BARBARIANS AT THE GATES, BARBARIANS IN THE ARMY

Dr Jamie Wood - CLAH266 - Week 11

The Belgrade cameo, 4th century: Constantine in pose of Alexander riding over barbarian corpses

Structure

Barbarians in the Roman imagination German and barbarian identity Barbarians in the 3rd century Converting the barbarians A case study: The Goths Break The Army: discussing the reading

Tacitus, Germania (1st C CE)What, according to Tacitus, were the defining characteristics of German social, political and military life?

‘The Germans themselves I should regard as aboriginal, and not mixed at all with other races through immigration or intercourse. […] For my own part, I agree with those who think that the tribes of Germany are free from all taint of intermarriages with foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves. […] They choose their kings by birth, their generals for merit. These kings have not unlimited or arbitrary power, and the generals do more by example than by authority. If they are energetic, if they are conspicuous, if they fight in the front, they lead because they are admired. But to reprimand, to imprison, even to flog, is permitted to the priests alone, and that not as a punishment, or at the general's bidding, but, as it were, by the mandate of the god whom they believe to inspire the warrior. […] About minor matters the chiefs deliberate, about the more important the whole tribe. Yet even when the final decision rests with the people, the affair is always thoroughly discussed by the chiefs. They assemble, except in the case of a sudden emergency, on certain fixed days, either at new or at full moon; for this they consider the most auspicious season for the transaction of business. […] When they go into battle, it is a disgrace for the chief to be surpassed in valour, a disgrace for his followers not to equal the valour of the chief. And it is an infamy and a reproach for life to have survived the chief, and returned from the field. To defend, to protect him, to ascribe one's own brave deeds to his renown, is the height of loyalty. The chief fights for victory; his vassals fight for their chief. If their native state sinks into the sloth of prolonged peace and repose, many of its noble youths voluntarily seek those tribes which are waging some war, both because inaction is odious to their race, and because they win renown more readily in the midst of peril, and cannot maintain a numerous following except by violence and war.’

Traditional Roman views of barbarians

Barbarians Are multiple Are situated outside the empire Are described in stereotypes Are defeated by good emperors and

overcome bad emperors Are used to attack/ denigrate other Romans

E.g. Salvian of Marseille (440s) savages Roman society: less just, less fair, more sinful, even than the barbarians

Are Rome’s “other”, against which it defines itself

German identityGerman identity

Tacitus’ idea of ‘Free Germany’: entire male population participating in decision-making Adopted by later scholars as model of barbarian

society Problem 1: how can we use 1st C text to describe later

situation? Problem 2: Tacitus was comparing German ‘freedom’

to Roman ‘tyranny’ under the empire: not objective

Barbarian identity

Concepts of Roman-ness and Barbarian-ness are neither fixed nor objective They are fluid – a state of mind Guy Halsall: ‘Ethnicity is multi-layered, flexible, cognitive

(a state of mind) and situational (deployed in situations when it is advantageous).’

Helps explain how Romans could act (or be depicted as acting) as barbarians, esp. usurpers, rebels, bandits

Barbarians in the 3rd century

Late 2nd and 3rd C: larger confederations exert greater pressure on Rome (e.g. wars of Marcus Aurelius, Severus, 3rd C crisis): Alamanni (‘All Men’) – south-west Germany Franks (‘the Fierce People’) – middle and lower Rhine Saxons – north Germany Picts (‘the Painted Men’) – north Britain Goths (‘the Men’) – eastern Carpathians and lower Danube.

3 types of kingship proposed: War leader Sacral kingship Judges

Created by the Romans? Politically: wealth/ diplomacy/ military experience (archaeology – Roman badges of

office) Historiographically

Converting the barbarians

After conversion of Constantine, Romans began to try to convert barbarians too Reign of Constantius II important He is (and later 4th C emperors are)

Arian, so most barbarians are Arian too Reasons

What a Christian Roman Emperor should do?

An act of diplomacy? Building alliances Demonstrates Roman dominance

(baptism)

Converting the Goths (340s?)

‘This Ulfilas, then, was the leader of this pious band which came out from among the Goths, and became eventually their first bishop. […] he took the greatest care of them in many ways, and amongst others, he reduced their language to a written form, and translated into their vulgar tongue all the books of holy Scripture, with the exception of the Books of Kings, which he omitted, because they are a mere narrative of military exploits, and the Gothic tribes were especially fond of war, and were in more need of restraints to check their military passions than of spurs to urge them on to deeds of war. But those books have the greatest influence in exciting the minds of readers, inasmuch as they are regarded with great veneration, and are adapted to lead the hearts of believers to the worship of God.’ (Photius, Epitome, 2.5)

The Goths – a very brief introduction

Possible origins in Scandinavia Speak Gothic, a Germanic language Migration to Danube frontier/ southern

Russia by 2nd century CE Many different Gothic groups 2 ‘supergroups’ emerge

Visigoths (west Goths) – mid 4th century – under Roman influence

Ostrogoths (east Goths) – early 5th century – under Hunnic influence

Early Roman influence on Goths

Goth as Roman soldiers Inscriptions on eastern

frontier from 3rd C Roman religion

Goths convert to Arianism But this is a marker of

belonging not difference Roman material culture

Roman coins and pottery throughout ‘Gothia’

Goths as barbarian enemies of Rome ‘Gothicus’: a

common victory agnomen of emperors E.g. Claudius II

Gothicus (268-270) Column of the Goths

in Constantinople (right): FORTUNAE REDUCI

OB DEVICTUS GOTHOS (‘To Fortuna, who returns by reason of victory over the Goths’)

Goths as enemies

…in 410

Goths & Romans within the Empire

Enter empire under treaty late 4thC; often ally with Romans But: Adrianople (378); sack Rome

(410) Fight as Roman foederati (federate

troops) against other barbarians usurpers bandits

Gothic leaders demand Roman generalships

Receive subsidies from the empire Demand lands within the empire

Orosius on Gothic federate troops at Battle of Frigidus (394)

‘And so the civil war was ended by the deaths of these two men, apart from the 10,000 Goths who, it is said, were Theodosius’ advance guard and were completely wiped out by Arbogastes. But to lose them was a gain and their defeat was a victory.’ Paulus Orosius, Seven Books of History

against the Pagans, 7.35.19

Gibbon on revolt of the Goths in 395 What, according to Gibbon, motivated the barbarians (= Goths) to revolt against the Romans?

‘The barbarian auxiliaries erected their independent standard, and boldly avowed the hostile designs which they had long cherished in their ferocious minds. Their countrymen, who had been condemned by the conditions of the last treaty to a life of tranquillity and labour, deserted their farms at the first sound of the trumpet, and eagerly resumed the weapons which they had reluctantly laid down. The barriers of the Danube were thrown open; the savage warriors of Scythia issued from their forests; and the uncommon severity of the winter […]’ Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,

(1776–89), chapter 30

Orosius on Athaulf (r. 410-415)

‘he was accustomed to relate that at first he earnestly had wanted to obliterate the name of Rome and make the Romans’ land the Goths’ empire in both word and deed, so that there would have been […] a Gothia where there had once been a Romania and that he, Athaulf, would now be what Augustus Caesar had once been. But when, after long experience, he has proved to himself that, because of their wild barbarism, the Goths were completely unable to obey the law […] he chose at least to seek for himself the glory of having restored and extended the Roman Empire by the might of his Goths and, since he could not be her supplanter, to be remembered by posterity as the author of Rome’s renewal.’ (Paulus Orosius, Seven Books of History against the Pagans, 7.43.5-6

(Visi-)Goths in Gaul Take on imperial roles

pass laws respect property rights hold church council respect Catholic religion

Local aristocracy accept their rule Goths collaborate to appoint Gallic

senator Eparchius Avitus as Western Roman Emperor (455-456)

Gallo-Roman nobles (Catholics) fight and die for Alaric II (an Arian) against the Frankish king Clovis (a Catholic) in 507

