Genobaud (3rd century)

Genobaud or Genebaud (Latin Gennoboudes), is the first known Frankish war-leader, known from a record dated to the second half of the 3rd century. The Franks at the time were an alliance of Germanic-speaking tribes living on the north, or right, bank of the lower and middle Rhine as far north as the Weser, the border with the Saxons.

Genobaud
The Franks of the 3rd century are located between the Rhine and the Weser upstream to about Mainz. The word Franks does not appear; instead, the previous Germanic tribal names are shown. Outside of this region only the alliance names are shown: the Saxons, the Longobards, the Allemanns. Genobaud was first war leader and then client-king over the entire Frankish alliance. Borders of the Roman provinces are not shown, but the capital of Gaul, Trier, is shown.
Born	Unknown
Died	No later than 306, the execution date of the treasonous kings of the Franks by Constantine.
Allegiance	Franks first, then Roman Empire
Service / branch	Possibly a member of the Bructeri.
Years of service	Unknown
Position	Dux, or "Commander," of the Franks
Known for	Proactive surrender to the Emperor Maximian in 289

Genobaud is treated by all the ancient sources as a Frank. Moreover, before his surrender he was a "barbarian" Frank, and not one of those enrolled in the Roman army (see under Geography below). His reign in prior times of peace was over populations on the right side of the Rhine, identified by later historians as Ripuarian Franks. At the mouth of the Rhine the Franks had crossed into Batavia and the lands of the Maas and Scheldt. These were called Salian Franks. As there is no evidence of any other supreme leader of these Franks, he is always taken to be the leader of all the barbarian Franks.

Little is known of Genobaud's life, save for the one incident that made him historical, his surrender to the Romans. The Franks were participants in a war of the Romans against Carausius, a renegade Roman commander, who had been assigned to suppress piracy of the Saxons and Franks against travelers in the English channel. Discovering that Carausius was collaborating with them, Maximian sentenced him to death in absentia.

Quetly Carausius put together an alliance similar to the previous Gallic Empire from a whole province, Britain, Gallia Belgica, and the tribes north of the Rhine, mainly the Franci and the Allemani. At an agreed-upon time the barbarians launched a surprise attack against Trier, capital of Gaul.

By chance the city was full of Roman troops. With a few battalions Maximian pursued the rebels to the Norman coast and surrounded them in Boulogne. He sent Constantius Chlorus, then a subordinate commander, to cross the Rhine and outflank the Franks. Choosing to cross over the bridge at Mainz, Constantius at first proceeded east, defeating the tribes in that direction. Then he returned to the west, surrounding the Franks.

Gennobaud chose to surrender at this point. The Franks were to beome a client-state, and their leader a client-king. Constantius compelled Carausius to evacuate Boulogne. He then insisted that the Franks south of the Rhine return north of it, but later changed his mind.

Names

Main article: Germanic name

The Franks lived in a period when tribes were uniting into new ethnic groups with new self-styled names, such as Saxons ("sword-men"), Langobards ("long-beards"), and Allemans ("all the men"). Each of these alliances were governed by a war-leader, which the Romans called a dux ("Duke").

Apart from the names of these new ethnic groups and the previous tribal names they comprise, the onomastics of the Early Franks includes a large number of personal names descending from the Proto-Germanic period. These anthroponyms mainly, but not exclusively, belong to aristocratic persons who appear in history because of their roles in it. The names appear in sources for the entire range of Germanics, although a large percentage of them, due to the pre-eminence of the Franks in history, are Frankish.

Josef Van Loon provides a credible partial etymology for Genobaud as follows. Most of the anthroponyms surviving from the Frankish Period, or Early Middle Ages, of northern France and the Lowlands, are compounds of two elements, which Van Loon calls two-stem. The stem idea means that each element can vary on a stem. The elements are Germanic. For example, *Hludo-vechus develops from a prince named "warrior-of-fame" to an ordinary person named Louis or Lewis.

Van Loon, the linguist, focuses on the -baud element by collecting -baud names in a single group: Bainobaudes, Balchobaudes, Gennobaudes, Hariobaudes, Mallobaudes, Merobaudes. These are all "the names of Franks who held high offices in the Roman army". In addition a Frank called simply Baudo "was consul in the year 385." Deducing a probable meaning of commander for the baud-element he proposes a proto-Germanic original of *baudiz, an ablaut variation of the root of Dutch gebieder, "commander." The source of geno- remains uncertain.

