reason why it should allocate resources to an army only marginally its own. Whosoever's will the army was implementing, it was not necessarily theirs. As a result the army was perpetually short of official manpower, forcing the provinces back on their own resources.

Meanwhile the previous officers of the empire had inculcated among the provincials an expectation of central support, of which Gaul is a key example. The Gauls (and Britons) had given up their own languages and tribal expectations. As Rome began to fail them, they looked to trying to continue imperial care on their own, hence the splinter state, always claiming to be the true Roman administration.

The Roman historians, especially those of the Historia Augusta (Volume III, Loeb Edition), present to their descendants an official view of the splinter states, that they were caused by the greed and ambition of individuals, whom they called the "The Thirty Pretenders" (Tyranni Triginta), and presented as tyrants. The number 30 is imaginary, devised to be like the 30 tyrants of Athens, but the editors using other sources distinguish 9.

This view of the pretenders is probably least true in Gaul, where the Gauls themselves suborned the Roman troops there and pressured the Roman commander, Postumus, to take a splinter command he did not want. They forced mutiny upon him, so to speak, in much the same way Roman troops often forced a unit commander into being emperor (until they decided opposite and murdered him). A good commander thus became a Roman literary tyrant.

Eventually the impending loss of the empire became apparent even to the Senate of Rome. As the Scythians approached Rome there was no imperial force at hand. In a panic, the Senate held a conscription of all able-bodied men, raising an army large enough to take on the Scythians. Many were veterans. When the Scythians heard of the conscription they veered away from Rome, contenting themselves with the countryside. To add to the general trouble an outbreak of plague decimated both sides. The Scythians departed Italy, this time. Meanwhile Gallienus was hastening to the conflict with such troops as he had. He intended to go against the Sarmatians, another name for the Scythians. He had handed over the defense of the Rhine to his commander of the Gallic auxiliaries, Postumus.

Postumus was in fact a Batavian, which at that time was considered Gallic. He had accepted the position of Governor of Gaul with a letter of recommendation from Valerian, who characterized him as a skillful administrator and decent man. As Valerian was then abroad, the time of appointment must have been after 253. As an officer under Gallienus he had conducted campaigns against the Germans, but the work does not say which ones. Mainly the Franks, however, were north of Gaul. The events that followed Postumus' appointment are mainly told in two chapters of the Historia Augustus, "The Two Gallieni" and "The Thirty Pretenders."

It is said that Gallienus placed his young son, Salonicus, with Postumus in the fort at Cologne for education and grooming in case he should be needed for emperor. In 258 the troops of Pannonia (Hungary) and Moesia seeing that the emperor was going to place himself in harm's way, became disquieted over the thought that, if the emperor fell, he would be replaced by a child. The troops mutinied and declared their commander, Ingenuus, emperor. This was not a totally unconstitutional move. First of all, emperors were voted in by the army, and second, multiple emperors were allowed. In this type of system it was only a matter of time before army units disagreed and imperial candidates went to war with each other.

Gallienus disapproved the splinter. He moved against Ingenuus. The Historia says that his attack was savage, involving massacres of the males and implied sale of the women and children into slavery. Losing, Ingenuus drowned himself. (It is said. The typical method of soldiers was to fall on the sword.) There was an additional complication. The moment the emperor departed, Postumus sieged the castle and demanded the tradition of the boy and his guardian, and when he got them, he murdered them and declared himself emperor. The source suggests his motivation was ambition.

According to Note 7 of the Triginta, it didn't happen in that way. Salonicus was reported alive in 260 by another source. It seems that Gallienus' older son, Valerius, who was also at Cologne, was slain in 258. The murder was committed by an agent of the Gauls, Postumus unwilling. Once the deed was done, he was faced with two choices: accept the position or join the long trail of the murdered. Of course he accepted. Having just dealt with a Pannonian would-be spinter group, Gallienus returned poste-haste and went after Postumus, who ran, chased by the devil, so to speak. At an unspecified city Postumus hid behind the walls. In the siege Gallienus received an arrow wound in the back and left the pursuit.

Gallienus had left troops in Milan under his cavalry commander, Aureolus, whom he now ordered to proceed against Postumus. Instead Aureolus mutinied and declared himself emperor also. Gallienus left the Scythian pursuit to his officers and turned back to Milan, but he never made it. He was murdered by his own men, alone, unarmed, and calling for his weapons. The imperium Galliarum lasted from 261 to 273 under various pretenders when it succumbed to Aurelian's unification.

There is some evidence from during and before the Postumus affair of preferential treatment of the Franks by the Gauls, perhaps an inherited remnant of an old comradeship between the two. The Historia Augusta says "Great , indeed, was the love felt for Postumus ... because he had thrust back all the German tribes ...." This time must have been after his appointment by Valerian, and yet the Gauls did not feel the Frankish threat was so great to warrant Gallienus' removal from command. Faced with a Sarmatian threat, "they chose as their emperor one who by his valour could bring a remedy to the exhausted state ...."

