| Revision as of 14:35, 3 September 2013 editEraNavigator (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers19,384 edits →Origin← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:40, 3 September 2013 edit undoEraNavigator (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers19,384 edits →Origin: restoring Organisation section arbitrarily removed by unregistered user on ground that he considers it "speculative"Next edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| Although the literary sources mention ''laeti'' only from the 4th century onwards, it is likely that their antecedents existed from as early as the 2nd century: the 3rd century historian ] reports that emperor ] (ruled 161–180) granted land in the border regions of ], ], ] and ], and even in Italy itself, to groups of ], ] and ] tribespeople captured during the ] (although Marcus Aurelius later expelled those settled in the peninsula after one group mutinied and briefly seized ], the base of the ]).<ref>Dio Cassius LXXI.11</ref> These settlers may have been the original ''laeti''. Indeed, there is evidence that the practice of settling communities of ''barbari'' inside the Empire stretches as far back as the founder-emperor ] himself (ruled 42 BC - 14 AD): during his time, a number of subgroups of German tribes from the eastern bank of the Rhine were transferred, at their own request, to the Roman-controlled western bank, e.g. the ], a subgroup of the ] tribe, and the ].<ref name="Tacitus Germ. XXVIII">Tacitus ''Germ.'' XXVIII</ref> In 69, the emperor ] is reported to have settled communities of ] from North Africa in the province of ] (modern Andalusia, Spain).<ref>Tacitus ''Hist.'' I.78</ref> Given the attestation of several auxiliary regiments with the names of these tribes in the 1st and 2nd centuries, it is likely that their admission to the empire was conditional on some kind of military obligations (Tacitus states that the Ubii were given the task of guarding the West bank of the Rhine) i.e. that they were ''laeti'' in all but name.<ref name="Tacitus Germ. XXVIII"/> | Although the literary sources mention ''laeti'' only from the 4th century onwards, it is likely that their antecedents existed from as early as the 2nd century: the 3rd century historian ] reports that emperor ] (ruled 161–180) granted land in the border regions of ], ], ] and ], and even in Italy itself, to groups of ], ] and ] tribespeople captured during the ] (although Marcus Aurelius later expelled those settled in the peninsula after one group mutinied and briefly seized ], the base of the ]).<ref>Dio Cassius LXXI.11</ref> These settlers may have been the original ''laeti''. Indeed, there is evidence that the practice of settling communities of ''barbari'' inside the Empire stretches as far back as the founder-emperor ] himself (ruled 42 BC - 14 AD): during his time, a number of subgroups of German tribes from the eastern bank of the Rhine were transferred, at their own request, to the Roman-controlled western bank, e.g. the ], a subgroup of the ] tribe, and the ].<ref name="Tacitus Germ. XXVIII">Tacitus ''Germ.'' XXVIII</ref> In 69, the emperor ] is reported to have settled communities of ] from North Africa in the province of ] (modern Andalusia, Spain).<ref>Tacitus ''Hist.'' I.78</ref> Given the attestation of several auxiliary regiments with the names of these tribes in the 1st and 2nd centuries, it is likely that their admission to the empire was conditional on some kind of military obligations (Tacitus states that the Ubii were given the task of guarding the West bank of the Rhine) i.e. that they were ''laeti'' in all but name.<ref name="Tacitus Germ. XXVIII"/> | ||
| ==Organisation== | |||
| The precise constitutions which regulated ''laeti'' settlements are obscure.<ref name="Jones 1964 620"/> It is possible that their constitutions were standard, or alternatively that the terms varied with each individual settlement.<ref name="Elton 1996 130">Elton (1996) 130</ref> There is also doubt about whether the terms governing ''laeti'' were distinct from those applying to ''gentiles'' or ''dediticii'' (surrendering barbarians) or ''tributarii'' (peoples obliged to pay tribute).<ref name="Elton 1996 130"/> It is possible that these names were used interchangeably. On the other hand, they may refer to juridically distinct types of community, with distinct sets of obligations and privileges for each type. Most likely, the terms ''laeti'' and ''gentiles'' were interchangeable, as they are listed in the same section of the ''Notitia'', and referred to voluntary settlements.<ref name="Jones 1964 620"/> | |||