Anti-Gothic sentiment in Anti-Gothic sentiment in southern Gaulsouthern Gaul “Why – even supposing I had

the skill – do you bid me compose a song dedicated to Venus the lover of Fescennine mirth, placed as I am among long-haired hordes, having to endure German speech, praising oft with wry face the song of the gluttonous Burgundian who spreads rancid butter on his hair?” Sidonius Apollinaris Carmen 12.1

(Ostro-)Goths in Italy

Politics: Depose Odoacer, who had

deposed the last Western Roman Emperor

Develop civilitas ideology: cooperation between Gothic warriors and Roman civilians

Make alliances with nobles Some join Ostrogoths to resist

(successful) Byzantine reconquest attempts under Justinian in 530s-550s

Religion: Support rather than persecute

church; in collation of classical and patristic learning

Isidore of Seville on the Goths (625)What, according to Isidore, were (a) the defining characteristic(s) of the Goths and (b) their main achievement(s)?

‘All of the peoples of Europe feared them. The barriers of the Alps gave way before them. The Vandals, widely known for their own barbarity, were not so much terrified by the presence of the Goths as put to flight by their renown. The Alans were extinguished by the strength of the Goths. The Suevi, too, forced into inaccessible corners of Spain, have now experienced the threat of extermination at the hands of the Goths [...]. Subjected, the Roman soldier now serves the Goths, whom he sees being served by many peoples and by Spain itself.’ Isidore, History of the Goths, ‘Recapitulation’, 68-70

(Visi-)Goths in Spain

But, contra Isidore… Politics:

Imperial roles: Build cities and repair

infrastructure Intermarry with Hispano-Roman

nobility King Theudis (mid 6th C) marries

Roman noblewoman; revoke earlier laws against

intermarriage

Religion: Convert to Catholicism (587/9) Cooperate with Catholic bishops

THE ARMY (1)

In groups, discuss Lee, ‘The Army’ How did the late Roman

military differ from the early imperial system?

What does Lee say about the ‘barbarization’ of the late Roman military?

What does Lee say about the effectiveness of the late Roman military?

Differences from early imperial army

Increased specialisation Smaller units and indivual army size

reduced but an overall increase in the size of the whole army

Field armies (comitanenses) and frontier defence forces (limitanei) – old army had just been legions

Praetorian guard replaced by scholae – elite troops

‘Barbarization’ of the late Roman military

Army couldn’t recruit enough troops so they had to rely on barbarians

More of a career choice than an enemy taking over – lots of barbarians rising through the military Means that the term barbarisation is

legitimate Very little evidence that barbarians were

disloyal or fled during battle

Effectiveness of late Roman army

Soldiers brought economic benefits; constituted a considerable market and steady income

Ammianus does not support the view that the army deteriorated

Some abandoned battles and panicked, but this happened throughout Roman history – no overall growth in later empire

Army got a bad press – it was not in decline Vicious circle – provinces lost meaning less

resources and fewer potential recruits = more reliance on barbarians

THE ARMY (2)

In groups, discuss the source extracts on your handout, answering the following questions: What were the positive and

negative impacts of the army on the late Roman world?

What do these sources tell us about the relationship between the army and society in the later Roman Empire?

1. Government aren’t making the army an appealing career choice

2. Militarisation of society – army used for civilian purposes such as tax collection

3. Soldiers becoming arrogant -> controlling pay agenda

4. Veterans leave service with respect in local city

5. Billeting -> soldiers living-in with families changes social makeup

Summary

Barbarians & army = prime reasons for fall of empire? Stereotypes of barbarians are strong in Roman

sources and much scholarship Easily leads to idea that barbarians want to overthrow

Rome But more likely that they wanted to become part of Roman

order: barbarians as Romans not barbarians vs. Romans Army, along with bureaucracy, predominant

institution within later Roman empire Not necessarily as ineffective as once thought Integral part of society Barbarians do play a big role, especially in West

Final class

When: Monday 10th December Where: CYPS-209

For more on the army, there are some excellent maps and other materials here: http://usna.edu/Users/history/abels/hh381/late_roman_barbarian_militaries.htm