RomanArmyTalk
The 3rd c crisis & its impact on the Germanic frontier - Printable Version

+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: The 3rd c crisis & its impact on the Germanic frontier (/showthread.php?tid=14178)

Pages: 1 2

The 3rd c crisis & its impact on the Germanic frontier - Lupianus - 12-10-2008

Disclaimer: If there’s already a discussion, please point it out to me as I’m seemingly unable to use the search engine properly. Sorry in advance.

Fratres et sorores,

Lately I’ve discovered a deep interest in the 3rd century AD, which is (or for some historians: was) called a century of crisis, but also of change and invention, that made the Roman Empire last for at least another 200 years in the West (and some 1000 years in the East). Since I’m interested a lot in local history, its impact on the Germanic frontier (the Limes region) gets my main attention.
By now most historians agree that the Limes system broke down around 260 AD, and most blame Germanic tribes for it, who repeatedly had overrun the Roman frontier in the 3rd century. However, I’m not fully convinced by that explanation alone. So I’ve put some thoughts together in a small essay – most of them only educated guesses at best and not yet backed by references! Sometime my English is lacking, so please excuse potential unintelligibilities and please ask! Anyway, I would like to share it with you, hopefully getting some of your own ideas on that matter.

Now let’s go:

1) Roman control
No Roman frontier was a fixed defensive system. The Romans controlled the apronof their frontiers by diplomacy and, if needed, by force of arms and military expeditions. It’s well known that in the East they had vassal kings. In the West the Romans had to establish such structures beforehand, as the Germans were seemingly dispersed and far from being organised in tribal boundaries. However, the Romans needed some to negotiate with, so they gave rise to tribal chieftains with a greater amount of might and control over their subjects.

2) Germanic tribes
Therefore, the establishment of large Germanic tribes were a result of Roman diplomacy. However, the system eventually turned on the Romans themselves. A first glance of what was possible gave Arminius. He successfully forged an alliance to overthrow the Roman government in Germania. But after some decades the Romans were back and pushed their frontiers forward again, probably to cut the Germans off their most valuable land, namely the Wetterau area and the Agri Decumates. Perhaps they saw a chance to control the neighbouring tribes by economics and directed distribution of goods.

3) Civil wars
The 3rd century AD saw a lot of usurpators. Most of them were military men, supported by their soldiers. It resulted in civil wars, which were fought by the same Roman troops – which weakened the Empire’s defense and also „invited“ Germanic tribes to cross the border and to devastate the hinterlands. At least, that’s many historians’ belief. It seems to be backed by destroyed Roman towns, castles and villas. But recently there have been brought up some doubts: What if not Germanic warriors but Roman soldiers have to be accused for all that devastation? I’d like to add: Or what if Germanic warriors were hired by Romans to support their individual case? It is known that Germanic leaders were present at the acclamation of emperors, that they even were asked for their support. As late examples, think of Constantine’s „usurpation“ in 303 or Iovinus made emperor some 100 years later. But even the Batavian uprising of 68/69 springs to my mind as it was clearly linked to the events of the struggle for the emperor’s laurel.

4) Germanic & Roman warlords
So, why not think of Germanic tribes as an additional ressource for warrying fractions within the Empire? There’s clear archaeological evidence for the Romans having a major impact on Germanic social structure, probably also in supporting warlike attitudes among the newly forged tribes. Eventually, in the 3rd century AD the Romans had established a tribal system of reliable allies beyond their directly controlled border regions. Unlike the Eastern front, the Romans had not had to deal with a set society in Germania. On the contrary, they had been able to build it almost from scratch. This resulted in a very warlike society, perfectly adapted to their duty of guarding the border to the North. In any case, why should those warlords turn on the Romans, to whom they debted their power? – if not by invitation to do so from another Roman fraction, who promised them even more power should their case be successful? It seems to me, that not necessarily Germanic chieftains but Roman intrigues initiated the invasions of the 3rd century.

5) Punishment & political consequences
However, Roman emperors at least officially did not triumph over usurpers until Constantine (I.) defeated Maxentius. Civil war was a bad thing, so to speak. Honour was gained only by defeating barbarians. Hence many military expeditions against allegedly rioting Germanic tribes could in fact have been (preventive) oppression of usurpations. The possible involvement of Romans was deliberately not mentioned. Instead, fighting barbarians showed the emperor’s prowess – but also his will to subdue any other pretender. Interestingly, most of these expeditions were ended by signing a contract of alliance. To name but a few, think of Commodus, Caracalla or Julian the Apostate. The employment of Germanic tribes as supporters of an emperor’s legal claim for power became institutionalized at last in the Foedus system of Late Antiquity (though there were prequels as early as the Republican era).