| Reproductively self-sufficient groups of ''laeti'' (i.e. including women and children) would be granted land (''terrae laeticae'') to settle in the empire by the imperial government.<ref name="Jones 1964 620"/>. They appear to form distinct military ], which probably were outside the normal ], since the settlements were under the control of a Roman ''praefectus laetorum'' (or ''praefectus gentilium''), who would be responsible for either individual communities, e.g. the ''praefectus gentilium Sarmatarum Novariae'' ("prefect of the Sarmatian community at ]", N. Italy); or all communities of a particular tribe in a particular region, e.g. the ''praefectus gentilium Sarmatarum Calabriae at Apuliae'' ("prefect of Sarmatians in ] and ]", regions in southern Italy). The ''praefectus'' was clearly a military officer, as he in turn reported to the '']'' (commander of the imperial escort army) in Italy.<ref name="Notitia Occ. XLII">Notitia ''Occ.'' XLII</ref> This officer was, in the late 4th/early 5th centuries, the effective supreme commander of the Western Roman army. | |||
| In return for their privileges of admission to the empire and land grants, the ''laeti'' settlers were under an obligation to supply recruits to the ], presumably in greater proportions than ordinary communities were liable to under the regular ] of the late empire. The treaty granting a ''laeti'' community land might specify a once-and-for-all contribution of recruits.<ref name="Jones 1964 620"/> Or a fixed number of recruits required each year.<ref name="Goldsworthy 2005 208">Goldsworthy (2005) 208</ref> Most likely, this would have been a specified proportion of all ''laeti'' males reaching military age (16 years). The proportion required is unknown, and may have varied. A possible parallel is the treaty with Rome of the ] tribe of ] in the 1st century. It has been calculated that in the ] era, as many as half all Batavi males reaching military age were enlisted in the Roman ].<ref>Birley (2002) 43</ref> | |||
| Also like the Batavi, who were granted the privilege in return for their disproportionate contributions to the military,<ref>Tacitus ''Germ.'' XXIX</ref> it is likely that ''laeti'' settlers enjoyed exemption from ''tributum'' (direct taxation on land and heads). A decree of 409 providing for the settlement of some ] tribespeople stipulates that they must pay taxes and be exempt from military service for 20 years. But this settlement was specifically aimed at increasing agricultural production, and the decree specifically provides that the settlers be known by the title ''coloni'' ("peasants") and no other. The decree probably implies that the requirement to pay taxes and exemption from military service were exceptional.<ref name="Elton 1996 130"/> | |||
| There is considerable dispute about whether ''laeti'' settlements formed their own separate units or were simply part of the general pool of army recruits.<ref>Elton (1996) 130-2</ref> The traditional view is that the ''praefecti laetorum'' or ''gentilium'' mentioned in the ''Notitia'' each were in command of a regiment composed of the ''laeti'' ascribed to them, on the basis that they reported to the ''magister militum praesentalis''. But Elton and Goldsworthy argue that ''laeti'' were normally drafted into existing military units, and only rarely formed their own.<ref name="Elton 1996 131">Elton (1996) 131</ref><ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 208</ref> The main support for this view is a decree of 400 AD in the '']'' which authorises a ''magister militum praesentalis'' to enlist Alamanni and Sarmatian ''laeti'', together with other groups such as the sons of veterans. This probably implies that ''laeti'' were seen as part of the general pool of recruits.<ref name="Elton 1996 131"/> In this case the ''praefecti laetorum/gentilium'' would have had administrative duties only, especially ensuring the full military levy each year. | |||
| Some regiments of ''laeti'' certainly existed. The ''praesentales'' armies in both East and West contained '']'' (elite cavalry units) of ''gentiles'', most likely formed of ''laeti''.<ref>Notitia ''Occ.'' IX & ''Oriens'' XI</ref> There is also a mention of a regular regiment called ''Laeti'' in the clash between emperors ] and ] in 361; and a regiment called ''Felices Laetorum'' in 6th century Italy.<ref name="Elton 1996 131"/> The units ''ala I Sarmatarum'' and ''numerus Hnaufridi'' attested in 3rd century Britain may have been formed of ''laeti''.<ref>, from ''roman-britain.org''</ref> | |||
| ==''Notitia Dignitatum''== | ==''Notitia Dignitatum''== | ||
Revision as of 14:40, 3 September 2013
Laeti /ˈlɛtaɪ/, the plural form of laetus /ˈliːtəs/ also leti, liti, was a term used in the late Roman Empire to denote communities of barbari ("barbarians", literally "babblers" - of outlandish tongues - i.e. foreigners, people from outside the Empire) permitted to, and granted land to, settle on imperial territory on condition that they provide recruits for the Roman military. The term laetus (which means "happy" in Latin) is of uncertain origin, but most likely derives from a Germanic word meaning "serf" or "half-free colonist". Other authorities suggest the term was of Latin, Celtic or even Iranian origin.