The Historia Augusta relates that among his auxiliaries were units of Celts and Franks. Some were no doubt in the army earlier, but how early is not known.

In 269 Postumus also received the army's stamp of disapproval, but by this time another military genius was conspiring to pick up the pieces.

The Frankish Mediterranean adventure

Aurelian fell victim to a plot hatched by his corrupt secretary, who fearing discovery forged a document purporting to list members of the Praetorian Guard slated for denouncement and execution, and they murdered him. The doomed Aurelian was followed by another capable but doomed emperor of the crisis, Probus, who ruled for six years, 276-282, before his assassination. He is remembered by the author of Panegyric VIII, who is anonymous now, lauding Constantius Chlorus (father of Constantine) for his recapture of Britain after it had been lost to another splinter state. In VIII, the Franks splash across an entire section.

Surprisingly this author has mainly good to say of a Frankish adventure, comparing the emperor to the Franks in boldness. His summary is along the lines of "fortune favors the brave." A "small force of captive Franks" is being held at the mouth of the Danube, where they are penned in by the extensive marshes of the natural terrain. Exhibiting incredibilis audacia et indigna felicitas, "incredible boldness and disproportionate luck" they disappear into the marshes and at the edge of the Black Sea manage to steal a fleet of small boats.

Necessarily exiting the Black Sea via the Bosphorus, they raided the coasts of Asia Minor and Greece, then Libya, finally capturing Syracuse. The tale asks the reader to believe that a small contingent of Franks slipped by some large cities, such as Byzantium, capturing the largest, Syracuse. Presumably the element of surprise exercised with boldness accounted for their unusual luck. They were not long in the Mediterranean but voyaged into the Ocean and disappeared, no longer of interest.

They behaved in this regard like mercenaries trapped in a foreign country breaking loose and escaping to their own country again, which implies the Franks lived on the Ocean and not on the Danube. The passage does not reveal their employers, but the Romans admired them for the exploit. Perhaps they were Roman mercenaries after all fighting to restore Roman rule to the Balkans. There is another source on the event. According to Zosimus the Franks had applied for admission to the empire and were assigned lands at the mouth of the Danube, which they were obliged to occupy. Some left there illegally to make the long voyage "home" (oikade). The passage does not say where home was.

The homeland of the Franks

The 3rd century crisis came to an end, finally, the last doomed emperor being Carinus (r. 283-285). He had ruled with his brother, Numerian (r. 283-284). After 50 years of succession by murder the army had developed a distaste for it. Carus (r. 282-283) succeeded Probus in 282 totally unwillingly. He had been informed by the Senate that he was now emperor, while Probus was being killed by his own men. Carus held a public court martial, swore to the men he had no hand in the emperor's death, and tried and executed the assassins.

Carus had wanted Constantius Chlorus as emperor, but he had no choice but to accept, and departed for the Persian Wars with his son Numerian leaving the west to Carinus. He had made them both co-emperors. In the east the will of the gods made itself apparent, it was believed, killing Carus with a lightening bolt. Numerian retreated. On the way back Numerian was discovered dead in his coach of unknown causes, his death being reported by the Praetorian Prefect, Arrius Aper. An inquest was held by all the officers. Aper was standing for emperor, but he fooled no one. The inquest appointed Diocletian as emperor instead. His first task was to deal with Carinus, who, it was said, abandoned the army for a life of profligacy at Rome. He was murdered there by his enemies.

A sculpted head of Diocletian. Only a few such survive. From their similarity it can be deduced that they are life-like.

Diocletian, a professional soldier of humble origin, had the insight to see what was wrong with the army and to correct it. It having become clear that one emperor could not manage the huge empire, the Senate had created co-emperors, one for the east and one for the west, as well as two imperial ranks, the senior the Augustus and the junior the Caesar. Diocletian expanded the partnership into a tetrarchy of four emperors, a team of two each for the east and west. Each member was given 1/4 of the empire to rule. In theory one team contained one Augustus and one Caesar, but it depended on the circumstances.

Diocletian also divided the military from the civilian administration. He divided the 50 or so provinces into 100 new provinces. The senate was removed from the succession process. From then on the tetrarchy managed itself more or less independently, picking its own successors. It did not last forever, of course, being replaced later by Constantine, the first Christian emperor. The ideology had changed, and with it the manners.

The tetrarchy was not fully in place until 293. Between 284 and 293 Diocletian had his hands full trying to stop the disintegration of the empire. When Probus had been murdered, the population had lost all confidence in the government. A peasant revolt began, who were called the Bagaudae (Gallic for "fighters." Not to be confused with the Bagaudae revolt of the 4th century.) By 284 it was clear they would have to be suppressed. In his capacity as Augustus, Diocletian elevated Maximian to Caesar and assigned the rebellion to him. He suppressed the revolt by 286 and was ready for new honors. It is at this point that the events described in Panegyric X begin.

