The Baptism of Clovis,

Clovis, Towards a New Chronology, Part Five.

   
By Dane R. Pestano ©2015. Hover cursor over reference numbers for reference text.

496. The Baptism of Clovis. 

The baptism of Clovis as a Catholic was one of the most important moments in the history of western Europe. The Franks were pressured on all sides by Arianism and had been contained by the Visigoths who had also supported their barbarian enemies over the Rhine, some of whom were nominally Arian Christian as well. The Byzantine empire though in the east had continued a policy of supporting the Franks since the time of Clovis' father Childeric making Clovis consequently a man of sufficient means to support an army to counter the Visigothic and Gothic threat. It was not in the interests of the eastern empire to have a western empire that was sufficiently strong enough to challenge them. Clovis had made closer ties with the Burgundians by marrying the niece of Gundobad, the Catholic Clotilda. Gundobad had no love for the Goths either having had his eye on Italy himself in the past when he had set up Glycerius as Emperor in 473, and having subsequently devastated Liguria in 490. Although Gundobad was himself Arian the Burgundian people were more likely a Catholic people, like Clotilda, her parents, her sister and the famous Avitus of Vienne were. He had also aligned and allied with the neighbouring Catholic Armoricans. In light of these political manoeuvrings Clovis' choice of Catholicism was the only sensible choice he could make. By doing so he would find acceptance for the Franks as Christian protectors in northern Gaul; he would align with the nominally Catholic Burgundians and Armoricans, and snub the Goths and their Arianism. He would also please the Eastern Empire by continuing anti Gothic policies. By having the support of the Church of Rome and the Pope in Italy, Clovis now had a back door influence there, in direct opposition to Theoderic in Ravenna. It was also to be a momentous choice for the future of Europe, as summarised by Lincoln, Baigent and Leigh:

“The pact between Clovis and the Roman church, in short, was one of momentous consequence to Christendom - not only the Christendom of the time, but also the Christendom of the next millennium. Clovis' baptism was deemed to mark the birth of a new Roman Empire – a Christian empire, based on the Roman church and administered, on a secular level, by the Merovingian bloodline. In other words an indissoluble bond was established between church and state, each pledging allegiance to the other, each binding itself to the other in perpetuity.” ^1a

Indeed, but dating the baptism has been a matter of contention for some time with modern authors seeking to move the baptism to the early sixth century. It was fixed at 496 as Gregory had stated it took place after the battle of Tolbiac, which was, according to him or an interpolator, fifteen years after Clovis began to reign, basing the start of this reign in 481/2. However, as discussed in the introduction Van de Vyver and others soon realised that the battle of Tolbiac took place in around 506. So Clovis' conversion to Christianity could have happened then, (with this battle then conversion scenario) and his baptism was subsequently placed in 507/8,shortly after. However as discussed at the end of part four of this work, the conversion and baptism can be seperated from the Battle of Tolbiac.

Danuta Shanzer had, as early as 1998, proposed that the baptism be dated to 507 in her ground breaking work – Dating the Baptism of Clovis: the bishop of Vienne vs the bishop of Tours. Wood, in concert with Mathisen, in agreeing suggested that the baptism could have taken place as late as 507/8, when a date for the battle of Tolbiac is placed in 506. But the letter of Avitus and of Clovis and the profusion of evidence does not agree with this date. 

Shanzer also suggests a comment made by Theodoric the great shows or hints that he considered Clovis was still a pagan.^1b This is the occasion when Theodoric was asking Boethius to find and send a harp to Clovis, probably in around 506. He used the words “facturus aliquid Orpheus, cum dulci sono gentilium fera corda domuerit,” which is commonly translated as, “he will be another Orpheus, taming the wild hearts of these foreigners [gentilium] with sweet music.”1c There is no hint of paganism here, in the non ecclesiastical context of the letter, the word means foreigners, which the Franks were to the Goths. If anything Theodoric is hinting that the Franks were not as yet fully Romanised and were still intent on war. In fact Gregory had got the date right in his scheme but had manufactured the event of his conversion to make Clovis appear as a new Constantine, converting and baptising after a tough battle. By the time the battle of Tolbiac took place in 506 Clovis had been a Catholic for ten years as we shall now see. 

Clovis, now around twenty-three years of age, decided to be baptised on Christmas Day 496, probably at Reims by Remigius, as suggested by Fredegar and then Hincmar¹. He may have delayed this event since his marriage in 492 for a number of reasons. The first, as Gregory hints, is that he had lost his first son soon after baptism and he was worried that his fellow Franks would not support him if he accepted the faith at this time, but now after several victory's he was more secure of his command. The second reason was the problems of the Acacian schism that was affecting the church at the time. This had begun in 484 and was not solved until 519. When Clovis had possibly chosen Christianity in 492 the schism was tearing the church apart and these are probably part of the perverse doctrines that Avitus described in his letter to Clovis. When Pope Gelasius took power in 492 he tried to heal the schism and it is during his reign that Clovis decided to be baptised. As it was, he became a competens only days before Gelasius died in November 496. The third reason was the allure of Arianism which may still have been on his mind in the years before he was baptised.

But why now, what had changed, what prompted his choice of faith as Avitus puts it? Gregory may have given us a subtle negative clue. He tells us that Clovis' first son Ingomer was baptised a catholic but then soon died. Clovis, after this event, was in no hurry to profess his faith to Clotilda's Catholicism. However, over the next four years Clotilda had successfully given birth to Chlodomer around 494, Childebert in 495 and possibly Clothar by 496 who had all survived baptism and thrived. More than this the Catholic Clotilda had successfully given him three healthy sons! A daughter was to follow in the next couple of years. He had also in the interval expanded his kingdom and driven the Visigoths from the Loire. In his mind therefore, his conversion to Christianity in 492 had not brought him any bad luck and in fact his alliances with Catholics had brought him only good luck and an extended kingdom! We will proceed to the letter of Avitus to Clovis on his baptism shortly, which will confirm this chronology, but let us first read of how Gregory described the baptism :

“He (Clovis) met with his followers, but before he could speak the power of God anticipated him, and all the people cried out together: "O pious king, we reject our mortal gods, and we are ready to follow the immortal God whom Remi preaches.” This was reported to the bishop, who was greatly rejoiced, and bade them get ready the baptismal font. The squares were shaded with tapestried canopies, the churches adorned with white curtains, the baptistery set in order, the aroma of incense spread, candles of fragrant odour burned brightly, and the whole shrine of the baptistery was filled with a divine fragrance: and the Lord gave such grace to those who stood by that they thought they were placed amid the odours of paradise. And the king was the first to ask to be baptised by the bishop. Another Constantine advanced to the baptismal font, to terminate the disease of ancient leprosy and wash away with fresh water the foul spots that had long been borne. And when he entered to be baptised, the saint of God began with ready speech: "Gently bend your neck, Sigamber; worship what you burned; burn what you worshipped...And so the king confessed all-powerful God in the Trinity, and was baptised in the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit, and was anointed with the holy ointment with the sign of the cross of Christ. And of his army more than 3000 were baptised. His sister also, Albofled, was baptised, who not long after passed to the Lord ”

Avitus, the Burgundian bishop of Vienne had written to Clovis in 497 to congratulate him on his recent baptism. The dating of this letter has been much debated and the strange references to the Greek Emperor and a chosen leader have puzzled historians, mainly because without the correct reading of the letter they were placing his baptism in the early sixth century as late as 508, instead of where it belongs in the late fifth century. Wood in concert with Mathisen suggested that the baptism could have taken place as late as 508, when a date for the battle of Tolbiac is placed in 506. But the letter and the profusion of evidence does not agree with this date as we shall find. Shanzer makes the comment that the baptism took place late in Clovis' life, just three years before he died. We should therefore now examine the letter of Avitus to prove the baptism was over ten years earlier in 496. Here is the letter in full :

Bishop Avitus to King Clovis

      The followers of error have in vain, by a cloud of contradictory and untrue opinions, sought to conceal from your extreme subtlety the glory of the Christian name. While we committed these questions to eternity and trusted that the truth of each man's belief would appear at the Future Judgement, the ray of truth had shone forth even among present shadows. Divine Providence has found the arbiter of our age. Your choice is a general sentence. Your Faith is our victory. Many others, in this matter, when their bishops or friends exhort them to adhere to the True Faith, are accustomed to oppose traditions of their race and respect for their ancestral cult; thus they culpably prefer a false shame to their salvation. While they observe futile reverence for their parents (by continuing to share their unbelief) , they confess that they do not know what they should choose to do. After this marvellous deed, guilty shame can no longer shelter behind this excuse.

