In 405 AD, for reasons unknown, Stilicho ordered the destruction of the Sibylline Books. Rutilius Namatianus, De Reditu 51–60 writes:
“Wherefore more bitter is the crime of cursed Stilicho in that he was betrayer of the Empire's secret. As he strove to live longer than the Roman race, his cruel frenzy turned the world upside down, and, while fearing that wherein he had made himself formidable, he let loose the arms of the barbarians to the death of Latium: he plunged an armed foe in the naked vitals of the land, his craft being freer from risk than that of openly inflicted disaster. Even Rome lay exposed to his skin-clad menials captive ere she could be captured. Nor was it only through Gothic arms that the traitor made his attack: ere this he burned the fateful books which brought the Sibyl's aid.”
I wonder what this secret is that Stilicho betrays to the enemy. Some scholars believe that it concerns Rome’s secret name being revealed. Stilicho also burns the Sibylline books, which legend has it was bought from an old woman by Tarquinius Superbus. Was Stilicho a Christian?
Censorinus makes the claim that Rome had the protection of the gods for 1200 years. Taking Rome’s founding date of 753 BC, in 410 AD this amounts to 1163 years, which is 37 years short of the 1200 year protection offered by the gods. However, Rome also has another date, and that is when Rome was conceived. According to the primary sources, Rome was conceived 64 years before its founding date. Therefore, by adding 64 years to Rome’s traditional founding date of 753 BC produces the year 817 BC. Timeaus gives Rome’s founding date at 814 BC and here it becomes clear that Timaeus has confused Rome’s date of conception as Rome’s founding date. This would mean by adding 64 years to 753 BC, the period from 817 BC to 410 AD represents 1227 years. According to my research the 1200 year protection of the gods is a rounded number and from my calculations, the protection of the gods ends a couple of years before Rome is sacked, so I am wondering if Stilicho made this information available to Rome’s enemies. This is either one amazing coincidence or there is another story that needs telling.
There was a lot of confusion, hype, and innuendo back in Stilicho's time. Yes, I'm fairly sure he was Orthodox (aka Catholic). His wife certainly was. Not long before this, the statue of Victory was removed from the Senate, another outcry ensuing from traditional pagans. Personally, who could possibly envy Stilicho, a man who walked a tightrope to his eventual death.
ad:
Quote:Rutilius Namatianus, De Reditu 51–60 writes:
Well exactly, there you have it. De Reditu is a poem, and Rutilius was a poet. To me this falls in that age-old catagory of explaining after the fact why things went wrong. Stilicho destroying the Sybilline Books is exactly the same as King Arthur unearthing Bran's Head, thereby removing the protection of Britain.
As to Stilicho, the venom dripping from the lines is also a dead-giveway. Stilicho did not make Alaric a Roman general, that had been done in the eastern Empire. Stilicho wanted to control that part of the Empire, but that's a totally differnt thing altogether. It was Honorius who betrayed Stilicho (by luring him out of sanctuary), and Honorius who was responcible for Alaric and Rome. Rutilius can write what he wants, it's a political slur and nothing more.
If Rome's protection was warranted by 'the gods' until 383 AD, then it was the discarding of those gods in favour of the Christian God that would render that warrant useless. Any 'enemy of Rome' could have concluded that, instead of depending on a letter from Stilicho (how DOES one communicate a secret to 'all the enemies of Rome', anyway?) that the warranty had run out. :-D
The Romans had an ideaology of a "God Given Empire" no matter what, including when they made the transition of a Christian one. Even at the very end in the 1400's, they still had the idea of a "God Given" right to rule.
Ah, yes. Also known as a "King John-ism." :whistle:
Robert wrote:
If Rome's protection was warranted by 'the gods' until 383 AD, then it was the discarding of those gods in favour of the Christian God that would render that warrant useless.
Rome’s protection by the gods ended a few years (less than eight years to be exact) before the sack in 410 AD.
Robert wrote:
Any 'enemy of Rome' could have concluded that, instead of depending on a letter from Stilicho (how DOES one communicate a secret to 'all the enemies of Rome', anyway?) that the warranty had run out.
The enemy would first have to know that there was a religious belief the gods are protecting Rome. Should they obtain information of when this protection ended and that this date had just transpired, it would have been a great boost to the enemies’ morale. Unfortunately there has been little attention applied to Rome’s belief in them being protected by the gods for a 1200 year period. After Rome was sacked in 386 BC, although Livy mentions at the battle the Romans deployed their reserves incorrectly, the first item the Romans did after the Gauls left was to conduct a religious investigation, which found one of the consular tribunes was guilty of not following a religious procedure. There is no mention of incorrectly deploying the reserve forces. The Romans wanted a religious reason, not a military, and they must have been extremely concerned to protect their religious belief about being favoured by the gods.
The life of Rome is defined in four periods: infancy, youth, manhood and old age, which funnily enough also covers the 1200 year period of protection. The four periods equate to the Pythagorean tetractys. So those in the Roman priesthood would know the exact year when Rome will metaphysically die due to old age. In fact a Roman priest in 438 BC, would know what the date of Rome’s demise would be. This must not have been public knowledge in 438 BC, but by the 4th century AD, with the raise of Christianity, the primary sources indicate this was public knowledge. For the year 401 AD, Claudian (Gothic War 26 265-320), relates that after cutting open two wolfs that attacked the emperor’s cavalry escort.
“In each animal, on its being cut open, was found a human hand, in the stomach of one a left hand, in that of the other a right was discovered, both still twitching, the fingers stretched out and suffused with living blood.”
One interpretation of the events believed that the might of Roman was to be unimpaired. However, another interpretation of the portent believed the portent threatened destruction on Rome and her empire. Claudian goes on to say:
“Then they reckoned up the years and, cutting off the flight of the twelfth vulture, tried to shorten the centuries of Rome's existence by hastening the end.”
The 12 vultures represent 1200 years, and Claudian’s passage of hastening the end is due to the different calibration points the Romans have about their founding date. There is Rome’s conception date, Rome’s founding date, and Rome’s conception and founding dates in relation to the sack of Troy. Rome’s founding date of 753 BC is Varronian and was done to neatly conform to Pythagorean time frames or cycles of time. Claudian’s passage is highlighting the differences in dates given by the Varro and the date relating to the sack of Troy. Regardless of the date, Claudian’s passage informs us the Romans knew they were close to the end.
Also knowing Rome was to be abandoned by the old gods, such information would have worked in favour of the Christians. I cannot say with any accuracy what the secret Rutilius is referring to, and Stilicho could well have been made a scapegoat, but the fact Rome is sacked some six years after the protection of the gods does intrigue me.
Quote: the fact Rome is sacked some six years after the protection of the gods does intrigue me.
Interesting as it may be, it's no different from age old cries throughout history and legend: 'why have (the) god(s) abandones us? The Israelites did it, the Greeks did it, the Romans did it, Medieval Europeans did it, American Indians did it. All were looking back, trying to find a reason for their current state. Trying to find logic and real actions based on old prophesies and (contemporary) attempts to explain by poets and priests them makes as much sense today as it did then.
Your next project could be to find out if St Augustine was right about the 'City of God', or the ones accusing the Christians of destroying the age-old divine protection of Rome. I mean, the 'secret' of Rome's protection may not have been a secret after all.
BTW I'm moving this to another section, as it's neither military nor archaeology we're discussing here. :-)
Robert wrote:
Interesting as it may be, it's no different from age old cries throughout history and legend: 'why have (the) god(s) abandones us? The Israelites did it, the Greeks did it, the Romans did it, Medieval Europeans did it, American Indians did it.
In many of the above societies, these people believed they were abandoned by their god(s) due to some catastrophe. For the Jews, it was the sacking of the temple. However, as the primary sources tell us, the Romans had a date for when this event would occur. That is the major difference. Besides the Romans, the only other race I can think of is the Mayans. And also what other civilisation describes itself as progressing from infancy to youth, to manhood then old age. Not only does Florus mention this, Ammianus also reports the same thing. Both are not talking gibberish, both are mentioning something they believed was of extreme importance. I have no idea why the protection of the gods was set at 1200 years. The 1200 years could represent a one hundredth part of the Conflagration of the World given by Orpheus as being 120,000 years. Others who have investigated my work, because the numbers interlock, believe (if I remember correctly) it belongs to time line system reported by Plato that covers some 12 million years. However, I have not included this in my work as it is not part of my focus.
Robert wrote:
Your next project could be to find out if St Augustine was right about the 'City of God', or the ones accusing the Christians of destroying the age-old divine protection of Rome.
Do you have a reference? Zosimus believes because the Romans no longer celebrated the festivals, this bought about Rome’s woes. This discussion in Zosimus always occurs around when a Pythagorean saeculum will occur, so the festivals should be the Secular Games. By not celebrating the Secular Games, this could result in losing the favour of the gods. So the pagans were worried but the Christians not so.
Robert wrote:
I mean, the 'secret' of Rome's protection may not have been a secret after all.
It’s hard to say. Those that write about it do so after Rome was sacked, so the cat is well and truly out of the bag. I cannot accuse or defend Stilicho. All I can do is report Rutilius’ passage and whether it relates to the time table of the god’s protection. However, it does add interest to an otherwise ignored topic, and I believe it is a good way to end the book.
I find it fascinating that, depending on one's point of view, Stilicho can either be seen as the good captain going down with his ship or the trickster who let the enemy in.
