Imagining the Saxons in Late Antique Gaul
James M. Harland
The other contributions to this part of the volume illustrate the
multifaceted roles that Saxons have played in events of the first
millennium AD. The involvement of the diverse peoples known
to the later Roman Empire by that name in the transformation
of Roman Britain is well known, and still fiercely debated
(Yorke, this volume; for a recent statement, see Halsall 2013).
The literary representation of Saxons in other dioceses of the
Western Roman Empire during its fourth- to sixth-century
transformation is not extensively studied (but see Flierman
2014; Flierman 2017). This silence is understandable. Saxons
rarely feature in texts of the period and the contexts for their
appearances are often unreliable (Bartholomew 1984).
Our authors only provide enough detail to allow a range of
interpretations (contrast, for example, Bartholomew 1984
with Heather 1999). Where mention of saxones is certain,
we are faced with a Classical ethnographic framework that
does not necessarily permit the representation of the realities
of fourth- and fifth-century Saxon society (see Halsall
2007a, 45–57). Even in those instances where the written
documentation is relatively detailed, as with late antique
descriptions of the end of Roman Britain and the aduentus
saxonum (Gildas, De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, DEB
hereafter), considerable epistemological and empirical barriers
impede the scholar who would seek to use this in conjunction
with archaeological material (Halsall 2011). It is difficult,
and I have previously argued nigh-on impossible, to use such
sources to construct an authentic depiction of late antique
Saxon society (Harland 2017a; Harland 2017b). Attempts to
do so rely on approaches to ethnic identity that have been
dismantled by modern sociology (Brubaker 2004).
This article therefore takes a different approach to the
study of Saxon identity. It does not seek the ›true‹ Saxons
behind these written accounts. Instead it aims to unravel the
purposes of their depiction, and how these were pursued in
the Late Roman prefecture of Gaul and its successor between
the mid-fifth to late sixth century. To achieve the necessary
close reading, I offer case studies of Saxons as depicted by
two authors of similar background: Sidonius Apollinaris and
Gregory of Tours. Both were Gallic bishops of senatorial
descent, but the vast changes that occurred across this period
produced authors with very different perspectives.
I examine separately the two authors’ personal
understandings of Saxons and their uses of the concept.
A shift in mentalité is found which demonstrates the effect
of Christian thinking on the ›middling classes‹ in the Late
Roman West, causing shockwaves that would reverberate
throughout and which may be seen as one of the many factors
in the Empire’s end (Brown 2012). A crisis in patronage
management from the fourth century onwards produced
conflict between the principales and the lower aristocracy in
town curiae. As excluded curiales turned to new patrons – ›the
Barbarians‹ – the Empire ceased to exist (Brown 2012, 491).
As is well known, the Church filled much of the void left by the
retraction of imperial governance. One reason for the change
in the status of the Church across this period was its being a
rare symbol of ideological continuity (Brown 2012, 482), but
this beacon of continuity was not external to the societal shift
underway. The bishop’s position was not that of the secular
landowner. It had to be continually fought for, unlike the
relative security of the Late Roman landed aristocrat (Brown
2012, 496). As a result, as imperial authority degraded, mental
outlooks became dispersed; a homogenising metropolitan
centre shattered into a landscape of numerous vantage points,
varying regionally and conceptually (Diefenbach 2013). Yet
many social structures which had organized people’s lives
remained the same (Gillett 2003, 27–29). What had changed
were the conceptual frameworks within which these were
regarded, after the removal of the conceptual centre, what
Reimitz (2015, 15) calls a victory of ›local Romanness‹.
I will show this process in representations of Saxons. We
start with the imperial perspective, at its most extreme due
to crisis, in the work of Sidonius Apollinaris. This entailed the
Roman Empire being the cultural centre with the Barbarians
being peripheral. The crises of the early fifth century, however,
caused Rome’s ideological centrality to decline. Eventually,
the only stabilizing centre to survive would be the Church.
We will find in Gregory of Tours a perspective largely shaped,
subconsciously, by Rome’s successor in Gaul – the Merovingian
kingdom. Consciously, however, Gregory treats his own
immediate circle of affairs as his defining centre, which holds
significance for him only because it reveals eschatological truth.
This unveils some nuances in ethnic perception in Gregory of
Tours’ work which have until recently been overlooked.
Sidonius on the Saxons
Sidonius Apollinaris’ (c. AD 430–489) invaluable insight on
the Empire’s transformation in Gaul has long been recognized
(Stevens 1933; Harries 1994). His poetic and epistolary works
1
depict Saxons on three occasions. These fleeting references
appear in texts that engage with varied, confusing political
circumstances, the result of the massive political upheavals
that took place during the former Prefect of Rome and then
Bishop of Clermont’s life.
Despite this, a constant of his work, where the Saxons
are concerned, is concern with the Goths in Aquitaine. The
first reference to Saxons is a panegyric Sidonius delivered in
Rome upon the accession to the consulship of his father-in-
law Eparchius Avitus (AD 456), whose imperial claim was
supported by Theodoric II (Sidonius Apollinaris, Carm. 7). The
second is a letter, sent perhaps around AD 470, from Sidonius
to one Namatius, a naval officer in Euric’s fleet in the Bay of
Biscay (Sidonius Apollinaris, Epist. 8.6). The third is a small
panegyrical poem in a letter from Sidonius to Lampridius, a
teacher of rhetoric at Bordeaux who found favour in Euric’s
court, sent in c. AD 478 as Sidonius awaited freedom in
Bordeaux after capture at the Siege of Clermont (Sidonius
Apollinaris, Epist. 8.9). Sidonius is far from exclusively
concerned with the Goths in Aquitaine, so the presence of
Saxons in these particular works is not coincidence. Their use,
I will show, is conscious, deliberate, and controlled.
The political purpose of Sidonius’ panegyric to Avitus are
well known. Beyond its main objective – praising the new
emperor – it addresses several concerns: the establishment
of Avitus on par with or above the recently-deceased general
Flavius Aëtius, and the defence of Avitus’ alliance with the
Goths of Toulouse before a hostile Italian court (Sivan 1989,
87–91; Harries 1994, 67–70). Some treat Theodoric II’s
support of Avitus’ seizure of power as marking ›an important
stage in the involvement of Germanic peoples in internal
Roman affairs‹ (Harries 1994, 54). Yet to see the political
involvement of the Goths of Toulouse in Avitus’ rise to power
as a chapter in a grand narrative of Germanic conquest of
the Roman Empire blinds us to the subtleties of these events
and literary responses to them. Treating these concerns as
questions of Sidonius’ allegiance to a putatively coherent entity
(›the Goths‹) is overly simplistic. Sidonius’ allegiance to Rome
was to an abstract ideal, not to particular late antique rulers or
factions (Harries 1992). The position of Sidonius’ grandfather
as praetorian prefect for the usurper Constantine ›III‹ and
Sidonius’ possible involvement in a revolt against the Emperor
Majorian (Rousseau 2000) are instructive; the tradition of
loyalty to ›Rome‹, formative in Sidonius’ upbringing, did not
demand loyalty to the regime in Ravenna.
Sidonius’ letters were carefully edited pre-publication;
there is no reason not to believe that they received similar
treatment before their dispatch, especially to certain recipients.
All letters referring to Saxons address recipients in Euric’s
service, and were written after the siege of Clermont. It seems
likely that the contents were shaped with prying Gothic eyes
in mind.
Sidonius’ letter to Namatius is a rare example, thus often
cited, of a lengthy description of Saxons. It is frequently
misread. Most previous work indiscriminately takes the
2
passage out of its immediate context to shed light on the
Anglo-Saxons’ purported Germanic ancestors (e.g. Fleming
2010, 40). The description reads:
›Joking aside, do let me know, finally, something
concerning yourself and your household. But
behold, while I was intending to finish a letter which
prattled for the duration, a sudden messenger from
Saintonges! With him I prolonged some hours in
discussion to learn of you, and he assuredly declared
you to have sounded the clarion to the fleet, and
in the duty now of a sailor, now of a soldier, to be
wandering the twisting shores of the ocean against
the curved galleys of the Saxons, of whom however
many rowers you see, you may reckon as many to be
an arch-pirate: thus all simultaneously command and
obey, teach and learn to engage in piracy. Of the many
reasons that might give you cause for caution, this is
the greatest of which you must beware:
This enemy is the fiercest of all foes. He approaches
unforeseen and, when foreseen, slips away. He
despises obstacles, and scatters the incautious. If
he pursues, he intercepts, if he flees, he escapes.
Shipwrecks train him, not terrify him. His is not a
mere acquaintanceship with the crises of the sea, but
intimacy. A storm makes those who are to be attacked
unguarded; it prohibits his attack from being seen. He
gladly risks rough rocks and seas in hope of making a
surprise attack.
Moreover, before they open up their sails from the
mainland toward their native country, that they might
raise their biting anchor from an enemy channel,
a custom of those returning is to kill a tenth of the
captives through an equal and torturous punishment,
more sorrowful on account of its being superstitious,
and to disperse the inequity of death over this
collected crowd of the doomed via the equity of lots.
With such great vows are they bound that they must
be absolved by victims; thus, not so much purged with
sacrifice as polluted with sacrilege, the perpetrators of
this slaughter think it religious to extract torment from
their captive rather than ransom‹ (Sidonius Apollinaris,