Head of Maximian, probably life-like.

Maximian as Caesar superseded the other officers in Gaul, notably Carausius, commander of Roman Belgium. The commander himself was Belgian, a country, probably Celtic in origin, a sister population to the Gauls. Some writers refer to them as Gallic. Speakers of Gallic and speakers of Belgic could understand one another. Events subsequent to the suppression of the Bagaudae suggest that some animosity still existed between Romans and Belgians, and that a certain cameraderie existed among the Celts, or at least that is what Maximian feared and concluded.

Maximian promoted Carausius to admiral, gave him a fleet, and commanded him to suppress the piracy of the Saxons and Franks in the English Channel. The Saxons are known to have inhabited the shores of north Germany. If the location of the Franks followed suit they ought to have lived on the shore of the North Sea from the Rhine to the borders of the Saxons.

Much of this was already Lower Germany, probably not then Frankish. The barbarian names of the Panegyric are mainly the confederacy names: Franks, Saxons, Alamanns, rather than the Germanic tribal names related by Caesar and the historians of a former day. Alamanni means in fact "all the men," where Mannus, the mythological primal German, as everyone who has read Tacitus knows, was the son of Tuisto, the German god (etymology uncertain, but possibly related to Deutsch/Dutch, where the Dutch occupy the original Frankish lands.)

Unpleasant surprises

Carausius' kingdom, shown in red. He made claim to a separate kingdom, but declared himself an emperor and his kingdom a part of the Roman Empire. Gesoriacum in the picture is Boulogne.

A coin of Carausius regent

Carausius apparently was a corrupt coastguardman right from the beginning of his appointment. The high command began to receive reports that he was delaying law enforcement until the robbery or kidnapping was complete. Then he would confiscate the booty, or at least presumably his share. Suspicious, Maximian set a trap for him. He ordered him return the money and free the victims or turn them over to imperial authorities. When the order was ignored Maximian assumed the worst, a collaboration of Carausius with the pirates, and sentenced him to death in absentia.

He was probably not wrong as Carausius hearing of the order created another splinter empire of Britain, Belgium, Lower Germany, and barbarian mercenaries from beyond the Rhine, including, no doubt Franks and Saxons. His first reaction, however, on hearing of the sentence, was to move the fleet and his headquarters to Britain. He was certain of British loyalty, nor is there any evidence of resistance there. Public opinion was for him, as the British resented the forced return of the previous splinter empire to the main empire. The date of this move is 286 or 287. Subsequently Carausius began building ships, apparently expecting to have to repel an invasion from continental Roman forces.

His hearing of the order in lieu of being arrested on the spot demonstrates the willingness of the administration and troops under his command to support insurrection. Mutiny among the troops was common in the Roman Empire. Discipline was severe, including, for example, the death penaly for not wearing your sword. Roman troops did not disobey, but they did mutiny from time to time. A successful emperor or imperial officer was able to talk them down, address their complaints, and offer a deal in which only the ring-leaders would be executed, but the others pay no penalty.

In the midst of ship-building Carausius received notification of support by a to us mysterious legion (unspecified by the sources) that had mutinied and was now willing to join the insurrection. Carausius returned to Boulogne and set up a perimeter. As there would be no point in the author singling out one legion from the many in Britain that had mutined, the editors conclude it was a continental legion. The best bet is Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix stationed at Xanten on the lower Rhine. It had supported the Gallic Empire only to be decimated and brought back to duty by Aurelian.

This huge base, seat of a river command and home of the Classis Germanica, a fleet of river vessels, not unlike future viking vessels with wide beam and shallow draft, controlled the lower Rhine under the jurisdiction of Lower Germany. There could be no perimeter around Boulogne without the assent of this base, but there is coin evidence of two more legions originally assigned to Carausius and of no particular note if located in Britain: Legio II Augusta and Legio XX Valeria Victrix. They were perhaps in Lower Germany and Belgium north of the Ardennes. Ordinarily these troops were intended to keep the Franks north of the Rhine, but after the insurrection the Franks were their friends and allies. Taking advantage, the Franks were soon south of the Rhine occupying the country of the Scheldt (see below) between Boulogne and what is now The Hague. These specific Franks were the Frisians and the Chamavi, called out as such by the sources. Descendants of both peoples are still in the Netherlands.

Apparently there was a rush to join Carausius, as populations remembered the Gallic Empire. He acquired ("stole" in the sources) "some divisions of foreign troops," believed by the editors to have been the Germanic auxiliaries along the northern frontier. A supply administration was formed from merchants in Gaul, which had the form of a levy, but the merchants were willing. Individual recruits were solicited by the promise of booty.

Maximian had no idea all this was happening. In late 285 or summer of 286 "all the barbarian peoples" launched a coordinated attack on Gaul across the Rhine. They struck communities progressively southward, plundering, kidnapping, and burning. Panegyric X.5 states that these were the Burgundians, the Alemanni, the Chaibones, and the Eruli. That there may have been more is not excluded by the language, but these certainly are not all the alliances or peoples in Germany, nor were they all the tribes on the frontier. The Franks do not appear there at all. Very likely they were not part of this attack. They were, however, under the command of Carausius.

The two panegyrics do not explicitly say that they acted by command of Carausius. If they did not, one might assume an uncoordinated common cause attack taking advantage of a new weakness. However, if Carausius did not have enough power to manage them, he is probably unikely to have been able to manage a revolt. Nixon and Rodgers support the managed revolt based on Carausius' piratical operations with the Franks and Saxons. Maximian later called Carausius a pirate.

The term "all the barbarians" is somewhat confusing, as the Franks and the other alliances of Germany seem to be included; however, they are not mentioned. The author may be extrapolating from "all the men;" i.e., he really means to say Allemanni. In that case Carausius would have given the order to the auxiliaries on the east to go specifically for the capital city, Trier, and destroy it, killing Maximian if they could; that is, the blow makes better sense as a pre-emptive first strike. As for the Franks, they were opposite Belgium, Carausius' home country, which he would not have wanted to destroy, and anyway he was using them to man his fleets. There is evidence later in the panegyric that Constantius' counter-strike aimed for the Alemanni, and that later the Franks surrendered rather than do battle with Constantius, suggesting that they had not yet had to do so. Carausius held them in reserve, but they refused that role by surrendering.

Scale model of Roman Trier. The ancient city still has the layout of a Roman castra, with headquarters in the central plaza, and legionary quarters in rectangular blocks formed between criss-crossing streets, the whole being surrounded by a wall pierced by gates. There is pleny of room for many thousands of soldiers, and easy access to the gates from anywhere.

By coincidence, or by the Roman view of destiny, the timing of the Germanic attack could not have been worse. Shortly (same day or near it) they reached the targeted provincial capital of Trier. It so happened that Diocletian had planned to honor Maximian on that day, promoting him to Augustus and swearing him in as one of the two consuls the Senate still elected yearly. In the permanent fort of a capital city with both emperors present there must have been many legions of men present, one legion being about 5000 men. Some of these would have been drawn up as cohorts on parade in the central plaza, witnessing the proceedings before the headquarters building. No sooner had Maximian sworn the oath of allegiance than a commotion arose near the gates of Trier and messengers arrived to tell of the barbarian attack.

According to the author, Maximian had no sooner taken the oath obliging him to defend the city when he had to defend it. Dropping the toga praetexta, ceremonial garb of his new duties, he threw on a cuirass and picked up a spear, taking command of two of the cohorts that must have been standing by for the ceremony. Ordinarily a cohort was commanded at the rank of centurion, the commander being called a pilus. The cohorts were numbered in order of precedence in the line of battle. The commander of the first cohort was the primipilus ("first spear"). The pili commanded from horseback on which the preferred weapon was a spear.

Apparently the emperor had no time for formalities. He grabbed a few cohorts, so to speak, and set off double time for the gates. The author points out that he could have taken the whole army, which must therefore have been present at Trier, but preferred the smaller units for their speed. The relief force must, in other words, have been commanded by a mobile headquarters group, presumably including the customary officers with the emperor.

A Roman gate at the city of Trier, now called the Porta Nigra, "black gate," from the blackening of the stone. Its magnitude and complexity, as well as its survivability, mark it as a candidate for the main gate of the city.

The gates of the city flew open and the Germanics saw before them about 1000 veterans charging straight at them in good order, with the emperor before them, whom, however, they did not recognize. Here the text becomes slightly confusing. The emperor runs so fast his men cannot keep up with him, and so it is he who does most of the killing, as he always gets there first. One suspects a fish story. Apparently the emperor had Olympic running capabilities so that he personally killed all the enemy.

A little later he comments disingenuously the emperor was required to transition "from the tribunal to the field of battle, from the curule seat to horseback." Apparently the headquarters unit rode, rather than ran, and no doubt had some cavalry to help them. However, Maximian's desire to be in front rather than behind was in fact unusual. The barbarian line was ragged, as the emperor was able to attack groups piecemeal, which can be explained as a result of surprise.

The first barbarians attacked were the Chaibones and Eruli, who must have been the ones who rashly interrupted Maximian's advancement. The author of X says they were "destroyed by open warfare at one blow," and "were cut to pieces and slaughtered." This butchery phase was accomplished with "only a few cohorts." He went after the others at a more leisurely pace employing "bands of troops to capture them ... in countless battles and victories all over Gaul." He did therefore take prisoners, which he intended to parade in Rome.