The man did not have an enviable position, that is for sure. I do think that his plans for the invasion of Illyricum had an adverse impact on the security of the west though. But, Stilicho's main fault, to me anyways, was his unwillingness to commit to battle. To use an american football analogy, he basically played prevent defense. He was not particularly innovative, and seemed to just follow old Theo's playbook. The fact that he still harbored eastern ambitions even after sending back the troops to rufinus was also folly. That was his time to act, and he missed it.
Finally, at least in hindsight, it is hard to not fault him for failing to see the political reality he was facing in the west by: 1) failing to destroy alaric when he had the chance; and 2) agreeing to Alaric's "payoff" for the failed Illyricum invasion. He should have known that he would need to fight Alaric at some point and that the politicians in the west would not stand for his pandering to Alaric much longer....particularly since he gave the senators a big middle finger by removing the victory alter and burning the syballine books.
Quote:Finally, at least in hindsight, it is hard to not fault him for failing to see the political reality he was facing in the west by: 1) failing to destroy alaric when he had the chance
Easier said than done ... remember, Theodosius destroyed a lot of the Western army in putting down the revolts of Magnus Maximus and Eugenius in 388 and 394 respectively. Especially the latter; the Battle of the Frigidus was very bloody.
Stilicho was in pretty desperate need of fresh troops at the outset of Honorius' reign. It's speculation, but I tend to think that he tried negotiating with Alaric because the West's forces were in no shape for pitched battle in 395 and couldn't be easily replenished, especially given the loss of Illyricum to the east. Whenever he did confront Alaric, Stilicho took an extremely cautious approach, trying to starve or blockade him rather than attack him directly, which seems to indicate he didn't have much confidence in his forces.
Justin wrote:
Whenever he did confront Alaric, Stilicho took an extremely cautious approach, trying to starve or blockade him rather than attack him directly, which seems to indicate he didn't have much confidence in his forces
If that was the case and Stilicho did not have much confidence in his forces, then why didn’t Alaric take advantage of this and attack Stilicho? Maybe there is some truth in Rutilius’ condemnation of Stilicho.
I don;t discount the fact that he was leading an army of devastated veterans and raw "recruits" obtained from border raids. But, I find Hughes' thesis that Stilicho lacked confidence in battle pretty convincing. I think Stilicho could have brought matters to a head, but he chose not to for fear of defeat (Similar to German Navy in WW1), and because he needed Alaric to occupy Illyricum for him.
Quote:Justin wrote:
Whenever he did confront Alaric, Stilicho took an extremely cautious approach, trying to starve or blockade him rather than attack him directly, which seems to indicate he didn't have much confidence in his forces
If that was the case and Stilicho did not have much confidence in his forces, then why didn’t Alaric take advantage of this and attack Stilicho? Maybe there is some truth in Rutilius’ condemnation of Stilicho.
He did, twice, in 401 and 402, and was defeated both times, but Stilicho allowed him to retreat instead of finishing him off.
Also, I don't think Alaric's goal was to completely destroy the Western army. He just wanted some land to distribute to his followers to make them happy and keep them fed. Alaric played hardball in negotiations, and wasn't above plundering a few villas or sacking a city to get his point across. He thought that by marching into northern Italy, he could intimidate Ravenna into accepting his demands and backing off militarily.
Quote:He just wanted some land to distribute to his followers to make them happy and keep them fed. Alaric played hardball in negotiations, and wasn't above plundering a few villas or sacking a city to get his point across. He thought that by marching into northern Italy, he could intimidate Ravenna into accepting his demands and backing off militarily.
A practice used by almost every barbarian, until the Romans couldn't control the federates anymore after Aetius' death. Alaric also wanted more military command, which with Stilicho the Vandal as current MUM and after the incidents with his predecessor Arbogastes, they did not want another barbarian in an MM command.
Quote:Quote:He just wanted some land to distribute to his followers to make them happy and keep them fed. Alaric played hardball in negotiations, and wasn't above plundering a few villas or sacking a city to get his point across. He thought that by marching into northern Italy, he could intimidate Ravenna into accepting his demands and backing off militarily.
A practice used by almost every barbarian, until the Romans couldn't control the federates anymore after Aetius' death. Alaric also wanted more military command, which with Stilicho the Vandal as current MUM and after the incidents with his predecessor Arbogastes, they did not want another barbarian in an MM command.
Yes ... according to Zosimus, Alaric at first demanded Noricum, Venetia and Histria, but would accept less if they threw in a military command. The second time, he only asked for Noricum, gold, corn and and alliance.
Correction: I had my chronology wrong. Alaric made those demands after Stilicho died. Still, the point is that Alaric wanted to be an ally of the Western army, not its conqueror.
This is a great thread, I might add.