Epist. 8.6.13–15; translation author’s own).
Let us read this in context. Exceptis iocis, ›joking apart‹, opens
the passage: to which joke does Sidonius refer? Immediately
before, Sidonius asks about Namatius’ life, calling him an
›agriculturalist or an architect of the first rank‹, then argues
for Namatius’ poor skill as a hunter, due to his useless, ›most
merciful‹ hunting dogs, and observes that his prey ›will rarely
be overcome with you in pursuit‹ (Sidonius Apollinaris, Epist.
8.6.12). Clearly the joking is not over: we see a dichotomy of the
successful and unsuccessful hunter. We may read an emphasis
on the Saxons’ actions compared to Namatius: what might be
rendered in English as ›if he pursues, he intercepts; if he flees,
he escapes‹ (Si sequandur, intercipit; si fugiat, evadit; Sidonius
Apollinaris, Epist. 8.6.13). If we read this as humorous, we
find nothing more than an outlet for Sidonius’ concern for
his friend. Not reliable ethnographic description. Namatius’
Saxons existed, but Sidonius’ observations on them need not
be taken as fact. Namatius, after all, was the one fighting them:
he knew what the Saxons were like. What could Sidonius tell
him? I disagree with Flierman (2014, 63–65; 2017, 46-48),
who suggests that Sidonius shared accurate information with
Namatius. The claim is derived from Kaufmann (1995, 168),
who argues this on precisely the same grounds from which
I have argued the opposite: that it seems odd for Sidonius
to have shared such information with a military commander
setting out against the Saxons. But reading this part of the
letter as a joke allows us to set this in a clearer context: as part
of a wider set of actions undertaken by Sidonius to Romanize
those in Euric’ service through his correspondence. This has
a clearer textual basis than Kaufmann’s speculative assertion
that Namatius must only have recently begun serving against
the Saxons (Kaufmann 1995, 168).
For Sidonius, such jokes originated from ›insecurity in a
changing world‹ (halsall 2002a, 95). He offers us a civilizing,
Romanizing depiction of Namatius. Unlike the Saxon, he is not
a hunter, savage and fearless, but an agriculturalist. But we
have, too, an illustration of Roman identity in crisis. Hunting
was a traditional Roman aristocratic pastime: why would
a Roman be bad at it? After voicing his concern, Sidonius
remarks that he has enclosed two works of literature he
calls ›refining tools‹: ›if, being stationed in the barracks, you
secure ... some leisure ... you will be able, after cleaning your
weapons, to remove likewise from your lips their linguistic rust‹
(Sidonius Apollinaris, Epist. 8.6.13). Here, zeugma highlights
the dichotomy of Roman/Barbarian in war. After the otium of
military duty, the man, too, had to be cleansed. Yet Namatius,
fighting Barbarians, was in the service of a Goth. He is
frequently seen, given his name, as a Roman in service to the
Goths, not as a Goth himself (Mathisen 1984 fn. 28; Heather
1992, 91–92; Elton 1992, 174). Burns even suggests that
Namatius’ employment by the Goths was due to successful
efforts by Flavius Constantius to keep naval power out of Gothic
hands (Burns 1992, 370). But to posit that, fifty years after
the Aquitanian settlement – after considerable breakdown
of imperial authority and constant interaction between
Gothic and Gallo-Roman populations – the Goths needed a
Gallo-Roman to command their ships is far too essentialist.
Namatius’ appointment came not from some putative ethnic
folk knowledge of Roman shipbuilding, but from politics that
led senators to ally with their local armed forces. Namatius has
even been seen as a traitor (e.g. Heather 1992, 91–92), on
par with Arvandus, a friend of Sidonius and praetorian prefect
of Gaul, prosecuted for writing to Euric, urging him to divide
Gaul between himself and the Burgundians. But Namatius
might have been born into the Gothic sortes, serving its kings
loyally his entire life. Were these categories really so static?
Sidonius implied as much. Praising Johannes, a teacher of
rhetoric in Bordeaux, for example, he says,
›…for [your pupils] have been so moulded and trained
by your teaching that, though now in the midst of a
people, however alien, they will preserve the signs of
their ancient birthright‹ (Sidonius Apollinaris, Epist.
8.2.2).
But this was not a universal principle. Sidonius had lived most
of his life under imperial rule; he had been Prefect of Rome.
Others disagreed (Brown 2012, 404–407). By the 450s–60s
those with the means and desire to leave Gothic Aquitania had
done so (Mathisen 1984, 166). Namatius’ family had perhaps
stayed. Even Sidonius begrudgingly conceded that ›with the
removal of the ranks of office, the only means by which the
best men can be distinguished from their inferiors, hereafter
the only mark of nobility will be knowledge of letters‹ (Sidonius
Apollinaris, Epist. 8.2.2). If Namatius had always lived in
Gothic Gaul, this ›removal of ranks of office‹ is likely to have
had no meaning for him. Instead, he found position and status
in Euric’s service. His romanitas, which Sidonius opposed to
Saxon barbarism, came not from imperial service but from
Latin learning and culture, prompted by the militarization of
the provincial aristocracy in the later empire and the adoption
of stereotyped Barbarian aesthetics by the Roman military
(James 1997; Halsall 2007a, 101–110; von Rummel 2007),
with legal measures taken by the fourth century to curb such
›barbaric‹ display (Cod. Theo. 14.10.1–2). The de-barbarizing
processes which Sidonius suggests Namatius undertake make
sense in this context, illustrating the impact that the erosion
of imperial authority in the north had on the popularity of
Barbarian aesthetics by the late fifth century. The barbarism of
military service was now something that had to be consciously
addressed (von Rummel 2007).
But how non-Roman were the Goths? Delaplace (2015)
has compellingly demonstrated that we cannot speak of
there existing a coherent Gothic ›kingdom‹ in the fifth century
before Euric’s treaty with Odoacer. She shows that treating the
Goths in Aquitaine as a coherent, distinct polity is a mirage of
historiography; they should instead be seen as military leaders,
deeply involved in Roman political affairs. No mention of
Namatius’ paymasters being Gothic is made in Sidonius’ letter.
Nor is this the case for Leo and Lampridius. In the letter to Leo,
the only Goths mentioned (albeit in Classical ethnographic
form, as getae) are ›quarrelsome, drunken, vomiting‹
women (Sidonius Apollinaris, Epist. 8.3.2). This is a far cry
from Sidonius’ representation of Euric, a ›famous king‹ who
makes a foedus ›with the trembling Barbarians on the Waal‹
(Sidonius Apollinaris, Epist. 8.3.3). It is unlikely that Sidonius
would have overtly associated Euric with such women. This
was perhaps an attempt to avoid falling foul of Euric’s wrath.
In these works, Sidonius consciously crafts his presentation of
Euric as masculine, civilized and, so it would appear, Roman.
3
Sidonius’ letter to Lampridius presents a common panegyrical
trope, the list of Barbarian supplicants, with Euric in the role
of emperor. The Saxons are part of this list: ›there we see the
blue-eyed Saxon, unaccustomed to fearing the land facing the
sea‹ (Sidonius Apollinaris, Epist. 8.9.5, 21–22). This seems so
like similar lists in Claudian’s and, indeed, Sidonius’ panegyrics
that, had we not known the context of this poem, its recipient
would not have been thought a Barbarian at all.
Robert Flierman’s recent monograph interprets this poem
slightly differently, suggesting that the appearance of Saxons
alongside Romans as (he alleges) broadly equal supplicants
of Euric suggests a collapse in the firm distinctions between
Roman and Barbarian. He claims that we find here ›Saxon
seafaring without its usual connotations of piracy‹ (Flierman
2017, 45). One may wonder if this downplays the Romanising
ethnographic framework that still very much shaped Sidonius’
thought. Namatius was no less a servant of Euric than
Lampridius. One struggles to believe that a mention of the
Saxon, ›afraid of land, accustomed as he is to the sea‹ would
carry such peaceful connotations for one member of a relatively
intimate circle of aristocrats in Euric’s service, whilst another
was setting out to fight those very same Barbarian pirates.
The Saxons’ stereotyped description surely emphasizes their
barbaric qualities. Flierman also overlooks that the mention
of Romans at court relates to their gaining salvation (salutem)
from the Huns, the ›Scythian hordes‹, and the Persian Empire
(Sidonius Apollinaris, Epist. 8.9.5, 36–40). This surely would
have evoked memories of the famed commander Aëtius’
alliance with Euric’s father against Attila at the Catalaunian
Plains in AD 451. Flierman also makes a classic Vienna
School-style reading of the Saxon hairstyle described in this
poem, shaved at the scalp, as potentially indicative of ethnic
costume (Flierman 2017, 45; after Pohl 1998). He treats this
as a marked change from the treatment of Saxons as more
›generalized outsiders‹ (Flierman 2017, 45). One wonders if
this argument is sustainable. Flierman himself notes that an
interpretation of this hairstyle as ethnic costume cannot be
applied to Saxon dress more widely, and even in this example
such an interpretation is on shaky ground. Long hair was
typically seen not merely as barbaric, but as a symbol of
valour associated with the Roman military (von Rummel 2007,
222–224). Flierman omits that not merely the Saxons but also
the Franks, in the lines immediately following, are described
as shaven-headed, explicitly in the context of their military
defeat (Sidonius Apollinaris, Epist. 8.9.5, 28–30). Moreover,
elsewhere in Sidonius’ letters the trope of shaven heads
is mentioned, as symbolic representation of enslavement
after military defeat (in this case of Seronatus’ rebellion by
Anthemius; Sidonius Apollinaris, Epist. 2.1.4; Frye 1994, 60-
61). It is well known, and noted by Flierman (2017, 45–46),
that distinguishing Franks and Saxons as fellow inhabitants
of the lower Rhine, was difficult at the best of times, and
in this light it surely makes more sense to interpret this as a
generalized trope of the defeated Barbarian supplicant, rather
than as a ›strategy of distinction‹. These points all suggest
4
that Sidonius’ representation of Saxons, as mere supplicants,
cannot be treated as indicative of a general decline in the
distinction between ›a superior Rome and its barbarian foes‹