     Of all your ancient genealogy you have chosen to keep only your own nobility, and you have willed that your race should derive from you all the glories which adorn high birth. Your ancestors have prepared a great destiny for you; you willed to prepare better things (for those who will follow you). You follow your ancestors in reigning in this world; you have opened the way to your descendants to a heavenly realm.

     Let Greece indeed rejoice that she has chosen our Princeps, that she is no longer one who alone deserves the gift of so great an office. Your sphere burns with its own brilliance, and in the person of a king , the light of a rising sun shines over the western lands. It is right that this light began at the Nativity of our Redeemer, so that the waters of rebirth have brought you forth to salvation the very day the world received the the birth of its redemption, the Lord of Heaven. The day celebrated as the Lord's nativity is also yours, in which you have consecrated your soul to God, your life to your contemporaries, your glory to posterity.

     What should be said of the glorious solemnity of your regeneration? If I could not assist in person among the minsters (of the rite) I shared in it's joy. Thanks to God, our land took part in the thanksgiving, for, before your baptism, a messenger of Your Most Subtle Humility informed us that you were “competens” (that is, to be baptised within forty days). Therefore the sacred night (of Christmas) found us sure of what you would do. We saw (with the eyes of the spirit) that great site, when a crowd of bishops around you, in the ardour of their holy ministry, poured over your Royal limbs the water of life; when that head, feared by the masses, bowed down before the servants of God; when your royal locks, hidden under a helmet, were steeped in holy oil; when your breast relieved of it's cuirass, shone with the same whiteness as your baptismal robes. Do not doubt most flourishing of kings, that this soft clothing will give more force to your arms; whatever Fortune has given up to now, this sanctity will bestow.

     I would wish to add some exhortations to your praises if anything escaped either your knowledge or your attention. Should we preach the faith to the convert who perceived it without a preacher; or humility, which you have long shown towards us (Bishops), although you only owe it to us now, after your profession of faith; or mercy attested, in tears and joy to God and men, by a people once captive, now freed by you?

     One wish remains for me to express. Since God, thanks to you, will make your people His own possession, offer a part of the treasure of faith which fills your heart to the peoples living beyond you, who, still living in natural ignorance, have not been corrupted by the seed of perverse doctrine. Do not fear to send them envoys and to plead with them the cause of God, who has done so much for your cause. So that the other pagan peoples at first being subject to your kingdom for the sake of religion, while they still seem to have another ruler, may be distinguished rather by their race than by their prince. [end of letter missing.]

The first comment Avitus makes is that Clovis has averted the choice of a perverse doctrine. This could be Arianism and the argument against Catholicism at the time could have been the troubles due to the Acacian schism causing divisions within the Catholic church. Clovis though had made the right choice in the eyes of Avitus. This adulation of Clovis by a Burgundian Bishop would make no sense after 500CE when Clovis had invaded Burgundy to help Godigisel take on Gundobad and brought the Burgundians to submission and tribute. But in 496, with the Franks and Burgundians on good terms and Clovis married to a Burgundian Catholic princess, all was well between the two nations and this correspondence shows it. 
 

The next major statement Avitus makes is that which will ultimately date the letter and which has caused so much confusion. Due to it's importance it requires a close study and for that we must turn to Shanzer, whose important work provides us with all the answers. Only the final solution eluded her, which I will produce here. The traditional reading of this came from Hilgarth, writing in 1969²:

Gaudeat equidem Graecia principem legisse nostrum, sed non iam quae tanti muneris donum sola mereatur

“Let Greece indeed rejoice that she has elected an emperor who shares our faith; it is no longer alone in deserving such a favour”

Shanzer had already compiled a close study of the Latin and the manuscript variants and states that this reading is from the oldest manuscript 'L'. She dismissed the word elected as a viable translation of legisse but suggested that it should rather be translated as chosen. So she translates the first part of the sentence as “As far as I am concerned let Greece rejoice in having chosen our ruler”. However having come to a nearly correct reading she fails to understand the context of the message. She poses the question “who is the Princeps?” After discussing some alternatives suggested by other historians, such as it referring to Anastasius or even Clovis, she cannot come to a conclusion as to who could be meant. With no conclusion she must dismiss the idea that this person was chosen:

“L's text principem legisse nostrum simply does not mean much in itself. It is insufficiently transparent. Chosen our ruler for what? The purpose of choosing, or else the object of choice, must be deducible from the context or explicitly stated. It is not.”

It is perfectly deducible as I will soon show. As she was unable to explain the context of the sentence she dismissed it entirely, but before she did she thankfully also explained the feminine case involved in the reading, translating the second part as “..but she is no longer the one to deserve so great a gift alone”. Not coming to a viable context she then dismissed the 'L' reading and suggested we use a much later variant of the text by Sirmond, the 'S' manuscript from 1647CE:

“Gaudeat ergo quidem Graecia habere se principem legis nostrae, sed non iam tanti muneris dono sola mereatur illustrari” which she translates as :

“Therefore let Greece be sure to rejoice, that she has a ruler who is orthodox, but she is no longer the only one to bask in the illumination of such a great gift.”

Unfortunately Shanzers translation of Sirmonds corrupted reading does little to enhance our understanding of the context. The emperor Anastasius was far from Orthodox. He had Miaphysite tendencies and there was an Acacian schism between the churches of east and west during his time. He was not well regarded in the west because of this and so the choice of this emperor has fallen by the wayside. In fact all it shows is that Sirmond was as confused about the meaning of the original reading as all historians have been.

Shanzer's examination of the 'L' manuscript has shown that nostrum means ours / belonging to us, i.e. someone who Avitus, a Burgundian, considers a western leader on equal terms to Anastasius in the East. She says nostrum must be separated from Graecia³ and indeed this is the correct reading of the Latin. So, if we actually look at the original reading again we can see how it should have been translated, as I have used in the above translation of the letter , i.e.:

“Let Greece indeed rejoice that she has chosen our Princeps, that she is no longer one who alone deserves the gift of so great an office”

The keys here are the words principem and muneris The meaning of muneris is commonly office⁴, the less used meaning favour making no sense in the context. Shanzer seems to overlook the word completely. Principem therefore refers to a leader, chosen by Anastasius in the East, that Avitus would consider a leader in the west on nearly equal terms with Anastasius. This can only be Theoderic the Great himself.⁵ Theoderic had grown up in Constantinople as a hostage and had become thoroughly Romanised by the time he was eighteen. He commanded his Goths in the service of the Eastern Empire becoming Magister Militum and then Consul by 483. The emperor Zeno sent Theoderic in 488 to overthrow the Patrician Odoacer, who had become king of Italy, but was now disrespecting the Eastern Empire and causing conflict. Theoderic eventually killed Odoacer with his bare hands and took control of Italy in 493. By this time Zeno had died in 491 and in his place Anastasius ruled as Eastern Emperor. Theoderic was then in 497 sent the imperial regalia by Anastasius who formally recognised him as Princeps of the Western Roman Empire based in Italy.⁶

Anastasius though considered him as merely a viceroy and Theoderic appears to have honoured this position in the early years, becoming more independent as the years progressed, so much so that by 507 Anastasius had sent a fleet of 200 ships to Italy to distract Theoderic whilst Clovis and Gundobad defeated the Visigoths. Anastasius needed a counterbalance to the increasing power and influence of Theoderic. That man was Clovis. The date of being chosen then by Anastasius is 497, it cannot be when he first entered Italy in 488 as he was then merely sent by Zeno. The west was overjoyed, as Avitus exclaims, it had it's own leader again, at last, after a period of four years when Anastasius ruled alone. Anastasius was no longer alone, the West had a man in an office equal to that of Anastasius. Avitus was writing therefore in around 497 and so Clovis' baptism was in December 496. The old chronology had got this one right.