Origin
Laeti may have been groups of migrants drawn from the tribes that lived beyond the Empire's borders. These had been in constant contact and intermittent warfare with the Empire since its northern borders were stabilized in the reign of Augustus in the early 1st century. In the West, these tribes were primarily Germans, living beyond the Rhine. There is no mention in the sources of laeti in the Eastern section of the Empire. Literary sources mention laeti only from the late 3rd and 4th centuries.
Although the literary sources mention laeti only from the 4th century onwards, it is likely that their antecedents existed from as early as the 2nd century: the 3rd century historian Dio Cassius reports that emperor Marcus Aurelius (ruled 161–180) granted land in the border regions of Germania, Pannonia, Moesia and Dacia, and even in Italy itself, to groups of Marcomanni, Quadi and Iazyges tribespeople captured during the Marcomannic Wars (although Marcus Aurelius later expelled those settled in the peninsula after one group mutinied and briefly seized Ravenna, the base of the Adriatic fleet). These settlers may have been the original laeti. Indeed, there is evidence that the practice of settling communities of barbari inside the Empire stretches as far back as the founder-emperor Augustus himself (ruled 42 BC - 14 AD): during his time, a number of subgroups of German tribes from the eastern bank of the Rhine were transferred, at their own request, to the Roman-controlled western bank, e.g. the Cugerni, a subgroup of the Sugambri tribe, and the Ubii. In 69, the emperor Otho is reported to have settled communities of Mauri from North Africa in the province of Hispania Baetica (modern Andalusia, Spain). Given the attestation of several auxiliary regiments with the names of these tribes in the 1st and 2nd centuries, it is likely that their admission to the empire was conditional on some kind of military obligations (Tacitus states that the Ubii were given the task of guarding the West bank of the Rhine) i.e. that they were laeti in all but name.
Organisation
The precise constitutions which regulated laeti settlements are obscure. It is possible that their constitutions were standard, or alternatively that the terms varied with each individual settlement. There is also doubt about whether the terms governing laeti were distinct from those applying to gentiles or dediticii (surrendering barbarians) or tributarii (peoples obliged to pay tribute). It is possible that these names were used interchangeably. On the other hand, they may refer to juridically distinct types of community, with distinct sets of obligations and privileges for each type. Most likely, the terms laeti and gentiles were interchangeable, as they are listed in the same section of the Notitia, and referred to voluntary settlements.
Reproductively self-sufficient groups of laeti (i.e. including women and children) would be granted land (terrae laeticae) to settle in the empire by the imperial government.. They appear to form distinct military cantons, which probably were outside the normal provincial administration, since the settlements were under the control of a Roman praefectus laetorum (or praefectus gentilium), who would be responsible for either individual communities, e.g. the praefectus gentilium Sarmatarum Novariae ("prefect of the Sarmatian community at Novara", N. Italy); or all communities of a particular tribe in a particular region, e.g. the praefectus gentilium Sarmatarum Calabriae at Apuliae ("prefect of Sarmatians in Calabria and Apulia", regions in southern Italy). The praefectus was clearly a military officer, as he in turn reported to the magister peditum praesentalis (commander of the imperial escort army) in Italy. This officer was, in the late 4th/early 5th centuries, the effective supreme commander of the Western Roman army.
In return for their privileges of admission to the empire and land grants, the laeti settlers were under an obligation to supply recruits to the Roman army, presumably in greater proportions than ordinary communities were liable to under the regular conscription of the late empire. The treaty granting a laeti community land might specify a once-and-for-all contribution of recruits. Or a fixed number of recruits required each year. Most likely, this would have been a specified proportion of all laeti males reaching military age (16 years). The proportion required is unknown, and may have varied. A possible parallel is the treaty with Rome of the Batavi tribe of Germania Inferior in the 1st century. It has been calculated that in the Julio-Claudian era, as many as half all Batavi males reaching military age were enlisted in the Roman auxilia.
Also like the Batavi, who were granted the privilege in return for their disproportionate contributions to the military, it is likely that laeti settlers enjoyed exemption from tributum (direct taxation on land and heads). A decree of 409 providing for the settlement of some Sciri tribespeople stipulates that they must pay taxes and be exempt from military service for 20 years. But this settlement was specifically aimed at increasing agricultural production, and the decree specifically provides that the settlers be known by the title coloni ("peasants") and no other. The decree probably implies that the requirement to pay taxes and exemption from military service were exceptional.
