Laeti

Laeti, the plural form of "laetus", 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. [Goldsworthy (2000) 215] The term "laetus" is of uncertain origin, but most likely derives from a Germanic word meaning "serf" or "half-free colonist". [Walde & Hofmann (1965) Bd. 1. A - L. 4. Aufl. ] Other authorities suggest the term was of Latin, Celtic or even Iranian origin. [Neue Pauly-Wissowa "Laeti"]

Origin

"Laeti" were 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, or Sarmatians, Iranic mounted nomads from the Eurasian steppe, who had occupied the Hungarian Plain facing the Roman province of Pannonia (W. Hungary) across the Danube. There is no mention in the sources of "laeti" in the Eastern section of the Empire. [Jones (1964) 620]

Although the literary sources mention "laeti" only from the 4th century onwards, it is possible they existed from as early as the 2nd century: the 3rd century historian Dio Cassius reports that emperor Marcus Aurelius (ruled 161-80) 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). [Dio Cassius LXXI.11] 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. [Tacitus "Germ." XXVIII] 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). [Tacitus "Hist." I.78] 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. [Tacitus "Germ." XXVIII]

Organisation

The precise constitutions which regulated "laeti" settlements are obscure. [Jones (1964) 620] It is possible that their constitutions were standard, or alternatively that the terms varied with each individual settlement. [Elton (1996) 130] 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). [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. [Jones (1964) 620] Indeed the term "laetus" may derive from the Latin word "laetus" meaning "delighted" and may have originally been used to distinguish voluntary settlements of barbarians from "dediticii", which were forced settlements of prisoners of war (which may have been on less favourable terms than "laeti"); and "tributarii" were probably not settlements within the empire at all, but tribes beyond the borders that had a client relationship with Rome.

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. [Jones (1964) 620] . 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. [Notitia "Occ." XLII] 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. [Jones (1964) 620] Or a fixed number of recruits required each year. [Goldsworthy (2005) 208] 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. [Birley (2002) 43]

Also like the Batavi, who were granted the privilege in return for their disproportionate contributions to the military, [Tacitus "Germ." XXIX] 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. [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. [Elton (1996) 130-2] 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. [Elton (1996) 131] [Goldsworthy (2003) 208] 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. [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 "scholae" (elite cavalry units) of "gentiles", most likely formed of "laeti". [Notitia "Occ." IX & "Oriens" XI] 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. [Elton (1996) 131] The units "ala I Sarmatarum" and "numerus Hnaufridi" attested in 3rd century Britain may have been formed of "laeti". [ [http://www.roman-britain.org/military/military_menu.htm Roman Army in Britain] , from "roman-britain.org"]

"Notitia Dignitatum"

Much of our information on "laeti" is contained in the "Notitia Dignitatum", a document drawn up at the turn of the 4th/5th centuries. 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 ca. 395 for the Eastern section and ca. 425 for the West, [Mattingly (2006) 238] 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" only mentions "laeti" settlements in Italy and Gaul - and even the two lists of "laeti" prefects extant [Notitia "Occ." XLII] are incomplete. But the "Notitia" suggests that "laeti" settlements may have existed in the Danubian provinces also. [Notitia "Occ." XXXIV and XXXV] Furthermore, the lists clearly contain errors. The list of "praefecti laetorum" in Gaul contains prefects for the Lingones, Nervii and Batavi: but these tribes had been inside the empire since its inception under Augustus. By the time the "Notitia" was compiled, they had provided recruits for the Roman auxiliary regiments for four centuries, and had been Roman citizens for nearly 200 years. They could not, therefore, have been classified as "laeti". Most likely the text is corrupt. Medieval copyists of the "Notitia" probably confused the name of a geographical region (e.g. Nerviorum - the territory of the Nervii) with the name of a "laeti" people. However, it has been suggested that these names could relate to displaced persons from those areas. [Jones (1964) 620]

List of known "laeti" settlements

Title XLII of the Western part contains two lists of "laeti" prefects, one for the "praefecti laetorum" in Gaul, and one for the "praefecti gentilium Sarmatarum" (prefects of Sarmatian "gentiles") in Italy and Gaul, all under the command of the "magister peditum praesentalis"- the commander of the imperial escort army in Italy (despite his title, which means "master of infantry", this officer commanded cavalry as well as infantry units). [Goldsworthy (2005) 204]

"praefecti laetorum" in Gaul

Removing the names of the "fake "laeti" mentioned above, and replacing them with "unidentified tribe", the following list results:Fact|date=May 2008

* (unidentified tribe) et 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, Aquitanica I
* Taifali: Poitiers, Aquitanica
* (unidentified tribe): dispersed over Belgica I
* Acti: Epuso, Belgica I
* (unidentified tribe): Fanomantis, Belgica II
* (unidentified tribe): Nemetacum, Belgica II
* (unidentified tribe) Contraginnenses: Noviomagus, Belgica II
* unspecified "gentiles": Remo and Silvamectum, Belgica II
* Lagenses: near the Tungri, Germania II

* (substantial section missing)

"praefecti gentilium Sarmatarum" in Italy

* "Apulia et Calabria" (the region today known as Puglia, the "heel" of the Italian "boot")
* "Brutii et Lucania" (the regions today known as Calabria, Basilicata and Cilento, southern Italy)
* "Forum Fulviense"
* "Opittergum" (Oderzo, Friuli, NE Italy)
* "Patavium" (Padova, Veneto, NE Italy)
* (placename missing)
* "Cremona" (Cremona, Lombardia, N Italy)
* "Taurini" (Torino, Piemonte, NW Italy)
* "Aquae sive Tertona" (Tortona, Piemonte, NW Italy)
* "Novaria" (Novara, Piemonte, NW Italy)
* "Vercellae" (Vercelli, Piemonte, NW Italy)
* "Regio Samnites" (Sannio, Campania, southern Italy)
* "Bononia in Aemilia" (Bologna, Emilia-Romagna, N central Italy)
* "Quadratae et Eporizium" (Gorizia?, Friuli, NE Italy)
* "(in Liguria) Pollentia" (Pollenzo, Piemonte, NW Italy)

"praefecti gentilium Sarmatarum" in Gaul

* "Pictavi" (Poitiers west central France): N.B. Taifali also mentioned here
* "a Chora Parisios usque" (Paris region)
* "inter Remos et Ambianos Belgica II" (Champagne region)
* "per tractum Rodunensem et Alaunorum" (Rennes area? NW France) : N.B. "Alauni" (Alans) were probably also present here
* "Lingones" (Langres, NE France)
* "Au..." (name unintelligible)

* (entire folio - two pages - missing)

Marcomanni

The "Notitia" also mentions a "tribunus gentis Marcomannorum" under the command of the "dux Pannoniae et Norici" and a "tribunus gentis per Raetias deputatae" (tribune of natives in the Raetian provinces). [Notitia "Occ." XXXIV and XXXV] These Marcomanni were probably "laeti" also and may be the descendants of tribespeople settled in the area in the 2nd century by Marcus Aurelius.

The "Notitia" thus contains 34 entries concerning "laeti". But some entries relate to several settlements, not just one, e.g. the Sarmatian settlements in Apulia and Calabria. Furthermore, more than two pages of entries appear to be missing. The number of settlements may thus have been in the hundreds, in the western half of the empire alone.

Impact

The "Notitia" lists of "laeti" settlements, incomplete as they are, show their considerable proliferation over the fourth century. This, together with the large numbers of military units with barbarian names, gave rise to the "barbarisation" theory of the fall of the Roman empire. This view ultimately originates from Edward Gibbon's "magnum opus", the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". According to this view, a critical factor in the disintegration of the western Roman empire in the 5th century was the Romans' ever-increasing reliance on barbarian recruits to man (and lead) their armies, while they themselves became soft and averse to military service. The barbarian recruits had no fundamental loyalty to Rome and repeatedly betrayed Rome's interests. This view does not distinguish between "laeti", foederati and mercenaries.

According to Goldsworthy, there is no evidence that barbarian officers or men were any less reliable than their Roman counterparts. [Goldsworthy (2005) 208] Instead, the evidence points to the conclusion that "laeti" were a crucial source of first-rate recruits to late Roman army.

Citations

References

Ancient

* [http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0212/_INDEX.HTM Notitia Dignitatum] (late 4th c.)
* Dio Cassius "Roman History" (mid 3rd c.)
* Tacitus "Germania" (late 1st c.)
* Tacitus "Historiae" (late 1st c.)

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".

See also

Late Roman army