(Flierman 2017, 45) Sidonius’ text placed Euric on par with
the might of Rome, but we need not conclude that Barbarians
therefore ceased to be Barbarians, merely that Sidonius did not
treat Euric as one in this poem.
Granted, Sidonius’s primary motivation was to build
a good relationship with Euric, but this tells us how Euric’s
court wished to be seen. Sidonius clearly felt that the best
means of keeping good relations with the Gothic court was
by emphasizing its Roman qualities. Within a decade of Euric’s
death, the letters of Ruricius of Limoges suggest a similar,
cordial relationship with Gothic recipients (Mathisen 2001,
111). There is an explicit reference by Sidonius to the Goths
under Euric being Gothic in Sidonius’ panegyric to Avitus
delivered in Rome (Sidonius Apollinaris, Carm. 7), but this was
in a very different context. The Italian senatorial class were
well aware of Avitus’ alliance with the court of Theoderic II.
Given political tensions between Gallic and Italian senatorial
factions at this time (Halsall 2007a, 268), to attempt to deny
Theoderic I’s ›Gothicness‹ would have been perceived as an
unacceptable omission of controversial elements of Avitus’ rise
to power (Sivan 1989, 88–89).
Harries (2001, 44–47) shows that the presence of
Romanized elements in Euric’s Code should not produce a
fruitless search for obviously ›Roman‹ or ›Barbarian‹ elements
of the law. What made one Roman or Barbarian in the fifth
century was not binary division; it was as diverse as the
regions where Roman culture dominated (Pohl 2014).
Euric’s opposition to the res publica is not incompatible
with Romanized depictions of his rule. Why not interpret
his behaviour as a ›legitimate‹ claim to Roman identity in a
contested field? Opposition to this stems from Euric’s war with
what is usually assumed to be Anthemius’ regime in Ravenna,
and a single passage from Ennodius, which depicts Euric as
hostile to Rome to the point that he relied on interpreters in
public (Ennodius, VE 89; Harries 2001, 40).
Such opposition collapses in light of Christine Delaplace’s
proposal that at the point at which these letters appear, in the
build up to and aftermath of the siege of Clermont, Euric and
Anthemius were in fact in a military alliance against Ricimer,
his successor Gundobad, and their Burgundian faction, with
whom Sidonius had recently been aligned (Delaplace 2012,
276–281). Ennodius wrote later, for an audience in Italy at the
moment of its transition to rule under Theodoric the Great, and
he had connections to the Avitii family. His account describes
a dispute between Euric and Julius Nepos. It would hardly be
politic for him to extol the romanitas of the Visigothic court.
Such points confirm the observation by Gillett (2003) that
the Barbarian regna usually saw themselves as members of
the res publica when they were not in conflict with it. Michael
Kulikowski suggests that Diaspora Studies might be a useful
framework for interpreting the negotiation of Roman and
Barbarian identities in the absence of a metropole, using
Alaric’s sack of Rome as a case study for ›colonial mimicry‹,
a misreading of the discursive grammar of imperial ideology,
culminating in its downfall:
›...over several decades of soldiers jockeying for
position within the imperial system by threatening
to destroy it, the decayed and dysfunctional system
ceased to be worth fighting for‹ (Kulikowski 2010,
81).
The putative contradictions in Euric’s hostility to the imperial
regime and his imperial aspirations should be seen as the
progression of this trend to a point where Roman legitimacy
ceased to have any meaning, without the realization of this by
those competing to claim it. The Saxons may simply be read,
then, as an ideological resource in this competition.
Gregory of Tours: The post-Roman perspective
›While ... the Bretons were raging vigourously around
the cities of Nantes and Rennes, King Guntram ordered
an army to move against them, putting the duces
Beppolen and Ebrachar at its head ... for Fredegund,
when she heard that Beppolen was departing in
arms, because even now she was hostile towards him
due to previous events, ordered the Saxons of the
Bessin, dressed in clothing and shorn hair according
to the manner and style of the Bretons, to go in aid
of Waroch. However, Beppolen having arrived with
his followers, they entered battle and after two days
many of the Saxons and Bretons were killed‹ (Gregory
of Tours, DLH 10.9).
This conflict in 590, between Guntram, Merovingian king
of Burgundy, and Waroch, ruler of Brittany, is often cited
in discussions of ethnicity in Gregory of Tours’ (c. AD 538–
594) work, Decem libri historiarum (DLH). In 1983, Goffart
(2010, 213) attacked what he saw as misinterpretation of
such stories, arguing that Gregory shows little interest in the
ethnicity of particular groups, suggesting that ›[his] systematic
insensitivity to ethnic differences went hand in hand with
the levelling of earthly dignities and pretensions‹. He himself
only ever identifies himself as ›Arvernian‹; in Gregory’s case
distinctions between Roman and Barbarian can be said to
be less meaningful (James 1998; Pohl 2014). Nevertheless,
the presence of ethnic groups makes it worthwhile examining
the uses to which they are put in Gregory’s text. One of the
only five ›colourful ethnic traits‹ which Goffart can find in
the histories – the ›distinctive costume and hairstyle‹ of the
Bretons – makes its appearance as something adopted not
by Bretons, but by Saxons in disguise (Goffart 2010, 21;
Gregory of Tours, DLH 10.9). Furthermore, James (1998, 66)
claims that the only ethnicities Gregory distinguished were
those of outsiders. This overlooks some subtleties. Gregory’s
civic identity is surely a form of ethnicity; conflation of civic
with ethnic identities is problematic, but the Arverni in
particular are held to have had an ›ethnic flavor‹ to their
styling (Pohl 2013, 17). Recent work in this area has sought
to unify Christian theological understanding of chronology and
topography with the emergence of ethnic phenomena (Pohl
and Heydemann 2013a; 2013b). Reimitz (2013, 269; 2015)
shows that Gregory of Tours’ historiographical framework,
though it granted no central role to the Franks, still handled
ethnicity self-consciously. Gregory functioned as a ›cultural
broker‹ who ›constituted and promoted [communities and
social groupings in history], rather than simply reflect them‹.
For Reimitz (2013, 273–278) Gregory occupies the middle
ground, between peoples, religions, and cultures, and treated
the Franks simply as one social identity among others, with a
view to integrating them into a universal Christendom. This
overcomes what Reimitz regards as the misplaced conflict
between those who emphasize the constructed nature of
early medieval ethnicity and those who insist nevertheless
on its power to shape the world (Reimitz 2013, 262). These
developments in historiography and the presence of Saxons in
some of Gregory’s more explicit ›ethnic‹ material suggest that
further investigation is prudent.
Gregory’s ethnic ignorance
Who or what a Saxon ›was‹ in Gregory’s days is hard to
answer. Prevailing attitudes are that this is knowable, but was
it? Gregory’s text is decidedly unclear, for example (Flierman
2017, 68–73). Even by the fifth century a majority of references
from various sources place Saxons in cis-Rhenan locations,
in places as far afield as Bordeaux (Sidonius Apollinaris,
Carm. 8.9), Angers (Gregory of Tours, DLH 2.18), Caledonia
(Claudian, Carm. 7.88–90) and the Orkneys (Claudian, Carm.
8.31–32). Venantius Fortunatus (c. AD 560s; Venantius
Fortunatus, Carm. 3.9) refers to Bishop Felix of Nantes and
Saxon pagans. Wood (1983, 6) claims that Felix faced Saxon
pirates, but nothing in the poem suggests this. Felix simply
baptises them, the poem’s subject being not piracy, but Easter.
Given the evidence for an earlier Saxon presence on the Loire,
the poem may simply refer to Saxons already living in Felix’s
civitas. By the sixth century, Saxons could also as easily have
come from Britain (Gildas, DEB). The meaning of ›Saxon‹ was
fluid. Why assume that Gregory, who wrote before Carolingian
Saxony formed, and had read sources placing Saxons
elsewhere, referred to this region when he spoke of Saxons?
Ignorance should be our first assumption.
Gregory’s didactic purpose
Gregory is concerned with the gens saxonum for didactic
ends. Take, for example, the following from Book IV: ›[the
Saxons were] incited by Childebert and were indignant at the
5
 Chapter Events
4.6 Theudebald dies. Lothar succeeds to the kingdom and marries Theudebald’s wife Vuldetrada, for which he is rebuked by bishops – he
leaves her. He sends his son Chramn to the Auvergne.
4.7 Saxon rebellion against King Lothar – Lothar ›destroys the greater part‹ and devastates Thuringia. The bishop Cato succeeds to the See
of Tours, and arranges with Chramn to eject Cautinus from Clermont so he might hold it, but this does not happen. There is hostility
between Cautinus and a priest named Anastasius over Anastasius’ rightful property.
4.8 Chramn has his residence in Clermont at this time. He is senseless in his acts. ›None capable of good or sound advice was gathered
round him‹. He commits many evil deeds.
A passage from Sallust is given, declaring it a ›hard task to write history‹, since one ›must make words correspond to facts‹ and ›most
readers put down to malevolence and envy any strictures you may make upon offences‹.
4.9 Saxon rebellion against King Lothar who is ›making his progress round‹ his kingdom. The Saxons refuse to pay tributa, there is an
exchange between Franks and Saxons. Lothar is unwilling to fight, is forced to by his nobles and is defeated. He makes peace.
4.10 Chramn commits diverse ill deeds at Clermont. Sickens with fever. Chramn leaves Clermont for Poitiers. He desires to go over to
Childebert, prepared to betray his father. He conspires to betray Lothar and then enters Limoges and reduces under his own dominion
›all parts of his father’s kingdom through which he had formerly made progress‹. Lothar sends Charibert and Guntram against him.
Chramn tricks them into believing their father is dead and they ›return with the utmost speed‹ to Burgundy. Chramn pursues them and
besieges them at Chalon-sur-Saône.
Lothar fights the Saxons, who ravage as far as Deutz, having been ›stirred up‹ by Childebert.
4.11 Chramn comes to Paris, and binds himself to Childebert. While Lothar is fighting the Saxons, Childebert enters and ravages the
champaign of Reims.

Table 1. The Saxons and Chramn in Book IV of Gregory of Tours’ Histories.

Franks for their actions the previous year‹ (Gregory of Tours, Book IV later describes the return to Gaul of some Saxons
DLH 4.16). It is clear from Childebert’s later invasion (once (who, according to Gregory, had entered Italy with the
he believed Chlothar to have been killed) that this was an Lombard Alboin) to ›the place from which they had originally
orchestrated assault, launched as part of the war between the gone forth‹ (Gregory of Tours, DLH 4.42). On their journey,
sons of Clovis and two rulers of the Merovingian kingdom, they pillage regions as distant and diverse as Riez, Nice and
Chlothar and Childebert, which Gregory narrates mainly in Avignon. Eventually defeated, they enter Frankish service,
relation to Chlothar’s treacherous son, Chramn. This war fills settling in Sigibert’s kingdom (Gregory of Tours, DLH 4.16).
most of the first half of Book IV (Table 1).
The rebellion and the Saxon attacks seem linked. From
Section: Sentence: Subject:
the sequence listed above, the Saxon invasions of Chlothar’s
territory seem less the assaults of a disgruntled Barbarian group A 1–2 Introduction: bad civil war
of tributary status on a distant border of Frankish territory, and
more a key thrust of Childebert and Chramn’s campaign. The B1 3 Refer to earlier examples
B2 4 Example of Rome
relative lack of focus on Saxons shows that detailing their
B3 5 Appeal to kings: wage good wars
actions is not the purpose of these chapters. Halsall (2007b) B4 6 Example of Clovis: overcame for-
suggests that the first quarter of Book IV presents Chramn’s eigners
poor behaviour towards another rebellious king, Merovech, to
whom Book V’s preface was perhaps addressed. The Saxons C1 7 Clovis had no gold or silver
C2 8 Kings questioned: what do they want?
are merely extras in this narrative. The details about them are C3 9 They have lots of gold and silver
unimportant for Gregory’s purpose. What matters are their
actions, and how these related to Chramn. Childebert’s failure C4 10 They lack the peace of God
to advise Chramn against betraying his father is emphasised, C5 11 Kings questioned: why do they covet?
and biblical passages are read by the clergy of Dijon to C6 12 Warning: they will destroy each other
determine Chramn’s fate (Gregory of Tours, DLH 4.16). His
B1I 13 Study earlier examples
subsequent death is depicted similarly to Valens’, as described B2I 14 Example of Carthage
by Orosius after the battle of Adrianople, as punishment for B3I 15 Appeal to kings: beware civil war
Valens’ Arian heresy (Gregory of Tours, DLH 4.20; Orosius B4I 16 They will be destroyed by for-
7.9–15). Religious demands of obedience are clearly the issue eigners
at stake; the Saxons are simply a stylistic tool. Perhaps their AI 17 Epilogue: wage ›good‹ civil war
reputation for treachery (Gregory of Tours, DLH 4.14) rendered
the betrayal of their leader a fitting parallel for Chramn’s Figure 1. The chiastic structure of the Preface to Book V of Gregory of Tours’
usurpation of his father. Histories (from Halsall 2007b, used with kind permission).

6
 A1 Preface: civil war is bad, greed is bad. Spiritual war is good.
B Sigibert has just been killed, Merovech defies Chilperic and Roccolen is killed.
1

B2 Bishop (Felix) falsely accuses another bishop (Gregory).

B Miracles at the tomb of St Martin. People are blind to the truth of the Church.
3

B4 Good, saintly people die.

C1 Return to Gregory’s subject, Merovech besieged at Tours, tries to defy God’s will by listening to the advice of a soothsayer, flees with
Guntram Boso, escapes capture by King Guntram’s duke.
C2 The Saxons with Alboin fight with the Suevi for wanting too much and are defeated.
C3 Theuderic (Breton) defeats Macliav after dispossession.
C4 Guntram kills two sons of Magnachar for their wealth. He is then left childless for his sins.
C5 Merovech dies – A punishment for civil war and for invoking a soothsayer.
Constantinople Digression – Moral: those who are generous always have wealth.
C6 Salonius and Sagittarius make war, are stripped of bishoprics, do not amend their ways.
C7 Young son of Chilperic dies of dysentery. Many signs are seen.
C Guntram Boso slays and escapes King Chilperic’s duke, aided by St Martin.
8

C9 Saxons of the Bessin fighting on behalf of Chilperic are killed by the Bretons.
C10 Chilperic punishes the poor and churchmen for not fighting.
C11 Chilperic imposes heavy taxes.
C12 The Bretons ravage.
Constantinople digression – Moral: conspirators and plots are always overcome.
C13 The Bretons make promises to amend their ways, do not. A woman falls under accusation, many fight on the tomb of St Dionysius at
her trial. And pay fines to the church. The woman hangs herself.
C14 Many signs are seen, Chilperic’s sons die of dysentery.
B5 Many bad people die from dysentery.
B Many portents are seen, pestilence. Many are blind to the truth of the Church.
6

B7 An archdeacon at Rodez accuses Bishop (Dalmatius) falsely.

A Salvius sees the sword of divine wrath hanging over the house of the Merovingians.
2

Figure 2. The chiastic structure of Book V of Gregory of Tours’ Histories.

The reappearance of this group in Book V is chronologically
out of place. Chapter fifteen describes events in AD 574 (this
date is confirmed in the Chronicle of Marius of Avenches),
the war the Saxons fought against the Sueves to recover land
›left void‹ when they went to Italy. The Sueves repeatedly offer
a greater part of this land to the Saxons, which the latter
deem insufficient, threatening war. This ends in two battles,
and the Saxons are utterly defeated (Gregory of Tours, DLH
5.15). The chapter thus cautions against greed, but it appears
immediately after the story of Merovech’s flight from the church
of St Martin at Tours in 577 (Gregory of Tours, DLH 5.14). The
reason why such a theme was selected later becomes clear. In
chapter seventeen, King Guntram kills two sons of Magnachar,
ostensibly for slandering Austrechild, taking their wealth. He
then loses his own children to disease, which he recognizes
as punishment for his sins. Yet he and his nephew, Childebert,
then set out to conquer territory from Guntram’s brother
Chilperic (Gregory of Tours, DLH 5.17). The Saxon chapter
thus portends the consequences of greed and war-mongering.
But why was this chronologically displaced story used to make
the point? This has been a source of some confusion, for both
other early medieval authors, and modern historians (Flierman
2017, 68–70).
A similar story is described in Book IV, giving context to
Chramn’s war. Chlothar demands tribute from some Saxons.
The Saxons continually make larger concessions for peace.
Chlothar accepts but his Franci (nobles) refuse, forcing a war,
where the Saxons defeat Chlothar (Gregory of Tours, DLH
4.14). Halsall (2003, 136) suggests that Chlothar’s men were
motivated primarily by the opportunities for advancement and
material reward afforded by warfare. This chapter’s folk-tale-
like motifs are a clear precursor to V.15. The chapters seem
intended to recall one another (a point also made by Flierman
2014, 93–94; Flierman 2017, 70). But the achronological
position of V.15 remains unexplained. The likelihood that
both of these tales neatly fit the precise course of events that
Gregory describes is surely slight. Why was this tale chosen?
The structure of Book V, never before considered, offers
an answer. Halsall (2007b) demonstrated that the Preface
to Book V forms a chiasmus outlining the overall message
of Gregory’s Histories, juxtaposing the virtue of spiritual war
against the sin of civil war (Figure 1). Even closer examination,
prompted by this clue, reveals that the entire book is in fact
chiastic in structure, as illustrated by this diagram (Figure 2).
Unsurprisingly, obedience to the chiasmus is not wholly
perfect since the organisation of such a range of material

7
would have been complex. Furthermore, if Halsall (2007b) is
correct about the relative chronology of the Histories, Gregory
was writing Book V as events unfolded, rendering the latter
more difficult to order into a neat schema than those of
Books I–IV, written more clearly after the event. Still, a basic
chiastic structure can be observed, conforming well to chapter
distribution and echoing the message outlined in the preface
– the inevitable failure of earthly civil war and the success of
spiritual war.
The mirroring of the B sections is particularly clear –
miracles mirror portents, deaths of saints mirror the deaths
of sinners, and civil war waged by the Merovingians mirrors
Gregory’s spiritual war against heretics and his success at the
trial at Berny-St-Rivière. An interesting pattern of parallels
is discernible in the two ›C‹ sections. In the first chapter of
the two sections, a conflict is followed by an escape, both
involving Guntram Boso. In both, this is immediately followed
by a chapter about Saxons at war with a non-Frankish people
and both halves feature Bretons in nearby chapters. In both,
a king who has committed sins of greed and war loses his
sons to disease and Chilperic’s loss is continually referred to in
both halves. Both pull our gaze to Constantinople at the same
point, in chapters containing stories with a positive outcome
and clear moral message. Each half takes the reader through
a comprehensive demonstration of the outcomes of greed and
civil war, though it is made clear that damnation could be
averted with repentance. The material is carefully selected and
sequenced for this message to emerge.
The chapter containing Saxons in section C1 (Gregory
of Tours, DLH 5.26) is chronologically placed; the preceding
chapter is dated to the third year of Childebert’s reign (Gregory
of Tours, DLH 5.25), and the following chapter is dated to
the fourth year (Gregory of Tours, DLH 5.27). Unlike chapter
V.15, no indication of date is given, which would imply that
this chapter, describing an earlier defeat of the Saxons of the
Bessin by Waroch’s Bretons than that outlined at the start
of this chapter, is present because its events happen in the
third year of Childebert. This, then, explains Gregory’s reason
for again mentioning the return of the Saxons from Italy in
chapter 15. The war with the Sueves has parallels in the war
with the Bretons as both are against non-Franks, involve Saxon
combatants (though in the latter the army is Frankish), Saxons
are defeated, and the invading factions are shown to be sinful.
The Saxon war with the Sueves is probably the only other
instance of such a war which Gregory would have known,
selected simply to maintain a neat parallelism between the
two ›C‹ halves of the book, aiding the coherence of the book’s
chiastic structure and thus the force of the book’s argument.
This interpretation of the use of Saxons in Book V is
supported by the odd prioritisation of concerns in chapter
twenty-six:
1. Chilperic’s forces march against Waroch, and camp on the
river Vilaine.
8
2. The Bretons fall upon the Saxons of the Bessin and kill
them.
3. Waroch makes peace three days later, surrenders hostages,
swears an oath to Chilperic, restores the city of Vannes on
the condition that he maintain his claim on it, and pays its
annual tribute.
4. Chilperic orders a ban to be enforced against the poor and
servants of the cathedral and church of St Martin.
5. Waroch breaks his promise, seeks to annul his act, and
returns the bishop of Vannes to Chilperic. The bishop is
banished.
The greater part of the chapter is dedicated to sections 3–5.
The Saxon defeat is the only event of the war described. The
Saxons fight for Chilperic, yet the events leading to Chilperic’s
victory are omitted: the repulsive, gritty details of warfare do
not interest Gregory (pace Bachrach 2002, 363).
The weight given to the final three sections, decrying
greed, infidelity, and abuse of the Church, shows the events
Gregory thought important. The Saxons of the Bessin are a
small detail, given disproportionate weight to serve the
chiasmus. The placing of chapters 44–49 out of correct
chronological position suggests, too, that Gregory wished to
stress his religious method (Halsall 2002b, 340–341).
This might explain the fate of the Saxons of the Bessin in
Book X. This has similarities with the above passage: again
there is a war between Franks and Bretons. Again Bessin
Saxons fight, though in secret, disguised as Bretons. Again,
many Saxons die, and a major turn in the conflict occurs after
three days – the main Frankish combatant, Beppolen, is slain
after Ebrachar retreats to usurp him. After Beppolen’s death,
Waroch sues for peace, again making oaths that he breaks.
On their journey, Beppolen and Ebrachar commit many crimes.
There is a difference: this time the conflict ends in the defeat
of the invaders, through Waroch’s treachery (Gregory of Tours,
DLH 10.9).
Why do the Saxons of the Bessin adopt Breton dress?
Goffart calls it ›a stratagem by a queen considered to be
particularly wicked‹ (Goffart 1982, 80). Flierman argues
similarly, after Goffart and Daily (Flierman 2017, 67; Daily
2015, 152–160). But, although this is the case for many of
Gregory’s tales about Fredegund, in this particular instance
the characterisation may be unfair. It is hard to believe that
the discovery of Saxons in the Breton army would have
had serious ramifications – we have seen that they were
frequently involved in military action in the region. Flierman
has suggested, misreading Halsall, that they may have been
mercenaries, in a social bond with their employer that would
have rendered their discovery damning for Fredegund. But such
suggestions are highly speculative, and I would propose that
Halsall’s comments on the difficulty of hiring mercenaries in
the post-Roman period renders this less likely an interpretation
than Flierman suggests, given the other reasons Halsall gives
to doubt the existence of mercenaries in this period (Flierman
2017, 67, citing Halsall 2003, 111–112). A different view
is possible. Goffart notes that Fredegund dies unpunished for
far greater crimes (Goffart 1982, 80). Few other persons so
often avoid divine retribution in Gregory’s work. But Goffart
rightly associates many of Fredegund’s crimes with Gregory’s
few references to ethnic traits – might Gregory’s words have a
symbolic meaning?
The similar sequence may aim to evoke memories of
Book V. Halsall proposes that Gregory’s portrayal of Chilperic
and Fredegund as consistently negative may be mistaken,
arguing that Gregory feared Guntram more and suggesting
that accounts of Guntram’s actions reveal his true merits,
despite Gregory’s apparent praise (Halsall 2002b, 342, 348–
349). The passage he highlights as evidence for a positive
portrayal of Chilperic and Fredegund is that at the end of the C
section of the chiasmus in Book V, in which Fredegund bitterly
repents her sins, with phrasing similar to Book V’s preface
(Halsall 2007b, 303–304). Gregory’s focus on Fredegund
and her Saxons may subtly criticize Guntram, re-invoking the
same themes as Book V, with the previously offending party
now in the right.
Compare the statements about Fredegund in this passage
with those of Guntram’s duces. They commit many crimes.
For the entire journey they blaspheme, taunt, and insult
one another. Upon arrival in the Vilaine, they destroy local
dwellings. Finally, Ebrachar betrays Beppolen, suffers harm
at Waroch’s hands, pillages the territory of Tours, and is
reproached by Guntram (Gregory of Tours, DLH 10.9). All we
learn of Fredegund is her grudge against Beppolen. Waroch’s
crimes are hinted at, but far less obviously than the duces’.
In comparison to the relative success of Chilperic’s campaign,
itself far from morally virtuous, Guntram’s campaign is an
unmitigated disaster. Such demonstrations of incompetence,
disloyalty, and crime by two of Guntram’s officers did not
paint him in good light. Fredegund, though no saint, is not
the villain. The order for the Saxons to adopt Breton dress
is a metaphorical re-shaping of the events of 5.26. Where
previously the Saxons fought for the sinning party, in adopting
the mantle of the Bretons they become those who deliver
divine punishment on the battlefield.
Gregory’s ethnic perspective
Goffart (1982, 89, 99) once called Gregory an ethnic ›non-
partisan‹, considering his sympathies ›not involved with any
ethnic group as such, but with actions whose morality he
approved of‹, giving the Saxon wars with the Sueves and
Chlothar as examples. Yet Goffart was surely mistaken when
he stated that ethnicity to Gregory was a simple matter of
›identifying labels, of no interest in itself‹ (Goffart 1982, 94).
The above reveals Gregory doing precisely the sort of cultural
brokerage Reimitz has outlined. Gregory’s downplaying of
ethnicity as a divisive force was conscious, derived from his
particular eschatological worldview (Reimitz 2015, 65–69).
Yet, subconsciously, assumptions persisted about ethnic
groups. His exposure to political information beyond Gaul
came from Merovingian sources, and Pohl (2002, 138) has
shown that Saxons, among others, were seen in Merovingian
discourse within a generalized belt of Barbarian gentes. Thus,
though Gregory consciously saw foreignness as unimportant,
he still held implicit assumptions about foreigners. Flierman’s
proposal, that the Saxons functioned as part of a framework
of ›calculated deconstruction‹ of the notion that groups such
as Saxons were ›automatic outsiders‹, is surely correct. But
even authors consciously attempting to dismantle Roman
ethnographic frameworks were capable of being influenced
by them. Though Gregory knew the two mirrored groups of
Saxons in Book V were of different geographical origins, he
saw them both as ›Saxons‹, and felt a mirroring of the two
would carry sufficient rhetorical weight for his readers, perhaps
the Merovingian dynasty, to serve his purpose. Surely there is
a conceptual conflation of the two, beyond mere labelling,
but this does not mean the two groups were related, or had
much in common. Thus, though the Franks were themselves
not central to his histories, their perspective on the world, with
its own inherited Classical ethnographic frameworks, shaped
Gregory’s own. This led him to subconsciously homogenize
diverse peoples, even if the ethnic assumptions made in his
choice of material were overruled by the conscious rhetorical
ends to which they were put. As attested in the symbolic
re-imagining of the Saxons of the Bessin in two similarly-
portrayed conflicts, ethnic labels were themselves viewed as
morally neutral. Gregory perceives historical phenomena as
›[embodiments of] spiritual patterns historically acting in and
through visible and palpable human events‹ (De Nie 2002,
279). The Saxons were put to use, then, as an indicator for the
direction in which divine retribution fell at a given moment.
Conclusion
What do these authors tell us about this period of transition?
They speak of a transition of emphasis: as imperial authority
degraded, a dispersal of mental perspectives took place. From
the singular, organized in relation to a homogenizing imperial
and metropolitan centre, to a multiplicity of viewpoints
grounded in a landscape of numerous, varying regional
and conceptual loci. The conceptual dichotomy of Roman/
Barbarian is exchanged for that of Godly/Sinful. Ethnic
groups simply become one of many means by which this
eschatological world view is represented. Can we learn much
about the Saxons as a gens, about their political structures or
social practices, from this? The difficulties of textually locating
the Saxons in time and space (Springer 2003), and identifying
ethnic groups through archaeological means (Brather 2004;
Halsall 2011; Harland 2017) lead me to doubt this. But using
the Saxons as a lens, to focus our reading, offers potential
to obtain further understanding of the shifting mentalités of
those who would represent them.
9
Acknowledgements
This article is based on a far more unwieldy MA dissertation
completed at the University of York in 2013. I am grateful to
Prof. Guy Halsall, who supervised it, for his continued support
in bringing the better aspects of the arguments contained
therein to print as I completed my doctoral thesis. Veronika
Egetenmeyr, Sam Barber, Kat Fliegel, and Aaron Brown also
read the manuscript at various stages in its entirety, and
Andrew Welton offered numerous helpful comments. The
article is much improved by their input. I wish to thank the
organisers of the Sachsensymposion in Leipzig in 2015 for
inviting me to participate as a late addition to the programme,
and for their subsequent invitation to contribute to this volume.
Primary sources
Marius of Avenches
Marius of Avenches, Chronicle. From Roman to Merovingian Gaul, trans. A.
C. Murray (Peterborough/Ontario 2000) 101–108.
Claudian, Carm.
Claudian, Carmina. Ed. by M. Platnauer (London 1922).
Cod. Theo.
T. Mommsen and M. Meyer (eds.), Codex Theodosianus (Berlin 1904).
Ennodius, VE
Ennodius, Vita Epiphanii. In: F. Vogel (ed.), MGH Auctores Antiquissimi, vol.
7: Ennodi Opera (Berlin 1885) 203–214.
Gildas, DEB
Gildas, De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae. Ed. by T. Mommsen. MGH
Auctores Antiquissimi, vol. 13 (Berlin 1898).
Gregory of Tours, DLH
Gregory of Tours, Decem libri historiarum. Ed. by B. Krusch and W. Levison.
MGH Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum, vol. 1,1 (Hanover 1951).
Orosius
Orosius, Seven books of history against the pagans. Trans. with an
introduction and notes by A. T. Fear (Liverpool 2010).
Sidonius Apollinaris, Carm.
Apollinaris Sidonii, Epistulae et Carmina. Ed. by Ch. Lüthjohann. MGH
Auctores Antiquissimi, vol. 8 (Berlin 1887).
Sidonius Apollinaris, Epist.
Apollinaris Sidonii, Epistulae et Carmina. Ed. by Ch. Lüthjohann. MGH
Auctores Antiquissimi, vol. 8 (Berlin 1887).
Venantius Fortunatus, Carm.
Venantius Fortunatus, Carmina. In: F. Leo (ed.), MGH Auctores Antiquissimi,
vol. 4, no. 1: Venanti Honori Clementiani Fortunati presbyteri Italici Opera
poetica (Berlin 1881) 1–386.
10
References
Bachrach 2002
B. Bachrach, Gregory of Tours as a military historian. In: Mitchell and Wood
2002, 351–363.
Bartholomew 1984
Ph. Bartholomew, Fourth-century Saxons. Britannia 15, 1984, 169–185.
Brather 2004
S. Brather, Ethnische Interpretationen in der frühgeschichtlichen Archäo-
logie. Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertums-
kunde 42 (Berlin 2004).
Brown 2012
P. Brown, Through the eye of a needle (Princeton 2012).
Brubaker 2004
R. Brubaker, Ethnicity without groups (Cambridge, MA 2004).
Burns 1992
V. Burns, The Visigothic settlement in Aquitaine: Imperial motives. Historia:
Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte 41, 1992, 362–373.
Delaplace 2012
C. Delaplace, The So-Called ›Conquest of the Auvergne‹ (469–75) in the
History of the Visigothic Kingdom. Relations between the Roman Elites
of Southern Gaul, the Central Imperial Power in Rome and the Military
Authority of the Federates on the Periphery. In: D. Brakke and D. Deliyannis
(eds.), Shifting Cultural Frontiers in Late Antiquity (London 2012) 271–282.
Delaplace 2015
C. Delaplace, La fin de l’Empire romain d’Occident: Rome et les Wisigoths
de 382 à 551. Série Histoire ancienne (Rennes 2015).
Daily 2015
E. T. Daily, Queens, Consorts, Concubines: Gregory of Tours and the women
of the Merovingian elite. Mnemonesyne Supplements: Late Antique
Literature Ser. 381 (Leiden 2015).
De Nie 2002
G. De Nie, Gregory’s use of metaphor. In: Mitchell and Wood 2002, 227–
239.
Diefenbach 2013
S. Diefenbach, ›Bischofsherrschaft‹. Zur Transformation der politischen
Kultur im spätantiken und frühmittelalterlichen Gallien. In: S. Diefenbach
and G. M. Müller (eds.), Gallien in Spätantike und Frühmittelalter:
Kulturgeschichte einer Region (Berlin 2013) 91–152.
Elton 1992
H. Elton, Defence in fifth-century Gaul. In: J. F. Drinkwater and H. Elton
(eds.), Fifth-century Gaul: A crisis of identity? (Cambridge 1992) 167–176.
Fleming 2010
R. Fleming, Britain after Rome (London 2010).
Flierman 2014
R. Flierman, Pagan, Pirate, Subject, Saint: Defining and Redefining Saxons
150–900 A.D. [PhD Thesis, University of Utrecht 2014].
Flierman 2017
R. Flierman, Saxon Identities, AD 150–900. Bloomsbury Studies in Early
Medieval History (London 2017).
Frye 1994
D. Frye, The Meaning of Sidonius, Ep. 2,1,4. Eranos 92, 1994, 60–61.
Gillett 2003
A. Gillett, Envoys and political communication in the late antique west,
411–533. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, Ser. 4, 55
(Cambridge 2003).
Goffart 1982
W. Goffart, Foreigners in Gregory of Tours. Florilegium 4, 1982, 80–99.
Goffart 2010
W. Goffart, The Narrators of Barbarian History (Notre Dame 2010).
Halsall 2002a
G. Halsall, Funny Foreigners: Laughing with the Barbarians in Late
Antiquity. In: G. Halsall (ed.) Humour, History and Politics in Late Antiquity
and the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge 2002) 95–96.
Halsall 2002b
G. Halsall, Nero and Herod? The death of Chilperic and Gregory’s writing of
history. In: Mitchell and Wood 2002, 377–350.
Halsall 2003
G. Halsall, Warfare and society in the barbarian west, 450–900 (London
2003).
Halsall 2007a
G. Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376–568.
Cambridge Medieval Textbooks (Cambridge 2007).
Halsall 2007b
G. Halsall, The preface to Book V of Gregory of Tours’ histories: Its form,
context and significance. English Historical Review 122, 2007, 297–317.
Halsall 2011
G. Halsall, Ethnicity and early medieval cemeteries, Arquelogia y Territorio
Medieval 18, 2011, 15–27.
Halsall 2013
G. Halsall, Worlds of Arthur: Facts and Fictions of the Dark Ages (Oxford
2013).
Harland 2017a
J. M. Harland, Rethinking Ethnicity and ›Otherness‹ in Early Anglo-Saxon
England, Medieval Worlds 5, 2017, 113–148.
Harland 2017b
J. M. Harland, Deconstructing Anglo-Saxon archaeology: A critical enquiry
into the study of ethnicity in lowland Britain in Late Antiquity [PhD thesis,
University of York 2017].
Harries 1992
J. Harries, Sidonius Apollinaris, Rome and the barbarians: A climate of
treason? In: J. F. Drinkwater and H. Elton (eds.), Fifth-century Gaul: A crisis
of identity? (Cambridge 1992) 298–308.
Harries 1994
J. Harries, Sidonius Apollinaris and the Fall of Rome, AD 407–485 (Oxford
1994).
Harries 2001
J. Harries, Not the Theodosian Code. In: R. W. Mathisen and D. Shanzer
(eds.), Society and culture in late antique gaul: Revisiting the sources
(Aldershot 2001) 39–51.
Heather 1992
P. Heather, The emergence of the Visigothic kingdom. In: J. F. Drinkwater
and H. Elton (eds.), Fifth-century Gaul: A crisis of identity? (Cambridge
1992) 84–94.
Heather 1999
P. Heather, The barbarian in late antiquity: image, reality and
transformation. In: R. Miles (ed.), Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity
(London 1999) 234–258.
James 1997
E. James, The militarisation of Roman society, 400–700. In: A. N. Jørgensen
and B.  L. Clausen (eds.), Military Aspects of Scandinavian Society in
a European Perspective, AD 1–1300. Publications from the National
Museum/Studies in Archaeology and History 2 (Copenhagen 1997).
James 1998
E. James, Gregory of Tours and the Franks. In: A. C. Murray (ed.), After
Rome’s Fall: Narrators and sources of early medieval history, essays
presented to Walter Goffart (Toronto 1998) 51–66.
Kaufmann 1995
F. M. Kaufmann, Studien zu Sidonius Apollinaris. Europaische Hochschul-
schriften: Reihe 3, Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften 681 (Frankfurt
1995).
Kulikowski 2010
M. Kulikowski, The fall of Roman arms. In: J. Lipps, C. Machado and Ph. von
Rummel (eds.), The Sack of Rome in 410 AD: The event, its context, and its
impact. Palilia 28 (Wiesbaden 2010) 77–86.
Mathisen 1984
R. W. Mathisen, Emigrants, exiles and survivors: Aristocratic options in
Visigothic Aquitania. Phoenix 38, 1984, 159–170.
Mathisen 2001
R. W. Mathisen, The letters of Ruricius of Limoges. In: R. W. Mathisen and
D. Shanzer (eds.), Society and culture in late antique Gaul: Revisiting the
sources (Aldershot 2001) 101–115.
Mitchell and Wood 2002
K. Mitchell and I. N. Wood (eds.), The World of Gregory of Tour. Cultures,
Beliefs and Traditions 8 (Leiden 2002).
Pohl 1998
W. Pohl, Telling the Difference – Signs of Ethnic Identity. In: W. Pohl and
H. Reimitz (eds.), Strategies of Distinction. The Construction of Ethnic
Communities, 300–800 (Leiden 1998).
Pohl 2002
W. Pohl, Contemporary perceptions of Lombard Italy. In: Mitchell and
Wood 2002, 131–144.
Pohl 2013
W. Pohl, Introduction – strategies of identification: A methodological
profile. In: Pohl and Heydemann 2013b, 1–64.
Pohl 2014
W. Pohl, Romanness: A multiple identity and its changes. Early Medieval
Europe 22/4, 2014, 406–418.
Pohl and Heydemann 2013a
W. Pohl and G. Heydemann (eds.), Post-Roman transitions: Christian and
barbarian identities in the early medieval west. Cultural Encounters in Late
Antiquity and the Middle Ages 14 (Turnhout 2013).
11
Pohl and Heydemann 2013b
W. Pohl and G. Heydemann (eds.), Strategies of identification: Ethnicity and
religion in early medieval Europe. Cultural Encounters in Late Antiquity and
the Middle Ages 13 (Turnhout 2013).

Reimitz 2013
H. Reimitz, Cultural brokers of a common past: History, identity, and
ethnicity in Merovingian historiography. In: Pohl and Heydemann 2013b,
257–301.

Reimitz 2015
H. Reimitz, History, Frankish Identity and the Framing of Western Ethnicity,
550–850. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought Ser. 4/101
(Cambridge 2015).

Rousseau 2000
Ph. Rousseau, Sidonius and Majorian: The Censure in »Carmen« V. Historia:
Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 49/2, 2000, 251–257.

von Rummel 2007

Ph. von Rummel, Habitus barbarus: Kleidung und Repräsentation spät-
antiker Eliten im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert. Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon
der Germanischen Altertumskunde 55 (Berlin 2007).

Sivan 1989
H. Sivan, Sidonius Apollinaris, Theodoric II, and Gothic-Roman politics from
Avitus to Anthemius. Hermes 117, 1989, 85–94.

Springer 2003
M. Springer, Location in space and time. In: D. A. Green and F.
Siegmund (eds.), The Continental Saxons from the migration period to
the tenth century: An ethnographic perspective. Studies in Historical
Archaeoethnology 6 (Woodbridge 2003) 11–36.

Stevens 1933
C. E. Stevens, Sidonius Apollinaris and his age (Oxford 1933).

Wood 1983
I. N. Wood, The Merovingian North Sea. Occasional Papers on Medieval
Topics 1 (Alingsas 1983).

James M. Harland
Centre for Advanced Studies, ›Migration and Mobility in Late
Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages‹
Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
Keplerstr. 2
DE 72074 Tübingen
james.harland@philosophie.uni-tuebingen.de

12