There is considerable dispute about whether laeti settlements formed their own separate units or were simply part of the general pool of army recruits. The traditional view is that the praefecti laetorum or gentilium mentioned in the Notitia each were in command of a regiment composed of the laeti ascribed to them, on the basis that they reported to the magister militum praesentalis. But Elton and Goldsworthy argue that laeti were normally drafted into existing military units, and only rarely formed their own. The main support for this view is a decree of 400 AD in the Codex Theodosianus which authorises a magister militum praesentalis to enlist Alamanni and Sarmatian laeti, together with other groups such as the sons of veterans. This probably implies that laeti were seen as part of the general pool of recruits. In this case the praefecti laetorum/gentilium would have had administrative duties only, especially ensuring the full military levy each year.
Some regiments of laeti certainly existed. The praesentales armies in both East and West contained scholae (elite cavalry units) of gentiles, most likely formed of laeti. There is also a mention of a regular regiment called Laeti in the clash between emperors Constantius II and Julian in 361; and a regiment called Felices Laetorum in 6th century Italy. The units ala I Sarmatarum and numerus Hnaufridi attested in 3rd century Britain may have been formed of laeti.
Notitia Dignitatum
Much of our information on laeti is contained in the Notitia Dignitatum, a document drawn up at the turn of the 4th to 5th century. The document is a list of official posts in the Roman Empire, both civil and military. It must be treated with caution, as many sections are missing or contain gaps, so the Notitia does not account for all posts and commands in existence at the time of compilation. Furthermore, the lists for the two halves of the Empire are separated by as much as 30 years, corresponding to c. 395 for the Eastern section and c. 425 for the West, and may include deployments from as early as 379. Therefore not all posts mentioned were in existence at the same time, and not all posts that were in existence are shown.
The surviving Notitia mentions laeti settlements only in Gaul - and even the two lists of laeti prefects extant are incomplete. But the Notitia suggests that laeti settlements may have existed in the Danubian provinces also. The list of praefecti laetorum in Gaul contains prefects for the Lingones, Nervii and Batavi.
List of known laeti settlements
Title XLII of the Western part contains a list of praefecti laetorum in Gaul.
- Batavi and Suevi at Baiocas and Constantia, Lugdunensis II
- Suevi: Ceromannos and another, unknown location in Lugdunensis III
- Franks: Redonas, Lugdunensis III
- Teutoniciani: Carnunta, Lugdunensis IV
- Suevi: Arumbernos (Auvergne), Aquitanica I
- : dispersed over Belgica I
- Acti: Epuso, Belgica I
- : Fanomantis, Belgica II
- : Nemetacum, Belgica II
- Contraginnenses: Noviomagus, Belgica II
- : Remo and Silvamectum, Belgica II
- Lagenses: near the Tungri, Germania II
Citations
- Goldsworthy (2000) 215
- Walde & Hofmann (1965) Bd. 1. A - L. 4. Aufl.
- Neue Pauly-Wissowa Laeti
- ^ Jones (1964) 620
- Dio Cassius LXXI.11
- ^ Tacitus Germ. XXVIII
- Tacitus Hist. I.78
- ^ Elton (1996) 130
- ^ Notitia Occ. XLII
- Goldsworthy (2005) 208
- Birley (2002) 43
- Tacitus Germ. XXIX
- Elton (1996) 130-2
- ^ Elton (1996) 131
- Goldsworthy (2003) 208
- Notitia Occ. IX & Oriens XI
- Roman Army in Britain, from roman-britain.org
- Mattingly (2006) 238
- Notitia Occ. XXXIV and XXXV
References
Ancient
- Notitia Dignitatum (late 4th century)
Modern
- Birley, Anthony (2002), Band of Brothers: Garrison Life at Vindolanda
- Elton, Hugh (1996), Roman Warfare 350-425
- Goldsworthy, Adrian (2000), Roman Warfare
- Goldsworthy Adrian, (2005), The Complete Roman Army
- Jones, A. H. M. (1964), Later Roman Empire
- Mattingly, David (2006), An imperial possession: Britain in the Roman empire
- Neue Pauly-Wissowa
- Walde, A. and Hofmann, J.B. (1965), Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch.