Upload
jamie-wood
View
1.348
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Lecture from week 11 of the Later Roman Empire module at the University of Liverpool, given on 7th December 2012.
Citation preview
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