Avitus then speaks about the timing of Clovis' baptism, which was on Christmas day 496. He next mentions the humility that Clovis has “long shown to us Bishops” which must once again show that Clovis had been Christian for some years. He continues this same exhortation by mentioning “a people once captive, now freed by you”. Who were the much debated populus captivus? Shanzer helps us by defining the phrase. It means a Christian people, perhaps recently conquered, but not the Allamani of course who were pagan⁷. She rejects Reverdy's idea that it could have been the Frankish people, which has some merit, many of whom had baptised with Clovis, as they were previously pagan. She then returns to the idea that they were actual captives and suggest they were prisoners of the Visigothic war in 507-508 as this is where she wants to place the baptism. However, she does mention that they could be a Catholic people who were religiously captive, as they would be under Arian Visigothic control. She admits the possibility of this being very good, but then dismisses this obvious solution⁸. The captive people were the Catholic populations of the provinces of the Tractus Armoricanus who had been under Visigothic control, that Clovis had recently freed. Bishops such as Volusanius of Tours were persecuted by Alaric's Arian government and he was taken captive and died in exile in Toulouse or Spain⁹.

About fifty years after Clovis died Bishop Nicetius of Trier wrote to Clotsinda, granddaughter of Clovis trying to get her to convert her husband, the Lombard King Alboin to Catholicism. In this letter he mentions how Clovis had prostrated himself before the tomb of St Martin, was then baptised and then mentioned his subsequent exploits against Gundobad and Alaric:

“...You have frequently heard how your grandmother Clotilda, of blessed memory, came to the kingdom of the Franks and how she brought King Clovis to the Catholic Faith. As he was a man of good understanding, he declined to accede to her wishes until he had fully grasped the truth of our doctrines. Once convinced, he prostrated himself before the tomb of St Martin, and promised to receive baptism without delay. You have been told of his subsequent exploits against the heretics Alaric and Gondebald ; you cannot have forgotten the noble gifts that fell even in this world to the lot, both of him and of his sons...”

Therefore the Bishop of Trier placed the baptism before the Burgundian civil war. But when exactly? Tours was back in Visigothic hands by 497¹⁰, so this must have occurred shortly before in 496. Another indicator in this letter is that Clovis had taken some time before acceding to the wishes of Clotilda to be Baptised, and had chosen the truth of 'our doctrines', i.e. Catholicism rather than Arianism.

One small puzzle in all of this is that Burgundian Sigismund, son of Gundobad is said by historians to have converted from Arianism to Catholicism sometime around 502-506¹¹. The reason for suspecting this is that Avitus had written to Pope Hormisdas following the accession of Sigismund in 516. Shanzer states that Sigismund “had made a further visit to Rome in the time of Pope Symmachus, more importantly, the Bishop of Vienne apparently places Sigismund's conversion from Arianism to Catholicism in the context of this second visit”, Symmachus was pope from 498 to 514, so we are talking of events during this time. Shanzer continues, “In addition, he seems to indicate that it took place before the conversion of Clovis”. Shanzer then explains the evidence from the letter, so that according to Avitus, Sigismund was “the only one of the kings who was not ashamed to convert”. As some historians thought Clovis's baptism did not occur in 496 but perhaps in 503 or later, Sigismund's conversion was placed earlier than this. What Avitus meant of course, was that Sigismund was the only one of the Arian kings to convert from Arianism to Catholicism, not that he had converted before Clovis. In effect, Clovis had never been an Arian Catechumen. 

There is no need therefore to try and squeeze Sigismunds conversion to Catholicism as early as 502, which was unlikely anyway whilst his father still lived. It couldn't have been early in the sixth century because there was civil disturbance in Rome between rival factions to the Pope from 502, the Laurentian schism, where there were two Popes, which did not end until 506. Following this was the Visigothic war in 507-508 and then Theoderic's invasion of Provence and Burgundy in 509-510. If Sigismund did convert as a result of his second visit to Rome in the time of Symmachus it was probably around 513-14, as he founded his first monastery at Agaune in 515¹². Michael Moore, agreeing with Wood suggests that Sigismund came to the throne soon after his conversion¹³.

The last point is one that has been noted many times before. Avitus in his letter to Clovis does not mention the honorary consulate awarded to Clovis by the Emperor Anastasius. For Woods, Mathisen and Shanzer this is problematical, as it would have taken place the very year of his baptism in their revised dating of 508, so we should expect Avitus to mention it, if only in passing, but he doesn't. The reason then is clear why he didn't; it wasn't to happen until another eleven years had passed.

Clovis' baptism was unfortunately overshadowed in the annalistic record by two events; the death and selection of a new Pope in 496 and the elevation of Theoderic to imperial status in 497. Next part six.

Footnotes:

1 Lynch, Joseph H. Christianizing Kinship: Ritual Sponsorship in Anglo-Saxon England,Cornell University Press, 1998, p.39

1a Lincoln, H, Baigent, M, Leigh, R. The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, Arrow; New edition, 2006, p.265 

1b Shanzer, Danuta, Vouille 507: Historiographical, Hagiographical, and Diplomatic Reconsiderations and Fortuna ,- The Battle of Vouillé, 507 CE Where France Began p.68, 2012.

1c See O'Donnell, James J. Cassiodorus, chp.3, University of California Press, 1979.

2 Ibid Shanzer 1998, p.37, fn.59.

3 Ibid Shanzer 1998, p.40, “In that case, whatever nostrum means is clearly opposed to what Greacia means” Greece of course represents the Byzantine Empire.

4 From the Perseus Latin word study tool : `a service, office, post, employment, function, duty'

5 Principem Nostrum could also be a referral to the Pope. It had been used in this context as early as the fifth century. The new Pope in 496 was named Anastasius, the same as the Emperor. However the Emperor in the East did not choose this Pope.

6 See Arnold, J., Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration Cambridge University Press, 2014.

7 Shanzer :”These people cannot be the recently conquered Allamani” ibid Shanzer 1998, p.44

8 Shanzer writes : “while I would agree that the idea is problematic, if one takes it literally, it is perfectly possible, if understood figuratively.” Ibid Shanzer 1998, P.45

9 Greg. Histories II.26

10 As Volusanius had been deposed and sent to Toulouse in 497.

11 Favrod and Shanzer as examples, Shanzer, Avitus of Vienne, p.18

12 Dunn, Maralyn., Belief and Religion in Barbarian Europe c. 350-700, Continuum Publishing, 2013, P.61

13 Moore, Michael E., A Sacred Kingdom: Bishops and the Rise of Frankish Kingship, 300-850, The  Catholic University of America Press, 2011, p.142 

Clovis, Towards a New Chronology Part Three.

Chlodoveus Rex and the battle for Soissons and Marriage to Clotilda.

 By Dane R. Pestano ©2015

491. The First War – The Battle for Soissons

The context of the battle of Soissons was one of flux and change. Ravenna, Rome and Italy had fallen to the barbarians of Odoacer in 476 and by 491, the Gothic Magister Militum Theoderic had arrived from the east and engaged Odoacer in battles for power. The Burgundians under Gundobad and his brothers, noticing the troubles in Italy and Noricum, had in 490 invaded the northern Italian province of Liguria and laid waste to it. By now much of central and southern Gaul had fallen to the Visigoths under the expansive Euric, and they had even pushed up to the Loire and into the south of Belgica II supporting Syagrius. Alaric II, his son, was now King since 485 but he didn't appear to have the martial prowess of his father and was still like Clovis, a young king of twenty-two. Clovis and his kin, observing these wars and the collapse of Roman power decided the time was right at the age of eighteen to challenge the last bastion of Roman power in northern Gaul, the Gallo-Roman kingdom of Syagrius, and in so doing, defeat the hated Visigothic allies of Syagrius who had deposed his father and whom had caused the Franks so many problems.

Gregory is our only source for the battle against Syagrius for Soissons, but there is other indirect evidence which we will discuss when we consider the letter of Remigius to Clovis and look at other annalistic evidence. We are dependent on Gregory for a date of between 486 and 493 for the battle which unfortunately cannot be depended on. Gregory or an interpolator placing it in the fifth year after Clovis became King. Instead, when the rest of the sources are examined, it appears the battle took place soon after Clovis became king. Halsall was also sceptical of an early date for Soissons, pointing out that all of the Frankish kings mentioned at this time were still alive between 507 and 511, which would be twenty to thirty years later if the battle was in 486¹. If it were placed in around 491 however, it would make more sense in that regard, fifteen to twenty years. So lets place it in 491 when Clovis was eighteen years old. 493 though, five years after 488 could technically still work.

As discussed in part two, Syagrius had assumed power in Soissons and probably territory as far as the Seine and possibly beyond with Gallo-Roman and Visigothic help. This situation occurred when Childeric had taken his Federate Frankish army to Noricum at the request of Zeno or Odoacer in around 476. Possibly at this time the Gallo Romans had made a play for power in the West, suggesting that Syagrius himself may have done so. Without the support of Zeno though this fell through and instead Syagrius appealed to the Visigoths for support. The transition of Childeric leaving and Syagrius assuming power may have been a fairly peaceful one agreed amongst the Gallo Romans of northern Gaul. The remaining Franks, still being pagan, were not yet appreciated as politically or militarily strong enough to intervene having been subdued by the Visigoths on the Rhine, and nor were the Britons of far western Armorica since the demise of Riothamus. This choice of the Visigoths may seem strange when we consider that Sidonius and through him Gregory had painted a picture of Euric as a persecutor of Catholics in south-western Gaul in the 470's. We have seen though that the embassy to Zeno by the Romano Gallic party must have been before 485 when Odoacer and Zeno fell out. This leaves a predicament. The Gallo Romans were unlikely to choose the Visigoths as bed partners if they were currently persecuting Catholic bishops. Euric's initial persecutions must have been over by then and this would make sense as Clermont had been ceded to him in 475 in exchange for Provence being returned to the empire. So a date of 478, three years later is perfectly acceptable. Clovis became king in 488, by 491 he was ready to challenge for power. Gregory is quite clear that at this time Clovis did not posess a kingdom but states that Ragnachar his relative did based in Cambrai. This was the cause of the war then; as king, Clovis needed a kingdom.

 
In 491, now with a young son by a concubine, eighteen year old Clovis was in a strong enough position to challenge Syagrius having enrolled his kinsmen Chararic and Ragnachar (from Cambrai) to help in the battle as they approached Soissons. Clovis may have chosen his moment carefully. The young Alaric had mustered a Visigothic army in 490 and sent it in August to support Theoderic in Italy who had been besieged by the forces of Odoacer at Pavia. This may have led to a depletion of Visigothic units in the north supporting Siagrius. Or Clovis seeing the attention of Alaric on affairs in Italy realised this was a good time to strike. Placing the battle then early in 491 might make sense of the circumstances. Chararic refused to join the battle but this did not stop Clovis and Ragnachar obtaining victory. It's difficult to say if Gregory was just inventing this detail about Chararic not taking part to justify his later tale of Clovis killing him in revenge, but I would lean on the side of invention. Clovis would have needed every man at his side in this war as Syagrius happily met for battle with his Visigothic allies, meaning their armies must have been fairly evenly matched. Ragnachar though would most likley have commanded the field rather than the young Clovis.

The make-up of the armies facing each other would have been fairly similar. I would not expect both armies to have exceeded 1500-2000 men each. Syagrius would have been able to call on his Gallo Roman nobles to form cavalry units and other units of Visigoth cavalry were also likely. This would be backed up by both light and heavy infantry and foot archers. We know from reports in the 550's that Gothic cavalry was usually armed with a spear and sword, with archers being on foot protected by the cavalry. Light infantry would have worn leather and the heavier infantry mail. The Franks at this time would also have had light cavalry with spear and sword, backed up by similar infantry battalions carrying their francisca axe, swords and spears². Remember there were no stirrups at this time which would make fighting with heavy lancer cavalry very cumbersome so these cavalry units were basically infantry on horse with perhaps a few lancers. The advantage the Franks had was the impact of their initial infantry charge. The idea was to charge and throw their axes in advance of the final contact, splitting shields and bodies before the ferocious onslaught of their remaining weapons. They could take out the first two rows of any defending line with this tactic³. Archers would also have been employed by them in the rear to deter oncoming cavalry and to fire into the opposing ranks.

The battle may have been a similar one to the battle of Vouille which Gregory describes as a bit of a stand off at the beginning saying one side wanted to fight at a distance, which must have been the Visigoths and one side wanting to get stuck in. The Franks with their power, strength and lethal axes would want to get at the Romano-Visigothic line fairly quickly before enemy archers reduced their numbers. The battle at Vouille also included Gallo Romans who came from Clermont to support Alaric so it was indeed very similar. Both armies therefore would have formed up their battle squares and lines ready for combat. At some point, after the skirmishing, Ragnachar or Clovis gave the command to engage and the lines moved forward, the lethal Frankish charge breaking the Romano-Visigothic line.Once the line was broken the cavalry units would engage and outflank the enemy and take on the Roman-Visigothic cavalry and archers. With the infantry pouring through the middle the leadership of the Romans would be caught up in the mele and be in danger from both cavalry and infantry. Syagrius seeing the battle lost fled the field making his way south to the court of Alaric in Toulouse for protection. Historians have often wondered why he went to Alaric, but now it makes perfect sense when the archaeology explains that the Visigoths had supported his kingdom, as discussed in part two.

Syagrius flees the battle

Gregory states that Clovis was still a pagan at this point in time and that the Franks had despoiled many churches after their victory. Clovis though still appears to have been sympathetic to the Church as he tried to appropriate a captured vase to return it to the Bishop and was mortified when one of his men destroyed it. There is a hint here therefore, that Clovis was already respectful of the Church and their Bishops. Clovis had not inherited a kingdom from his father, the vita Genovefa asserting he was Rex Bellorum, “King by right of war”. But he now had a kingdom extending to the Seine. 

492. Marriage to Clotilda of the Burgundians

Gundobad, the Burgundian king and Patrician of the Roman empire had returned from Italy sometime in around 474 after killing the Roman emperor Anthemius and setting up a puppet emperor Glycerius in his place. The eastern empire however was not happy with this turn of events and sent Nepos to intervene, and he deposed Glycerius and became Emperor of the west himself in 474. Wood suggests it may have been this event that caused Gundobad to head back to Burgundy but whilst he was away his father Gundioc had died and Gundobads brothers, Chilperic, Gundomar and Godigisel, in the usual Germanic way, had been apportioned parts of the Burgundian kingdom so he may have returned for this reason also. The circumstances of the deaths of his brothers are unknown. We cannot believe the story Gregory of Tours tells us, that Chilperic and his wife were murdered by Gundobad, being thrown down a well, especially as Chilperic's wife Caretina did not die until around 506⁴. Also a letter from Avitus to Gundobad implies that Gundobad had mourned the deaths of his brothers⁵. It is most likely therefore that two of Gundobad's brothers died in the following war.