He cannot be supposed to have transported these prisoners around with him nor did he intend to butcher them. Panegyric VIII subsequently described the temporary care of Frankish prisoners until their disposition was decided, which may be relevant in Panegyric X. The Franks were leased out for labor to locals who were responsible for quartering them until they were sent home, assigned new land, or sold permanently into slavery.

Victorious, Maximian divided the army into small units of pursuit and sent them after any report of plundering by Germanics. Shocked, the entire mass of barbarians was soon running northwards for their lives. It so happened that it was a drought season and the Rhine was fordable by foot, and so the surviving barbarians were able to cross. The text here is definitely misleading. It is coupled with a statement about Maximian's famous crossing of the Rhine, giving the impression that Maximian followed the barbarians across the Rhine. One might suspect this implied tactic as by then it was well-established that troops must never be caught crossing a river, which the Roman theoreticians well knew from conflicts such as the Battle of the Trebia. In fact subsequent panegyrics (below) show that Maximian did not cross the Rhine in pursuit of the barbarians but turned west to assault Boulogne unsuccessfully. Constantius later made the Rhine crossing in his name, but he did not wade through any water over any pebbles as the Germans were said to have done.

The truth in retrospect

It is at this time that Genobaud appears, once as known within the current events of the year 289 (Panegyric X) and once in retrospect in 291, a rare opportunity for cross-comparison of public events. Not much detail is explicitly stated in speeches so short relative to the wealth of events they have to relate, but more, often omitted in encyclopedic summaries, is implied. The reminiscences of 291 offer some contradictions when compared to the news of 289. The scholars offer plausible accounts for most, but not enough information survives to resolve them definitively.

In 289 the author writes: "Indeed, could there have eventuated a greater one (miracle) than that famous crossing into Germany, by which you first of all emperors proved that there were no limits to the Roman Empire except those of your arms?" Supposedly he met and shook hands with Diocletian, who had just crossed the Rhine at Rhaetia (subalpine).

The Rhaetian crossing and the meeting, however, remain unverified. Regardless of what Diocletian did, there could be no shaking hands if one of the partners was not present, which seems to be the case for Maximian. The author lets slip that Maximian has loyal men bound by "ties of friendship and marriage even those who perform the highest office in your entourage .... Under the leadership of such men ... that pliant and treacherous race of barbarians was crushed as it deserved. This is to your credit, Emperor, yours, for even what is carried out by others originates with you." Reading between the lines, Nixon and Rodgers conclude that the author is saying Maximian did not lead the Romans across the Rhine or do battle with the Germans there. A subordinate commander designated by him did, but the army was still Maximian's.

Constantius

As to who the commander was, the Panegyrics do not say, but Nixon's and Rodgers' top candidate is Carus' old preference for emperor, Constantius Chlorus, whom the Senate bypassed. The army did not bypass him. In 287 Maximian brought him into the family, giving him his daughter, Theodora, as wife, with whom he subsequently had six children. Maximian also adopted Constantius, qualifying him for the imperial office should the occasion arise. Constantius had to divorce his wife, Helena, whose son was Constantine the Great, future Christian Emperor. The imperial families all got along well. The murders so characteristic of previous imperial succession had ceased. Constantius was promoted to Caesar in 293. Meanwhile he may have been Praetorian Prefect.

Receding waves at Dunkirk

The nature of a panegyric is that it must praise everything (pan-) about the recipient, leading to some equivocal passages such as the ones affirming that Maximian did/did not cross the Rhine and was equally wise in doing so (whichever). As to when and under what circumstances the split in command might have occurred X gives further equivocal passages. On the one hand: "It is through ... your felicity, Emperor, that your soldiers have already reached the Ocean in victory, and that already the receding waves have swallowed up the blood of enemies slain upon that shore." Apparently the counterattack striking directly west has pushed Carausius into the receding waves on the beaches of Normandy or at Dunkirk. But no, wait: "In what frame of mind is that pirate now, when he can see your armies on the point of penetrating the channel ...." By the time of the celebratory oration they were still "on the point." Carausius still holds the channel and it is part of the Ocean. How much territory on the mainland Carausius still held if any is an unsettled question: Maximian never did drive him from it and the rebels were there claiming membership in the empire along with Maximian and Diocletian until Maximian was relieved of duty by Diocletian in 293 and Constantius took Boulogne-sur-Mer.

After noting that Carausius on the channel was hypothetically in fear of surrounding Roman forces, Panegyric X drops the subject, revealing nothing about Maximian's decision-making process, as though text had been cut out. The thread jumps suddenly to "the most beautiful fleets," that were "about to reach the Ocean simultaneously via every river." The next few sentences describe the emperor's concern with ship-building over the previous year, which must have been 287-288. If he was managing the building of ships personally, he was not crossing the Rhine and defeating the Germans there. The circumstantial evidence is that Maximian split the command, sending Constantius on ahead, while he stayed to build ships, as though that would be a substitute for defeating Carausius on the channel.

For what purpose these ships were built or hypothetically built (perhaps planned) is not stated in this panegyric, as it ends there. Panegyric XI, however, says "the wars with the pirates were suppressed when the Franks were subdued." The Franks were never subdued either by ship or any other method. The beautiful ships and their simultaneous debouchement from somewhere were just another fish story, a disguise for an unknown truth.

The beauty of the ships is not the objective of their construction and the only river indicated is the Rhine indirectly. "Our river," the Moselle, on which is Trier, is too shallow for ocean-going ships, but can float timbers down to the river commands on the Rhine, which have some facilities for constructing boats. The simultaneous rivers then are undoubtedly the mouths of the Rhine. If Maximian could use them he might bypass Boulogne. The panegyric gives a rosy picture. Everything is balmy in winter thanks to the gods. There is no ice or snow. Floods happen at appropriate times to move vessels over the shallows with the assistance of crews singing chanties wading in the warm Rhine waters. This policy and these methods are expedited by two emperors that agree better than Romulus and Remus (not hard to do, as Romulus murdered Remus).

Archaeological park in Xanten

As irony was not allowed in a panegyric, or criticism of the emperor in any case, the audience was to take the excuses as presented. Their unbelieveability to the editors is "a sure sign of disaster," meaning the truth was too unspeakable to relate. In fact at the end of the year there was no fleet and Carausius held the same ground as previously.

The main difficulty, unspeakable to the emperor by the author, is not hard to find. Xanten, the main ship-building base on a river command, was in the hands of the rebels. Ships could be built at Cologne, but they would still have to get past Xanten. The conventional story is that the ships did get past but were destroyed by an Oceanic storm.

The question of why this storm did not also destroy the Britannic fleet remains unanswered. Perhaps some ships got by Xanten only to run into difficulties in the channel, as the men were novice ship handlers. The soldiers at Xanten were trained in boat-building and handling, but these men were not with Maximian. There is a worse difficulty, which causes the authors and scholarship in general to reject the storm story. It seems the storm was not until two years after the ship-building year. If "beautiful" was an expression of relief at the sudden influx of war machines, it must have been short-lived. Maximian was now behind where he had started, as before there was at least some hope that he might succeed. There was now not much else for him to do except camp in Belgium and wait for the results of Constantius' expedition across the Rhine.

There is an attempt by the author of X to provide an excuse for Maximian's failure. He was not preparing a fleet to crush Carausius and the Franks. It was intended to sail for Britain, leaving aside that Carausius controlled the channel. The race of Franks had already been "crushed as it deserved." But, if that were so, there would have been no need for Genobaud to surrender and no need for Constantius to drive Carausius off the continent in 293. However, Maximian was not in a position during the speech of 291 to make any honest denials not in his favor.

The rise of Constantius

Map of ancient Mainz showing the Rhine Bridge of the times.

The rise of Constantius and the details concerning the fates of the Germanics opposed by him are given in Panegyric VIII, the Panegyric of Constantius, the fourth of the set. It was delivered at Trier to Constantius in 297 by an aging former administrator in his regime, in celebration of his recapture of Britain, 296. It presents detail of his command from the time he parted from Maximian in Belgium. He did not attempt to cross the Rhine into the Frankish homeland. Instead he proceeded eastward to the Rhine Bridge, undoubtedly at Mainz, and crossed into the country of the Alamanni. From there he went up the Rhine and down the Danube to Guntia (Günzburg) devastating the country of the Alamanni the whole distance.

Eastwards of the Alamanni Constantius encountered and defeated Germanics of East Germany: the Juthungi of Bavaria, the Quadi of Slovakia and Moravia, the Carpi of Romania, and to the north of the Black Sea the Goths. Further east he encountered the Sarmatians, who were Iranian-speakers of the steppes. He couldn't have gotten very far into their territory, which stretched to China, as they were the last of the Indo-Europeans on their original range. He did come within view of the Persian Empire. The Great King paid him not to have to go to war with him, at which time he returned to take care of unfinished business on the west; that is, Carausius and the Franks, this time from the north side of the frontier.

The three Panegyrics, X, XI, and VIII, which are in chronologial order, and VI, up to the time of Constantine, often cover the same historical events, but sometimes not in any easily discernable order, as the authors face the difficult task of what and what not to say at their time of delivery. The general flow is the return of Constantius from the borders of Persia after accepting the Great King's money not to attack, the collaboration of Maximian and Constantius to threaten the Franks, the surrender of the Franks to avoid combat, the replacement of Maximian as commander in the field by Constantius, the assauilt on and capture of Bononia (Boulogne), the escape of Carausius to Britain, the removal of the Franks south of the Rhine, the building of a new fleet, the murder of Carausius by his best friend, and finally the recapture of Britain. These events are represented by scattered scenes in the Panegyrics, but which scene goes with which event is often a matter long debate, described in the footnotes.

One might begin with the recovery by Gennoboudes of his dukedom as a gift from Maximian. He did not then possess it or there would be no point in giving it to him. He must previously have had it, but it passed into Roman hands. Genobaud is portrayed as coming into the imperial presence "with all his people" seeking, it is presumed by the author, client-king status, which was given by the Romans to repentant Germanic states, and was given to Genobaud now. All the people cannot have meant all the Franks. The author must have meant his chiefs, whom Genobaud ordered to watch the emperor, and learn submission, as he, Genobaud, was now his subordinate. This submission most likely refers to a ritual to be practiced on coming into the presence of an emperor, of casting oneself prone before him. An emperor was, after all a god.

The Romans could easily have added Germany to the empire, but Maximian knew his limits. Augustus had excluded that course of action and the policy was respected since then. If Germany was not to be annexed or depopulated he had to become merciful. He fell back on the standard policy of creating puppet kings. If a regime begged for mercy and was willing to return all plunder and slaves, and to swear allegiance to the Roman People and Senate, Maximian would either return their lands or find new lands for them. Usually the applicant pleaded his cause before the Senate, receiving either provisional clemency or execution, but at this stage the emperors were functioning independently, so battlefield clemency was common. The other main option was to escape to Britain.

More information is given of Genobaud in XI, where the author states a chronological list of events he is going to pass over. One of these is the "trophies of victories over the Germans erected in the middle of the barbarians' territory," which can only refer to Constantius' successful expedition over the Rhine in 288, conducted while Maximian was building the ill-fated ships. No one else got to the middle of the Germans.

The Panegyric then states: "I ignore even those things which were done by the fear of your arms as if accomplished by arms: the Franks coming with their king to seek peace ...." This passage confirms that Genobaud was the king of the Franks, according to the Roman idea of king. This is not the same visitation during which Genobaud regained a new monarchy. He would not be seeking peace unless he were at war or feared that war might shortly begin. Since he had been allied with Carausius since the piracy conspiracy, he must have been at war, even though he had probably not participated in the attack on Trier. He must have been an instrument in blockading or destroying Maximian's new fleet on the Rhine. This war began in 286 or 287 when the siege of Bononia began. As Maximian lost it, the Franks had nothing to fear in 288.

The only different circumstance was the arrival of the victorious Constantius, who had taken out all the other Germanics. But for Carausius the Franks now stood alone. To come now seeking peace was to surrender, and to do that independently as part of an alliance was to change sides. As to why he decided to do so now, there is a dark dimension.The Roman army subsequently ridiculed the bold Franks as being not so bold, but the deal must have been mutually advantageous to both parties, as both eagerly embraced it.

The date of the deal was 289. At that time the forces of Constantius must have been at the Rhine Bridge, as they had not encroached on Frankish territory. The forces of Maximian were probably on the other side of the bridge and along the Rhine. At some point he must have gotten through the Ardennes. One might have expected some sort of foray down the Frankish side of the Rhine to attack the now uncovered northern perimeter of Boulogne, and a new fleet to cut it off from the channel, as happened later under Constantius. For now there was nothing and Constantius disappeared. The latter vanishment is not so surprising as Constantius was not then an emperor, but only a subordinate officer temporarily in charge of an expedition. As the two armies were now together his independent command must have terminated.

The date of the treaty with the Franks was 289. The reunited Roman army lingered for a year, probably returning to Trier. Maximian did nothing, but his mandate was to defeat Carausius. The reasons are unknown, perhaps the status of the rebel legions, perhaps the terms of the deal with the Franks. Carausius was maintaining his legitimacy as a Roman emperor, although there is no evidence of any assent by the existing two. Diocletian was no longer at Trier. He waited in his own palace in Milan, now the acting capital of the empire.

The pacific political climate was broken abrupty in the dead of winter, 290. Apparently Diocletian took some actions that were so unspeakable to panegyrists and therefore to the ordinary people that nothing now remains except the fairy tale of Panegyric XI. It seems that in December Diocletian and Maximian were overcome with such a divinely inspired longing for each other's company that Maximian immediately went on the Alpine trails for Milan, while Diocletian awaited him there passionately. The gods were so much in favor that they dispensed a spring-like climate over the Alps and made the journey like a picnic. Maximian was received by crowds of cheering Milanians lining the snow-empty streets. The two emperors had no other reason for meeting than that they missed each other.

No one could have believed this tale but the protocols concerning emperors were strict. The two emperors were both equally Augusti and any inference that one could order the other around might merit the death penalty. Furthermore, emperors did not do wrong and could not be criticised either directly or by implication. These customs did not leave much to say but convenient humanistic fictions. Furthermore, not even the emperors could object without getting into admission of guilt.

The author gives the audience a small break in incredulity with another disingenuous confession. Maximian moved so fast he outran the messengers and served as his own messenger. There were, then, messengers. Diocletian sent them to fetch Maximian, who responded appropriately. The incident might be reconstructed as follows. Diocletian was in charge; otherwise, Maximian would be sending for him. He was not happy with Maximian. He dragged him out of his comfortable camp and insisted he cross the mountain glaciers in the worst weather without even a delay until better weather. Maximian arrived post-haste in early 291. There is not one word of Constantius, yet it is likely that he came with Maximian. He was there in 293, when Diocletian gave him Maximian's former rank and assignment, insisting that he move on the rebels right now and retake Britain. There are no known armies in which replacement of a rank and position by a subordinate for failure to take an objective is not a failure of the former commander.

The Franks at the end of the 3rd century

The Third Century ended with the pacification of the Franks, the submission of the Germanic tribes of the northern frontier, and the reclamation of the empire from the Iranians. These events were masterminded by the indomitable Diocletian, a true Roman in the ancient sense, though born and raised in the Balkans. The army called him into service as emperor to cure the evils that were plaguing the empire, which he did. He and his close friend and confidant, Maximian, then retired to the Balkans, from which they undertook a crusade against Christianity, Diocletian taking the more moderate stand of excluding them from government instead of killing them all outright. Unbeknownst to them, a small lad, Constantine, the young son of Constantius, was watching these proceedings and drawing his own conclusions, in which his mother, a Christian, was influential.

Diocletian utilized the four years prior to 293 to do his planning and consolidating in Milan, gathering his top officers around him. In 293 he was ready. He and Maximian set off to the east, down the Danube, reconquering the frontier, and pushing the Sarmatians out of the eastern provinces. He had to let Dacia go. He took Constantius out from under Maximian, promoting him to Caesar, and turned him loose on the rebels of the west. Heading directly to Boulogne Constantius penned in "the forces of that band of pirates" with a perimeter around the perimeter, and cut off its harbor from the ocean with a mole of stone and pilings.

As the panegyrist of VIII says, the ocean became not an escape route but a prison. North of the perimeter, where the Franks had settled, Constantius considered the encirclement exposed to Frankish treachery. He therefore sent for the support of Maximian, who returned from wherever he was, Milan or Pannonia, via an unknown shortcut, and occupied the left bank of the Rhine. Once again the two were working together on amicable and effective terms, this time with Constantius in command. The age of murder was definitely over, although it would raise its head again under Constantine with the mutiny of Maximian's son, Maxentius. The two fought it out over the Milvian Bridge, Constantine winning in Christ's name, while Maxentius' head was carried savagely around the streets of Rome.

Background

The literary sources give evidence that the mighty empire of the Franks that united all continental Europe, saving for Britain and Scandinavia, under the aegis of the Holy Roman Empire, derived ultimately from an aggressive population between the Rhine and Weser Rivers united under a single duke and calling itself the Franks. For their first appearance on the stage of history in the Third Century they escape destruction by surrendering to the Roman Empire with which they subsequently cast their lot. When the western branch of that empire fell finally, they were in a position to assume its language, its symbols and customs, most of its power and authority; in short, to take it over.

The sources, however, do not cover the arrival of the Franks on the historical scene in the Third Century; but such a gap is not as complete as it might be. In the first century the Frankish homeland was populated by a number of Germanic tribes mentioned in sources of those times. The historian's first move and obvious choice is to connect those tribes with the Franks. Since that could not be done with written or inscribed sources, they turned to another method, archaeology. If the archaeologist could discover cultural elements common in that area to both centuries, and show that there were no cultural breaks between, then he could argue that the Franks descended from the tribes.

The main archaeologist in this case was Rafael Von Uslar, who concentrated on pottery over southern Germany and the Netherlands and published his findings in a massive work.

Sources

• Davenport, Caillan (2016). "Fashioning a Soldier Emperor: Maximian, Pannonia, and the Panegyrics of 289 and 291". Phoenix. 70 (3–4): 381–400.
• Howorth, Henry H. (1884). "The Ethnology of Germany.-Part VI. The Varini, Varangians, and Franks.-Section II". The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 13. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland: 213–237.
• James, Edward (1991). The Franks. The Peoples of Europe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
• Magie, David (1998). The Scriptores Historiae Augustae. Loeb Classical Library L263. Vol. III (1932 ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674992903.
• Nixon, C.E.V.; Rodgers, Barbara Saylor (1994). In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-08326-1
• Van Loon, Jozef (2016). "Lanaken en de vroegste geschiedenis van Franken en Merovingen". Verslagen & Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal en Letteren (in Dutch). 126 (1–2).
• Victor, Sextus Aurelius (1994). Liber De Caesaribus (PDF). Translated Texts for Historians Volume 17. Translated by Bird, H.W. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
• Zonaras (2009). Banchich, Thomas M. (ed.). The History of Zonaras from Alexander Severus to the Death of Theodosius the Great (PDF). Routledge Classical Translations. London; New York: Routledge.

External links

Media related to Genobaud (3rd century) at Wikimedia Commons