In these names, one element is generally attributive, and the other is the subject of the attribution, regardless of what form the element might take. The order does not matter. For example, chlodo-ricus or Hlodo-ricus is "famous king," but so also is Richi-mer. Hloth-here, Anglo-Saxon "famous warrior" is synonymous with Mero-vech of the Merovingians. This system was not confined to the Franks; in fact, instances can be found from all the Germanics.

See also: Name of the Franks

Ancient sources

Sources

The sources for this early Frankish leader are mainly confined to a single collection of 12 orations termed the Panegyrici Latini. They are not in any special order, but have been arranged as collected. Each was delivered to a high official of the Roman Empire on some special occasion. The chronologies have been more or less deciphered by scholarship. Each oration praises the deeds of subject, often stating events that are dateable. As the orator was unlikely to lie to his emperor or other superior officer, the Panegyrics are given the credibility of a record, whereas histories of individuals written in private from other sources are more liable to personal judgement.

These Panegyrici are not the only panegyrics written through and around this period. Panegyric was recognized as the name of a specific type of oration familiar in the art or oratory and taught in the schools. These Panegyrici Latini are a specific collection of panegyrics that developed probably in library manuscript contexts.

The first Clovis

The last Louis, Louis XVI

Mention of the early Franks in some of the Panegyrici provides only fragmentary information about them. The later career of the Franks is well-documented by such writers as Gregory of Tours in The History of the Franks. Gregory, however, under "The Early Rulers of the Franks (Book II)," working from books available to him then, but lost now, begins with the invasion of Roman Germany by Franks under the 4th-century Genobaud with the assistance of Marcomer and Sunno. The last of the early war leaders and first independent king of the Franks was Clovis I, or Hlodowig, the original "(C)Louis." Book III goes on from his death. There were many more Clovises and then beginning with Charlemagne's son, Louises, as a single Europe became united into the Frankish empire.

Two panegyrics establish the identity of the 3rd-century Genobaud as Frankish: number X delivered in 289, and number XI delivered in 291. They have the same author, and some of the manuscripts identify him as Claudius Mamertinus, but the presence of another Claudius Mamertinus as author of a panegyric 75 years later makes this possibility less likely. Instead the author is usually listed as anonymous. X and XI are the order of presentation in the volume; overall they are the 2nd and 3rd composed. Mention of X in XI establishes a real-time sequence: X, XI. It is continued by VIII, VII, VI, which give valuable reflections on the early Franks, though they do not menton Genobaud.

X tells the basic story of Gennobaud, portraying him as a barbarian king doing the best he can to reach a settlement for his constituents in a difficult historical situation. The relationship between the Germanic-speaking people and the Romans had been troubled since its inception, when joint expeditions of Celts and Germans invaded northern Italy in the Roman Republic.

Geography

The Franks in the time of Genobaud were already divided into two commands: the Roman auxiliaries, who were actually in the Roman army, meaning under its command, and the tribal Franks under the command of the war leader, who, after Genobaud's surrender and appointment as client-king, were a client-kingdom from which the Romans enlisted recruits.

Although the political structure of Franks is not yet clear, the command structure is. There were two distinct commands, a native and a Roman. The native lived on the right bank of the Rhine, except near the mouth, where they had managed to settle in Batavia and the coastal lowlands. The Roman Franks were stationed by the Romans on the left bank of the river wherever needed. The right-bank Franks often invaded Gaul. These were called barbarians. Ironically the opposing Roman troops included Frankish soldiers, which are identified by the inscriptions of Frankish units. As these gradually became more influential they appropriated the name of the Franks. Genobaud was war-leader and then client-king over only the right-bank Franks.

History

Main article: Early Franks

The Franks and the Roman army

Just before the Roman civil war that created the Roman Empire, Julius Caesar undertook to solve the problem by conquering Gaul. Succeeding, he found that they were being seduced to rebellion by Germanic tribes who crossed the Rhine and attempted to establish states there. He was prevented from a permanent solution by his assassination at the start of the civil war. When it was finally done and Augustus reigned as the first emperor, the Romans fortified the south bank of the Rhine, and established two buffer states of Germanic speakers, Lower Germany, located about where the Netherlands are at the mouths of the Rhine, and Upper Germany upstream. Writers now began to refer to the northerners as barbarians rather than Germans, which is what they are called in the Panegyrici.

The rise of Constantius

Map of ancient Mainz showing the Rhine Bridge of the times.

The rise of Constantius and the details concerning the fates of the Germanics opposed by him are given in Panegyric VIII, the Panegyric of Constantius, the fourth of the set. It was delivered at Trier to Constantius in 297 by an aging former administrator in his regime, in celebration of his recapture of Britain, 296. It presents detail of his command from the time he parted from Maximian in Belgium. He did not attempt to cross the Rhine into the Frankish homeland. Instead he proceeded eastward to the Rhine Bridge, undoubtedly at Mainz, and crossed into the country of the Alamanni. From there he went up the Rhine and down the Danube to Guntia (Günzburg) devastating the country of the Alamanni the whole distance.

Eastwards of the Alamanni Constantius encountered and defeated Germanics of East Germany: the Juthungi of Bavaria, the Quadi of Slovakia and Moravia, the Carpi of Romania, and to the north of the Black Sea the Goths. Further east he encountered the Sarmatians, who were Iranian-speakers of the steppes. He couldn't have gotten very far into their territory, which stretched to China, as they were the last of the Indo-Europeans on their original range. He did come within view of the Persian Empire. The Great King paid him not to have to go to war with him, at which time he returned to take care of unfinished business on the west; that is, Carausius and the Franks, this time from the north side of the frontier.

The three Panegyrics, X, XI, and VIII, which are in chronologial order, and VI, up to the time of Constantine, often cover the same historical events, but sometimes not in any easily discernable order, as the authors face the difficult task of what and what not to say at their time of delivery. The general flow is the return of Constantius from the borders of Persia after accepting the Great King's money not to attack, the collaboration of Maximian and Constantius to threaten the Franks, the surrender of the Franks to avoid combat, the replacement of Maximian as commander in the field by Constantius, the assauilt on and capture of Bononia (Boulogne), the escape of Carausius to Britain, the removal of the Franks south of the Rhine, the building of a new fleet, the murder of Carausius by his best friend, and finally the recapture of Britain. These events are represented by scattered scenes in the Panegyrics, but which scene goes with which event is often a matter long debate, described in the footnotes.

One might begin with the recovery by Gennoboudes of his dukedom as a gift from Maximian. He did not then possess it or there would be no point in giving it to him. He must previously have had it, but it passed into Roman hands. Genobaud is portrayed as coming into the imperial presence "with all his people" seeking, it is presumed by the author, client-king status, which was given by the Romans to repentant Germanic states, and was given to Genobaud now. All the people cannot have meant all the Franks. The author must have meant his chiefs, whom Genobaud ordered to watch the emperor, and learn submission, as he, Genobaud, was now his subordinate. This submission most likely refers to a ritual to be practiced on coming into the presence of an emperor, of casting oneself prone before him. An emperor was, after all a god.

The Romans could easily have added Germany to the empire, but Maximian knew his limits. Augustus had excluded that course of action and the policy was respected since then. If Germany was not to be annexed or depopulated he had to become merciful. He fell back on the standard policy of creating puppet kings. If a regime begged for mercy and was willing to return all plunder and slaves, and to swear allegiance to the Roman People and Senate, Maximian would either return their lands or find new lands for them. Usually the applicant pleaded his cause before the Senate, receiving either provisional clemency or execution, but at this stage the emperors were functioning independently, so battlefield clemency was common. The other main option was to escape to Britain.

More information is given of Genobaud in XI, where the author states a chronological list of events he is going to pass over. One of these is the "trophies of victories over the Germans erected in the middle of the barbarians' territory," which can only refer to Constantius' successful expedition over the Rhine in 288, conducted while Maximian was building the ill-fated ships. No one else got to the middle of the Germans.

The Panegyric then states: "I ignore even those things which were done by the fear of your arms as if accomplished by arms: the Franks coming with their king to seek peace ...." This passage confirms that Genobaud was the king of the Franks, according to the Roman idea of king. This is not the same visitation during which Genobaud regained a new monarchy. He would not be seeking peace unless he were at war or feared that war might shortly begin. Since he had been allied with Carausius since the piracy conspiracy, he must have been at war, even though he had probably not participated in the attack on Trier. He must have been an instrument in blockading or destroying Maximian's new fleet on the Rhine. This war began in 286 or 287 when the siege of Bononia began. As Maximian lost it, the Franks had nothing to fear in 288.

The only different circumstance was the arrival of the victorious Constantius, who had taken out all the other Germanics. But for Carausius the Franks now stood alone. To come now seeking peace was to surrender, and to do that independently as part of an alliance was to change sides. As to why he decided to do so now, there is a dark dimension.The Roman army subsequently ridiculed the bold Franks as being not so bold, but the deal must have been mutually advantageous to both parties, as both eagerly embraced it.

The date of the deal was 289. At that time the forces of Constantius must have been at the Rhine Bridge, as they had not encroached on Frankish territory. The forces of Maximian were probably on the other side of the bridge and along the Rhine. At some point he must have gotten through the Ardennes. One might have expected some sort of foray down the Frankish side of the Rhine to attack the now uncovered northern perimeter of Boulogne, and a new fleet to cut it off from the channel, as happened later under Constantius. For now there was nothing and Constantius disappeared. The latter vanishment is not so surprising as Constantius was not then an emperor, but only a subordinate officer temporarily in charge of an expedition. As the two armies were now together his independent command must have terminated.

The date of the treaty with the Franks was 289. The reunited Roman army lingered for a year, probably returning to Trier. Maximian did nothing, but his mandate was to defeat Carausius. The reasons are unknown, perhaps the status of the rebel legions, perhaps the terms of the deal with the Franks. Carausius was maintaining his legitimacy as a Roman emperor, although there is no evidence of any assent by the existing two. Diocletian was no longer at Trier. He waited in his own palace in Milan, now the acting capital of the empire.

The pacific political climate was broken abrupty in the dead of winter, 290. Apparently Diocletian took some actions that were so unspeakable to panegyrists and therefore to the ordinary people that nothing now remains except the fairy tale of Panegyric XI. It seems that in December Diocletian and Maximian were overcome with such a divinely inspired longing for each other's company that Maximian immediately went on the Alpine trails for Milan, while Diocletian awaited him there passionately. The gods were so much in favor that they dispensed a spring-like climate over the Alps and made the journey like a picnic. Maximian was received by crowds of cheering Milanians lining the snow-empty streets. The two emperors had no other reason for meeting than that they missed each other.

No one could have believed this tale but the protocols concerning emperors were strict. The two emperors were both equally Augusti and any inference that one could order the other around might merit the death penalty. Furthermore, emperors did not do wrong and could not be criticised either directly or by implication. These customs did not leave much to say but convenient humanistic fictions. Furthermore, not even the emperors could object without getting into admission of guilt.

The author gives the audience a small break in incredulity with another disingenuous confession. Maximian moved so fast he outran the messengers and served as his own messenger. There were, then, messengers. Diocletian sent them to fetch Maximian, who responded appropriately. The incident might be reconstructed as follows. Diocletian was in charge; otherwise, Maximian would be sending for him. He was not happy with Maximian. He dragged him out of his comfortable camp and insisted he cross the mountain glaciers in the worst weather without even a delay until better weather. Maximian arrived post-haste in early 291. There is not one word of Constantius, yet it is likely that he came with Maximian. He was there in 293, when Diocletian gave him Maximian's former rank and assignment, insisting that he move on the rebels right now and retake Britain. There are no known armies in which replacement of a rank and position by a subordinate for failure to take an objective is not a failure of the former commander.

Sources

• Davenport, Caillan (2016). "Fashioning a Soldier Emperor: Maximian, Pannonia, and the Panegyrics of 289 and 291". Phoenix. 70 (3–4): 381–400.
• Howorth, Henry H. (1884). "The Ethnology of Germany.-Part VI. The Varini, Varangians, and Franks.-Section II". The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 13. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland: 213–237.
• James, Edward (1991). The Franks. The Peoples of Europe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
• Magie, David (1998). The Scriptores Historiae Augustae. Loeb Classical Library L263. Vol. III (1932 ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674992903.
• Nixon, C.E.V.; Rodgers, Barbara Saylor (1994). In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-08326-1
• Perry, Walter C. (1857). The Franks from their First Appearance in History to the Death of King Pepin (PDF). London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts.
• Van Loon, Jozef (2016). "Lanaken en de vroegste geschiedenis van Franken en Merovingen". Verslagen & Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal en Letteren (in Dutch). 126 (1–2).
• Victor, Sextus Aurelius (1994). Liber De Caesaribus (PDF). Translated Texts for Historians Volume 17. Translated by Bird, H.W. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
• Zonaras (2009). Banchich, Thomas M. (ed.). The History of Zonaras from Alexander Severus to the Death of Theodosius the Great (PDF). Routledge Classical Translations. London; New York: Routledge.

External links

Media related to Genobaud (3rd century) at Wikimedia Commons