The Burgundians in 490 invaded northern Italy wreaking havoc in Liguria and taking thousands of captives back to Burgundy. Theoderic and Odoacer were at the time tied up fighting each other further south. But once Theoderic had killed Odoacer and taken control of Italy in 493 he sent envoys to Gundobad to negotiate the release and return of these captives. At this point Godigisel was described as the kings brother rather than as a king himself.⁶ The only brother we hear of at this time onwards is Godigisel. Therefore Gundomar and Chilperic probably died during the invasion of Liguria. On his death in 490 Chilperics daughters Clotilda and Sediluba sought the protection of Godigisel in Geneva according to Fredegar, writing in the seventh century. The reason for going there was probably because Godigisel was Catholic and Gundobad in Vienne, Arian.

Clotilda

Clovis, having defeated Syagrius and obtaining his kingdom in around 492, was now a powerful young King. Gundobad must have observed this rising power and realised that whoever took power in Italy would take him to task for invading and devastating Liguria. He had to make alliances and so offered the hand of his niece Clotilda in marriage to Clovis. We learn, again from Avitus, that Gundobad had meant to offer his own daughter in marriage to Clovis, but that she had died⁷. Having obtained a kingdom Clovis courted Clotilda in Soissons and then married her⁸. Clotilda encouraged him to be baptised a Catholic but after the quick death of their first baptised son he was in no mood to convert at that time⁹. The fact that he allowed his son to be baptised might offer a tentative suggestion that Clovis had converted to Christianity when he had married but had not chosen which form, Arian or Catholic. We will revisit this subject later. Clotilda is said to have been born in around 470, if so she was older than Clovis and this may be the reason that she was seen as a religous mentor of sorts to the young King.

Clovis was now ready to take on Visigothic possessions to make them hand over Syagrius. That will be in part four.

Footnotes :

1. Ibid Halsall 2010, p.172

2. Much of the information in this paragraph comes from Warfare in the Medieval World by Brian Todd Carey. Pen & Sword Military; Reprint edition 2011.

3. Ibid Carey 2011. At the battle of Casilinum/Volturnus in 554 the Frankish charge took out two rows of a three row Byzantine line made up of both light and heavy infantry. The Franks lost this battle however when heavy Greek cataphract cavalry entered the fray, not to immediately charge the frankish squares which would still have been very dangerous, but to circle and inflict a hail of arrows on them, forcing them back until their squares broke and they were then slaughtered by the cataphracts.

4. Ibid below Shanzer and wood, 2002, p.18

5. Shanzer and Wood, Avitus of Vienne, letters and selected prose ,Liverpool: University Press, 2002, p. 210.

6. Ennodius, Vita Epifani, 174; translated by Cook, The Life of Saint Epiphanius, p. 103.

7. Ibid Shanzer and Wood, 2002, Avitus of Vienne, p. 208

8. MacGeorge, Penny. Late Roman Warlords, Oxford University Press 2003, p.125. From the Liber Historia Francorum.  

9. Greg Histories II.29

Riothamus and the Visigoths

Where did the battle that Riotimus / Riothamus, king of the Britons, fought in around 470AD against Euric and his Visigoths in Gaul, take place? It has always been said by many scholars that this was the battle of Bourges Deols, just south of the Loire river, but nowhere in any source is Riotimus linked with this battle.

This blog post examines the evidence and reveals that Riotimus did not fight the battle at Deols, had nothing to do with the treachery of Arvandus, nor did Riotimus flee to Avallon after the battle. Instead the battle took place much further south in Auvergne, now Clermont Ferrand. All these points are central to the theory of Riothimus by Geoffrey Ashe in his book The Discovery of King Arthur, where he makes the suggestion that the tales of Arthur developed from those of Riotimus. Using the primary sources and details concerning Sidonious, Arvandus, Anthemius and Euric I feel I can now piece together successfully what happened and dispell any associations with King Arthur.

The four primary sources for the events of the time are works by Gregory of Tours, Jordanes, Hydatius and Sidonius:

Gregory, writing about period 463 - 467/8 AD:

Childeric I

Now Childeric fought at Orleans and Adovacrius came with the Saxons to Angers. At that time a great plague destroyed the people. Egidius died and left a son, Syagrius by name. On his death Adovacrius received hostages from Angers and other places. The Britanni were driven from Bourges by the Goths, and many were slain at the village of Déols. Count Paul with the Romans and Franks made war on the Goths and took booty. When Adovacrius came to Angers, king Childeric came on the following day, and slew count Paul, and took the city. In a great fire on that day the house of the bishop was burned. After this war was waged between the Saxons and the Romans; but the Saxons fled and left many of their people to be slain, the Romans pursuing. Their islands were captured and ravaged by the Franks, and many were slain. In the ninth month of that year, there was an earthquake.  

Odovacrius made an alliance with Childeric, and they subdued the Alamanni, who had overrun that part of Italy.

Jordanes, writing about period 466 - 476:

"Euric, the king of the Visigoths, observing the frequent changes of the Roman princes, attempted to seize the Gauls for his own. Anthemius, the Emperor, receiving intelligence of this, immediately invited the aid of the Britons,whose King Riothimus, coming with twelve thousand by way of ocean, and disembarking from his ships, was received into the city/state of the Bituriges. Euric, king of the Visigoths, came against them leading an innumerable army, and fighting for a long time, overcame Riothimus, the king of the Britons, before the Romans had joined company with him. Having lost a great part of his army, he fled with all whom he could save, and came to the neighbouring nation of the Burgundians, then confederate with the Romans. But Euric, king of the Visigoths, seized Auvergne, a city of Gaul.....When Eurich, as we have already said, beheld these great and various changes, he seized the city of Arverna, where the Roman general Ecdicius was at that time in command. He was a senator of most renowned family and the son of Avitus, a recent emperor who had usurped the reign for a few days--for Avitus held the rule for a few days before Olybrius, and then withdrew of his own accord to Placentia, where he was ordained bishop. His son Ecdicius strove for a long time with the Visigoths, but had not the power to prevail. So he left the country and (what was more important) the city of Arverna to the enemy and betook himself to safer regions."

Sidonius:

His Letter to Riothamus (circa 471 or 475/6)

Sidonius Riothamo suo salutem

“I will write once more in my usual strain, mingling compliment with grievance. Not that I at all desire to follow up the first words of greeting with disagreeable subjects, but things seem to be always happening which a man of my order and in my position can neither mention without unpleasantness, nor pass over without neglect of duty. Yet I do my best to remember the burdensome and delicate sense of honour which makes you so ready to blush for others' faults. The bearer of this is an obscure and humble person, so harmless, insignificant, and helpless that he seems to invite his own discomfiture; his grievance is that the Britons are secretly enticing his slaves away. Whether his indictment is a true one, I cannot say; but, if you can only confront the parties and decide the matter on its merits, I think the unfortunate man may be able to make good his charge, if indeed a stranger from the country unarmed, abject and impecunious to boot, has ever a chance of a fair or kindly hearing against adversaries with all the advantages he lacks, arms, astuteness, turbulences, and the aggressive spirit of men backed by numerous friends. Farewell.”

Sidonius as Bishop from Clermont Ferrand.

To his friend Vincentius (circa 470AD)

"THE case of Arvandus distresses me, nor do I conceal my distress, for it is our emperor's crowning praise that a condemned prisoner may have friends who need not hide their friendship. I was more intimate with this man than it was safe to be with one so light and so unstable, witness the odium lately kindled against me on his account, the flame of which has scorched me for this lapse from prudence.

At the Capitol, the Count of the Imperial Largess, his friend Flavius Asellus, acted as his host and jailer, showing him deference for his prefectship, which seemed, as it were, yet warm, so newly was it stripped from him. Meanwhile, the three envoys from Gaul arrived upon his heels with the provincial decrees empowering them to impeach in the public name. They were Tonantius Ferreolus, the ex-prefect, and grandson, on the mother's side, of the Consul Afranius Syagrius, Thaumastus, and Petronius, all men practised in affairs and eloquent, all conspicuous ornaments of our country. They brought, with other matters entrusted to them by the province, an intercepted letter, which Arvandus' secretary, now also under arrest, declared to have been dictated by his master.

It was evidently addressed to the King of the Goths, whom it dissuaded from concluding peace with 'the Greek Emperor', + urging that instead he should attack the Britons north of the Loire, and asserting that the law of nations called for a division of Gaul between Visigoth and Burgundian."

Hydatius (chronicle):

463
In Armorica, Frederic, the brother of King Theoderic [II], rose up against Aegidius, count [and master] of both services, a man who enjoyed an excellent reputation and who pleased God with his good works. Frederic and his men were defeated and killed.

464-5
In the month of May, envoys of the above-mentioned Aegidius sailed by way of the Ocean (note the same term as Jordanes uses for Riotimus) to the Vandals and returned to where they came from in September by the same route. The Vandals were slaughtered in Sicily and driven from the island.
Aegidius died as a result of deception: some say that he was the victim of a trap, some that he was poisoned. With him gone, the Goths soon fell upon the regions he had protected in the name of Rome. . .

We also have other letters of Sidonius, a Roman noble of Gaul who became bishop of Clermont in 470 and was Urban Prefect of Rome between 468-470.

Arvandus was the Praetorian Prefect (PP) of Gaul from 464-65 and 467-468.

Aegidius was magister militum of Gaul from 454 until his death in 464/5.
Euric was King of the Visigoths 466-484,

Anthemius was Roman Emperor from 467 until 472.

Childeric was King of the Frankish Federates and Saliens from around 453-481.

Adovacrius, Saxon leader who attacked Angers.
Odovacrius, Germanic Roman officer from 470 and then King of Italy from 476-493. Allied with Childeric at some point.

Ricimer - Roman general and defacto ruler of the western empire from 457-472

Ecdicius - Friend of Sidonius and hero of Clermont who single handedly defeated thousands of Goths (a myth/exaggeration as will be shown below) 

Gaul 470, showing proposed route of Riothamus. In this map, by 'Romans' is meant Gallic Romans plus Germanic federates, ie Franks and Alans and possibly federate Britons.

The sequence of the events that I will show proves that the testimony of Gregory has nothing whatsoever to do with Riotimus and his campaign and has been erroneously attached to the story of Riotimus. So let’s start with Gregory to show the chronology of events he describes. Scholars are of the opinion that this section comes from some ‘year chronicle’ (MacGeorge 2002, p.102-103) that Gregory had access to, possibly from Angers:

"Now Childeric fought at Orleans and Adovacrius came with the Saxons to Angers".

This took place in 463. Childeric appears to have fought in the same campaign with Aegidius that saw the defeat of Frederic's Visigoths as described by Hydatius above. Adovacrius appears to be a leader of Saxons. Penny MacGeorge, author of Late Roman Warlords (pg 105) has examined the manuscripts of Gregory of Tours and has shown that Adovacrius was the correct spelling of the Saxon leader. Gregory's later spelling in the last paragraph is Odovacrius, concerning Childerics alliance with the Roman King (from 476), showing that Gregory had two differing sources that mentioned Childeric, with similar sounding Germanic leaders as well, one Saxon, one possibly Thuringian. 

"At that time a great plague destroyed the people."

The plague was in 464. Possibly also mentioned by Gildas (DE.22).

"Egidius died and left a son, Syagrius by name. On his death Adovacrius received hostages from Angers and other places.

Egidius died then in 464/5 and Count Paul appears to have taken command. Syagrius would have been too young at this time. From The chronicle of Hydatius above, we can see that the Goths 'soon' moved against the territories that Aegidius had protected.

"The Britanni were driven from Bourges by the Goths, and many were slain at the village of Déols"

This then occurs in around 465. Coincides with the murder of Theoderic and the rise to power of Euric in 466, King of the Visigoths. Euric though in the first two years of his reign turned his attentions to Spain so the defeat of the British garrison of Bourges had probably taken place before he even took power and obviously had nothing to do with him. 

Euric may have been dissatisfied with his brothers' attempts at expanding Visigothic influence northwards and hence took the crown for himself. It will be shown therefore that this battle of Bourges-Deols took place before Riotimus had even set foot in Gaul. Euric did not turn his attention to Gaul until 470 after destroying the last Roman possession in Spain, Tarraco (Tarragona) in 468. Also, the village of Deols lies south west of Bourges, a strange place to go to if fleeing to the Burgundians in the east. Towards Deols would have taken them on the road to Limoges and ultimately the port of Saints.

"Count Paul with the Romans and Franks made war on the Goths and took booty.

This then must have occurred sometime in 466 prior to death of Theoderic. It looks like Count Paul assumed command after the death of Aegidius. The Gallo Romans (Armoricans?) with Frankish auxiliaries, defeated the Goths who had raided Bourges and had headed towards north of the Loire threatening Angers.

"When Adovacrius came to Angers, king Childeric came on the following day, and slew count Paul, and took the city. In a great fire on that day the house of the bishop was burned. "

This is the confusing part. Adovacrius with his Saxons comes to Angers...then Childeric turns up with his army the next day and must have driven off the Saxons . He then attacks Count Paul with an unknown army and kills him. The story goes on to include Childeric slaughtering Saxons at the mouth of the Loire river sometime then in 467. This must have been near Nantes. Penny MacGeorge, however, translates this part slightly differently which probably makes more sense: 

"...and king Childeric arrived the next day; the comes Paulus being killed, he occupied the city..."


This may imply that Paulus had been killed fighting the Saxons and Childeric had merely assumed command of the city, but it's still a tad ambiguous. The solution to this may lie in Gregory's allusion to Childeric having been expelled to Thuringia as a young man. If he was the young prince that Aetius adopted in Rome in 449/50 and made a federate, in the 450's he would only have been a teenager and so was probably sent to Thuringia to be tutored or fled the power of Aegidius. He would have been too young to lead the Frankish Federate army. So Aegidius assumed this role as did count Paul after him. The death of first, Aegidius and then Count Paul suggests that Childeric arrived back on the scene in the early 460's, now in his mid 20's and consolidated his position as leader of the Frankish federate troops stationed in Gaul. Guy Halsall (p.182) puts it this way:

 " Nonetheless Childeric appears to have eliminated all his rivals .."

"After this, war was waged between the Saxons and the Romans; but the Saxons fled and left many of their people to be slain, the Romans pursuing. Their islands were captured and ravaged by the Franks, and many were slain. In the ninth month of that year, there was an earthquake.   

This last part then gives us our last confirmed date in the sequence, which must be 467/8 when Hydatius also mentions Earthquake ("In the second year of the emperor Anthemius blood burst forth from the ground in the middle of Toulouse and continued to flow for an entire day." "Medio Tolosae civitatis hisdem diebus e terra sanguinem erupisse, totoque diei fluxisse curriculo") and Victor of Tonnena tells of a comet that appeared for forty days in 467; the chronicler Marcellinus noted that Ravenna was struck by an earthquake in the same year (467) (Mathisen 1998, Epilogue). MacGeorge  comments :

"..Marcellinus comes noted an earthquake in the Ravenna region and an eruption of  Vesuvius; and the Fasti Vindobonenses an outbreak of cattle disease in AD 467. There was pestilence in Italy, particularly in Campania. In both East and West this was a time of disasters and unusual events including: the fire in Constantinople in AD 465; earthquakes and floods in the eastern Mediterranean; celestial phenomena in AD 467; and famines. All this may have contributed to a general feeling of insecurity, even of doom."

"Odovacrius made an alliance with Childeric, and they subdued the Alamanni, who had overrun that part of Italy."

This part then, as MacGeorge has pointed out, belongs to a separate source used by Gregory which has been tagged onto the chronicle entries and refers to Odovacer the King of Italy from 476. Odovacer then, in the early 470's a Roman officer, was in Italy siding with Ricimer against Anthemius in the civil war in Rome. Whether Childeric and his Franks were part of the barbarian armies that supported Ricimer is difficult to say but it was probably after 476 that he helped Odovacer.
     With Childeric in Italy in 476 for a few years, Syagrius, with his Gallo Roman army and possibly Visigothic help was able to take Paris, Soissons and the south of Belgica Secunda in northern Gaul, not sacrificing it until the time of Clovis. The relationship between Childeric and Syagrius is difficult to ascertain but the Franks appear to have been settled mainly in Belgica Prima and Germania Secunda at this time (yellow area in map below). The domain of Syagrius was not challenged until five years into Clovis' reign suggesting that Childeric did not have the strength of arms to overcome Syagrius but he remained a Roman federate officer probably based in Tournai. In support of this Childerics grave shows evidence of a late Roman officers badge that he wore. As well as Federate Franks he also appears to have commanded a force of Alans, or Thuringians as his burial also shows strong links with their burial practices and horse trappings (Wood 2003). The Alans had been settled near Orleans in 442 to deal with the rebellious Armoricans and their settlements had spread northwards to Paris and into Belgica Secunda; this based on name places and some archaeology (Bachrach pgs.61,70).The Alans also feature in early pseudo-genealogical material concerning Frankish ancestors, along with Aetius, Aegidius and Syagrius.

That's Gregory's testimony. What's evident is that Gregory has no knowledge of Riotimus as this period only covers up to 467/8,  so Riotimus' campaign must have been outside of his scope of Northern Gaul and the early Merovingian dominions. Hydatius, whose chronicle ends in 468 also has no knowledge of Riotimus. The above also shows that the battle in Bourges and Deols had nothing to do with Riotimus as it took place in 465/66. This then places Riotimus' campaign much further south. So for that we now need to study the testimony of Jordanes (writing circa 551), who used a lost source by Cassiodorus (writing circa 519) for his work:

"Euric, the king of the Visigoths, observing the frequent changes of the Roman princes, attempted to seize the Gauls for his own"

Euric became King of the Visigoths in around 466. It may have been at this time that Arvandus wrote to Euric encouraging him to attack the Britons, upset at losing his prefectorship as Arvandus was no longer a Pretorian Prefect of Gaul at this time. It’s more likely though that he wrote in 467/68 when he became a PP again, hoping Euric would attack north of the Loire (as the Britons south of the Loire at Bourges had already been defeated by this time). The letter never got to Euric though and Euric in fact moved south instead consolidating his position in Toulouse and instead attacking Roman possessions in Iberia and didn't turn his focus to Gaul again until 470. He was probably not tempted to move north due to having seen his brother defeated and killed by Egidius in around 464 and Count Paul and his Franks defeating the Goths in around 467 soon after the battles at Bourges Deols against the British garrison there.

  

"Anthemius, the Emperor, receiving intelligence of this, immediately invited the aid of the Britons, whose King Riothimus, coming with twelve thousand, and disembarking from his ships, was received into the state of the Bituriges"

Now the original Latin says the `state (or city) of the Bituriges', which is usually translated as Bourges, formally known as Avaricum but it could equally well apply to Aquitania with it's capital Bordeaux which was the main city of the southern Bituriges in Aquitania. The best landing place of Saintes (Mediolanum), 100km north of Bordeaux, was also a sea port whilst Bourges lays well inland and in no way could be described as by the sea. The only other way if Bourges/Avaricum was meant was to sail up the Loire as far as Angers and then go overland or transfer to hundreds of smaller boats. But this would appear to be a strange route to take if you were either in Britain or Armorica. The overland route from Armorica would have been much easier. In fact Bourges itself, in a reorganisation of the Gallic provinces had become capital of  Aquitania Prima, so the state of the Bituriges was indeed Aquitania Prima. Lastly as Bourges was part of Aquitania Prima, its possible Riothamus may have landed at Nantes and proceeded eastwards from there and then southwards towards Euric, but Saints would also be in Prima terriroty.

Aqiuitania Prima would make much more sense of Riotimus arriving in Ships from either Armorica or Britain. Anthemius became Emperor in 467, so it can only be after this time that Riotimus was called. So lets say Riotimus arrived in 469 (Hydatius nor Gregories sources for the time before this mention him). The ‘intelligence’ that Anthemius received was probably the betrayal of Arvandus in 468.

Anthemius had withdrawn the Fedorati troops (or rather Ricimer had) that formed the barrier between the Goths below the Loire and the Armoricans and Gauls north of the Loire and so this caused a power vacuum that the Goths wanted to fill . Following the Gothic attack on Bourges, the slaughter of the Britons at Déols and the threat to Angers and other cities Anthemius decided on a grand plan to take on the Goths.  He therefore called on Riotimus from Britain to launch a two pronged attack on Euric as discussed below.

"Euric, king of the Visigoths, came against them leading an innumerable army, and fighting for a long time, overcame Riothimus, the king of the Britons, before the Romans had joined company with him. 

So the battle took place sometime around 469/70 (Mathisen 1998, Gaul and the Visigothic War) (Higham, 2002, P.76). That's a good 3-4 years difference between the Britons being defeated at Déols. It can only be reconciled if Gregory's chronology is incorrect but that doesn't appear to be so. Note that Riotimus had expected a Roman army to meet up with him ( “before the Romans had joined company with him”)

"Having lost a great part of his army, he fled with all whom he could save, and came to the neighbouring nation of the Burgundians, then confederate with the Romans. But Euric, king of the Visigoths, seized Auvergne(*), a city of Gaul."

469/470. But why go to the Burgundians, why not head north back to Britain? It implies Riotimus knew the Burgundians were federates and the battle was farther south and east. In his book, The Britons, Christopher Snyder makes the same conclusion, translating civitatem Bituriges as the state of Aquitania. (2003, P.148) and has Riotimus land in Aquitania. The ideal place to land in Aquitania to pick up the Roman road to Auvergne would be Saintes which is just 100km north of Bordeaux. From Saintes the road leads to Limoges and then onto Auvergne/Clermont. The distances say it all. From Saintes to Clermont is about 220 miles. From Armorica overland its about 400 miles. From Nantes its a fair way as well but can't be discounted.

As I have mentioned earlier above, Arvandus was prosecuted for trying to betray the Britons north of the Loire and did not have anything to do with betraying Riotimus. Riotimus was not even in the country. So we need not locate Riotimus north of the Loire at all. It is most likely he landed in Aquitania.

The letter of Sidonius to Riotimus places Riotimus near Auvergne possibly some time before 468 (as Sidonius was in Rome as Urban Prefect from 468 until 470 and Clermont was under siege from 471-474) or after 476 when Sidonius returned from exile. The letter intimates that Sidonius and Riotimus had exchanged letters on previous occasions, meaning Riotimus may either have been in Gaul before and had returned to Britain on a previous occasion before returning once more for Anthemius, or Riotimus was in northern Gaul/Armorica all along, or as I believe, all the communication was post battle, either just after the battle in 470/71 or after Sidonius returned from exile in 476. 

Sidonius did not become bishop of Clermont until he returned in 470 from Rome. So if the letter intimates that he has the position of a Bishop or clergy, which appears to be so ("which a man of my order" ) we then know that it couldn't have been written before 468. That only leaves a small window in 470/1 when Euric had defeated Riotimus and turned to face Anthemiolus in Arles when the letter could have been written, or it was after the seige of Auvergne and the exile of Sidonius until 476. The letter to Riotmius appears in a sequence that shows it was written post battle and post seige as before this letter comes one where Sidonius writes of the heroics of Ecidicius as though it were quite some time ago and shouldn't be forgotten. However, scholars are of the opinion that these letters do not always appear in sequence. So a dating in 470/71 may not be out of the question, post battle.

Anthemius

It appears that Anthemius had planned to take out the Vandals and the Goths with grand attacks in 469/70. His plan for Euric was a two pronged attack (MacGeorge 2002, p.243) and so landed Riotimus in Aquitania, probably near Saintes and sent his son's (Athemiolus') army to link up with Riotimus from the south. From Aquitania Riotimus made his way across land towards Auvergne/Clermont where Euric had gone to lay siege to it, as indicated above(*) . So the battle most likely took place somewhere near modern day Clermont Ferrand with Burgundy just a short distance away towards the east. 

The story of Ecdicius and his heroics against the Goths beseiging Auvergne belongs to this time when Riotimus was approaching in 469/70.  But the story of Ecdicius is exaggerated as the Goths had withdrawn from Clermont to a nearby hill due to the approach of Riotimus, and Ecdicius had only killed some slow stragglers (Ecdicius was known to be in Clermont from 469 after leaving the court of Anthemius). To those inside the city Ecdidcius with his eighteen men had incredibly defeated thousands of Goths and so the myth was created. Here is part of the letter of Sidonius to Ecdicius which confirms Ecidicus had merely chased off the rearguard as Euric was withdrawing : 

"At midday, and right across the middle of the plain, you brought your little company of eighteen safe through some thousands of the Goths, a feat which posterity will surely deem incredible. At the sight of you, nay, at the very rumour of your name, those seasoned troops were smitten with stupefaction; their captains were so amazed that they never stopped to note how great their own numbers were and yours how small. They drew off their whole force to the brow of a steep hill; they had been besiegers before, but when you appeared they dared not even deploy for action. You cut down some of their bravest, whom gallantry alone had led to defend the rear."

So, Riotimus approached, probably sometime in 470 hoping that the Roman army under the command of Anthemiolus, son of the Emperor Anthemius would arrive at the same time to help defeat the Goths of Euric. Unfortunately Anthemiolus was late or Rio was early , Euric broke the siege of Auvergne and attacked Riotimus and defeated him after a long battle. Riotimus fled eastwards to the nearby Burgundians who were short hop over the border towards Lyon. MacGeorge again puts it like this :

"Assuming that the Romans were Anthemius' forces from Italy, they were possibly delayed in setting out. One would not normally place much value on this bit of Jordanes, but it certainly would have made sense for the two armies to attack Euric simultaneously, and this might have been the plan. If the army's arrival in Gaul was delayed, thus preventing them from co-operating effectively with Riothamus, the cause could well have been Ricimer's rebellion or lack of co-operation. It is obviously speculation, but Anthemius may have blamed Ricimer in part or full for his son's death, accentuating the personal bitterness of the conflict

Euric returned to besiege Auvergne again in 471 after defeating the army of Anthemiolus near Arles. We can only assume he obtained intelligence from captured Britons that informed him that Anthemiolus was on the way as Euric was able to meet Anthemiolus practically as he got off his ships near Arles, southern France.  The city of Auvergne/Clermont was ceded in 474 and Sidonius was exiled to the Pyrenees. All these events show the timing is crucial for the battle. It could only have happened sometime around 469-470 at the latest. It is also evident that as Arvandus had been arrested in 468 he could have had nothing to do with `betraying' Riotimus as is so often said. He tried to betray the Romanised Britons of Northern Gaul yes, but not Riotimus.

If Riotimus did land at in the state of Aquitania somewhere then the possibility of ships from Armorica is more plausible, possibly from Vannes, Nantes or Quimper but this would admit the presence of Britons in Armorica in 469 which is certainly possible as the exodus had begun by this time . The only way for 12,000 men though is if there were many more settlements in Northern Gaul of Britons following Constantine's campaign in 409-411 and possibly British forces in the army of Aetius in the mid 450's and possible exodus following the Saxon incursions. In 469 I am doubtful whether that many Britons could be raised in Armorica from the early British settlements. So Riotimus most likely came from southern Britain. Perhaps a middle way could be suggested though. Riothamus could have stopped on route and collected men from the Britons of Armorica to augment his British force.

For Riotimus to have been based in Britain and raise upwards of 12000 men the implication is that the Saxons were under control/defeated or hadnt even arrived yet. So it's quite possible that Riotimus was from Britain. It is evident though that as the battle was near Auvergne/Clermont then we can discard the link with Avalon which was much further North and hence discard the association of Riotimus with Arthur. Indeed, if Riothamus was defeated at Deols, how would he then ‘retreat’ by going eastwards through lands just lost to the Goths. It’s ludicrous, he would just have popped over the Loire to safety. So he was nowhere near this battle or even in the country at the time and more to the point, neither was Euric!!

If Sidonius' letter to Riotimus was after the siege of Clermont (when Sidonius had returned from exile in the confines of the fortress of Livia, near Carcassonne and then after in Bordeaux), ie 476, then it indicates that Riothamus was now settled in the region with the remnants of his British army. The indication that his men are tempting slaves away from other landowners suggests the Britons needed workers for their new found land on the borders of Clermont and Lyon. Lyon since 458 was Burgundian. However at this time in 476 Sidonius was no longer a Bishop of Auvergne but he may still have been under Holy Orders. This leaves then only one other possibility, when the letters to Riothamus could have been written, and that was in 470/471, the short time after Riothamus was defeated and Euric had travelled south to take on Anthemiolus. Which it was is debatable, but due to the deference shown to Riothamus by Sidonius in the existing letter I would place it after his return from exile.

Where did Riothamus settle with his Britons after defeat? Just east of Clermont/Auvergne towards Lyon is the small town of Montbrison (mount of the Britons?), which even has a 'rue de Bretagnia' - road of the Britons. Perhaps this is where he ended up.

The main arguments presented here are that:

1. The battle of Bourges Deols took place in 465/6 long before Riotimus was called to Gaul. It couldn't have been any later than 467 as this is when Gregory's sequence of events ends, with earthquake mentioned in 467.
2. Arvandus was under arrest in 468, again before Riotimus had entered Gaul.
3. The letter from Sidonius to Riotimus couldn't have been written before 470/71 when Sidonius was made Bishop. So the letter was post battle.
4. The battle that Riotimus fought with Euric was near Auvergne, now Clermont Ferrand and he fled towards the nearby border of Burgundy in the direction of Lyon.
5. Riotimus landed in the state of Bituriges which is Aquitania, that included Bourges.
6. The myth of Ecdicius defeating thousands of Goths is just that a myth. Euric was withdrawing to a hill to face Riotimus and Ecdicius only took out some stragglers.
   

References:

History of the Franks, Gregory of Tours, 6thC

http://www.celtic-twilight.com/charlemagne/gregory_of_tours/gothof_b1.htm

Hydatius, Latin 5thC:

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0776/__P1.HTM

Life of St Genevieve, 6thC

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/golden216.htm

Jordanes, 6thC:

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/Goths/Goths1.htm

Letters of Sidonius, 5thC

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/sidonius_letters_01book1.htm

Life of Sidonius - Lecture, Lynn Harry Nelson, Emeritus Professor of

Medieval History, The University of Kansas.

http://www.vlib.us/medieval/lectures/sidonius.html

Anthemius - By Ralph W. Mathison Ph.D, University of South Carolina 1998 

King Arthur: Myth-Making and History By N. J. Higham, 2002, Routledge.

Late Roman Warlords, 2002 Penny MacGeorge, Oxford University Press

Cemeteries and Society in Merovingian Gaul: Selected Studies in History and Archaeology, 1992-2009 (Brill's Series on the Early Middle Ages) by Guy Halsall 2010 

Franks and Alamanni in the Merovingian Period: An Ethnographic Perspective. By Ian N. Wood, Boydell Press; New edition edition (20 Nov 2003)

A History of the Alans in the West: From Their First Appearance in the Sources of Classical Antiquity Through the Early Middle Ages (Minnesota Monographs in the Humanities) by Bernard S. Bachrach (25 Jul 1973)

 

Copyright 2011 Dane Pestano. All rights reserved.