 |
| Part ofa series on the |
| Military of ancient Rome |
|---|
 Ancient Rome portal |
Laeti (/ˈlɛtaɪ/), the plural form oflaetus (/ˈliːtəs/), was a term used in the lateRoman Empire to denote communities ofbarbari ("barbarians"), i.e. foreigners, or people from outside the Empire, permitted to settle on, and granted land in, imperial territory on condition that they provide recruits for the Roman military.[1] The termlaetus is of uncertain origin. It means "lucky" or "happy" inLatin, but may derive from a non-Latin word. It may derive from aGermanicword meaning "serf" or "half-free colonist".[2] Other authorities suggest the term was of Celtic or Iranian origin.[3]
Thelaeti 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 ofAugustus in the early 1st century. In the West, these tribes were primarilyGermans, living beyond theRhine. There is no mention in the sources oflaeti in the Eastern section of the Empire.[4] Literary sources mentionlaeti only from the late 3rd and 4th centuries.
Although the literary sources mentionlaeti only from the 4th century onwards, it is likely that their antecedents existed from as early as the 2nd century: the 3rd-century historianDio Cassius reports that emperorMarcus Aurelius (ruled 161–180) granted land in the border regions ofGermania,Pannonia,Moesia andDacia, and even in Italy itself, to groups ofMarcomanni,Quadi andIazyges tribespeople captured during theMarcomannic Wars (although Marcus Aurelius later expelled those settled in the peninsula after one group mutinied and briefly seizedRavenna, the base of theAdriatic fleet).[5] These settlers may have been the originallaeti. Indeed, there is evidence that the practice of settling communities ofbarbari inside the Empire stretches as far back as the founder-emperorAugustus 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. theCugerni, a subgroup of theSugambri tribe, and theUbii.[6] In 69, the emperorOtho is reported to have settled communities ofMauri from North Africa in the province ofHispania Baetica (modern Andalusia, Spain).[7] 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 werelaeti in all but name.[6]
The nameLaeti may have become more widely used afterQuintus Aemilius Laetus managed the support of the Danubian Legions forSeptimius Severus and eventually took 15 thousand Danubians to thePraetorian Guards in Rome.TheSeveran dynasty lasted for 42 years, during which Danubians served asPraetorian Guards.
The precise constitutions which regulatedlaeti settlements are obscure.[4] It is possible that their constitutions were standard, or alternatively that the terms varied with each individual settlement.[8] There is also doubt about whether the terms governinglaeti were distinct from those applying togentiles ("natives") ordediticii ("surrendered barbarians") ortributarii (peoples obliged to pay tribute).[8] It is possible that these names were used interchangeably, or at least overlapped considerably. 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 termslaeti andgentiles were interchangeable, as they are listed in the same section of theNotitia Dignitatum, and both referred to voluntary settlements.[4] In addition, theNotitia often places the two terms together, e.g. thepraefectus laetorum gentilium Svevorum at Bayeux and thepraefectus laetorum gentilium at Reims.[9]
Reproductively self-sufficient groups oflaeti (i.e. including women and children) would be granted land (terrae laeticae) to settle in the empire by the imperial government.[4] They appear to have formed distinct militarycantons, which probably were outside the normalprovincial administration, since the settlements were under the control of a Romanpraefectus laetorum (orpraefectus gentilium), who were probably military officers, as they reported to themagister peditum praesentalis (commander of the imperial escort army) in Italy.[10] 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, thelaeti settlers were under an obligation to supply recruits to theRoman army, presumably in greater proportions than ordinary communities were liable to under the regularconscription of the late empire. The treaty granting alaeti community land might specify a once-and-for-all contribution of recruits.[4] Or a fixed number of recruits required each year.[11] A possible parallel is the treaty with Rome of theBatavi tribe ofGermania Inferior in the 1st century. It has been calculated that in theJulio-Claudian era, as many as half of all Batavi males reaching military age were enlisted in the Romanauxilia.[12]
There is considerable dispute about whether recruits fromlaeti settlements formed their own distinct military units or were simply part of the general pool of army recruits.[13] The traditional view of scholars is that thepraefecti laetorum orgentilium mentioned in theNotitia were each in command of a regiment composed of thelaeti ascribed to them. Some regiments oflaeti certainly existed. Thepraesentales armies in both East and West containedscholae (elite cavalry units) ofgentiles.[14] There is also a mention of a regular regiment calledLaeti in the clash between emperorsConstantius II andJulian in 361; and a regiment calledFelices Laetorum in 6th century Italy.[15] The unitsala I Sarmatarum andnumerus Hnaufridi attested in 3rd century Britain may have been formed oflaeti.[16]
But Elton and Goldsworthy argue thatlaeti were normally drafted into existing military units, and only rarely formed their own.[15][17] The main support for this view is a decree of 400 AD in theCodex Theodosianus which authorises amagister militum praesentalis to enlist Alamanni and Sarmatianlaeti, together with other groups such as the sons of veterans. This probably implies thatlaeti were seen as part of the general pool of recruits.[15] In this case, thepraefecti laetorum/gentilium may have been purely administrative roles, especially charged with ensuring the full military levy from their cantons each year.
Much of our information onlaeti is contained in theNotitia 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 theNotitia 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 theEastern section and ca. 425 for theWest.[18] Therefore, not all posts mentioned were in existence at the same time, and not all posts thatwere in existence are shown.
The survivingNotitia only mentionslaeti settlements in Italy andGaul – and even the two lists oflaeti prefects extant[10] are incomplete. But theNotitia suggests thatlaeti settlements may have existed in the Danubian provinces also.[19] Furthermore, the lists probably contain errors. The list ofpraefecti laetorum in Gaul contains prefects for theLingones,Nervii andBatavi: but these tribes had been inside the empire since its inception underAugustus. Thus, their classification aslaeti is problematic; most likely the text is corrupt. However, it has been suggested that these names may relate to Roman people displaced from their home areas.[4]
Title XLII of the Western part contains two lists oflaeti prefects, one for thepraefecti laetorum in Gaul, and one for thepraefecti gentilium Sarmatarum (prefects of Sarmatiangentiles, i.e. "natives") in Italy and Gaul, all under the command of themagister 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).[20]
TheNotitia also mentions atribunus gentis Marcomannorum under the command of thedux Pannoniae et Norici and atribunus gentis per Raetias deputatae (tribune of natives in theRaetian provinces).[19] TheseMarcomanni were probablylaeti also and may be the descendants of tribespeople settled in the area in the 2nd century by Marcus Aurelius. Alternatively (or additionally), they may have been descended from Germans settled in Pannonia followingGallienus's treaty with King Attalus of the Marcomanni in AD 258 or 259.[21]
TheNotitia thus contains 34 entries concerninglaeti. 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.
TheNotitia lists oflaeti 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 fromEdward Gibbon'smagnum opus, theDecline 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 betweenlaeti,foederati and mercenaries.
This view has remained in history writing since the more than 200 years since Gibbon wrote his narrative. In recent times the views of Gibbon has been generally discounted. According to Goldsworthy, there is no evidence that barbarian officers or men were any less reliable than their Roman counterparts.[11] Instead, the evidence points to the conclusion thatlaeti were a crucial source of first-rate recruits to late Roman army. Recruitment of Barbarians was not something new and had been present since the days of theRoman Republic, Julius Caesar and Marc Antony recruited defeated Gallic and German horsemen which served in their campaigns. The practice was taken up by the first emperorAugustus with the establishment of the auxiliaries, incorporating the defeated Barbarians into the Roman army. TheLaeti, like the auxiliaries, were set on a path of Romanization.