6) Straighten the line
But also the Romans were now confronted by massive blocks of Germanic tribes, which had in turn established their own diplomacy and alliances. There was need to „straighten the line“ between the Empire and its neighbours. The Germans couldn’t be impressed anymore by a thin line of outposts, which had divided them from Rome’s small possessions beyond the Rhine. Additionally, it had proved quite risky to concentrate troops along the Limes, which could possibly be joined now by Germanic tribes to give rise to another Roman usurper. Perhaps Gallienus was the last to experience that: Just after his campaigns against the Alamanni a new emperor was acclaimed in Gaul, whose first action possibly was to draw back the Limes troops to the river Rhine – obviously not to shorten the frontier line (in fact, it was elongated) but to prevent the employment of these troops (and their Germanic neighbours) by his rivals. The former Limes garrison was dispersed along the Rhine, whereas the Germanic warlords were compensated with the urbanized territory of the Limes hinterland. In effect, the troops were drawn nearer to the new centre of Gaul, where they could be directly controlled. Not at last because the river itself functioned as a transporting route between the garrisons and was accessible from all the major strongpoints like Colonia, Moguntiacum, even Treveris via the Mosella river. (As a note: Doing the same in Britain wasn’t possible yet as it would have meant to completely abandon the island. However, it was finally made up when the usurper Constantine (III.) shipped his troops to the continent and Emperor Honorius announced that the British people should look after themselves.) Anyway, the new establishment had its advantages and wasn’t altered even after the fall of the Gaulish emperors. It lasted for another 150 years (some say even deep into 5th century).

7) Conclusion
It doesn’t seem very likely, that Rome drew her troops from the Limes as a result of repeated invasions by barbarians. In fact, the system had its value, but might have turned out as too risky for emperors, as they had become almost completely dependent of the army. The combination of massed troops and valiant Germanic warlords was a bit too dangerous, and finally it could have persuaded at least the „local“ emperors with their bases in neighbouring Gaul, that the small strip of land beyond the Rhine wasn’t worth the effort at all.
Therefore it was, at last, mainly for political reasons on either side – a Roman forged tribal society here, continuing Roman usurpations there – that the Romans left some parts of Germania Superior and Raetia to the Germans.

Chapeau, if you’ve followed my thoughts up here!

Now, I would like to hear your suggestions. What do you think about all of that? All but crap or, though, maybe cum grano veritatis? Furthermore, if you have any suggestions for books, articles etc. on that matter, please let me know. Anything is welcome! Smile

Re: The 3rd c crisis & its impact on the Germanic fronti - Robert Vermaat - 12-11-2008

Hi Til,

(I moved this topic to military history & archaeology, btw).

Quote: Now let’s go
Let's indeed. :wink:

Quote: 1) Roman control
No Roman frontier was a fixed defensive system. The Romans controlled the apron of their frontiers by diplomacy and, if needed, by force of arms and military expeditions. It’s well known that in the East they had vassal kings. In the West the Romans had to establish such structures beforehand, as the Germans were seemingly dispersed and far from being organised in tribal boundaries. However, the Romans needed some to negotiate with, so they gave rise to tribal chieftains with a greater amount of might and control over their subjects.
I disagree. While of course Roman diplomacy cannot be denied, as well as the the creation of client kingdoms, this seems not to have been the case during the 3rd century. The process of 'confederacy-forming' that led to the creation of the sometimes called Germanic 'super-tribes' (such as the Franks, Alamanni or Saxons) seems to have been a natural process from within Germany rather than the result of Roman actions. We see that process occurring throughout Germanic lands, not just along the Roman frontier, where you would expect to see it as a result of Roman needing client kingdoms. Furthermore, the Romans seem to have dropped the idea of client kingdoms in the West relatively early.

Quote: 2) Germanic tribes
Therefore, the establishment of large Germanic tribes were a result of Roman diplomacy. However, the system eventually turned on the Romans themselves. A first glance of what was possible gave Arminius. He successfully forged an alliance to overthrow the Roman government in Germania. But after some decades the Romans were back and pushed their frontiers forward again, probably to cut the Germans off their most valuable land, namely the Wetterau area and the Agri Decumates. Perhaps they saw a chance to control the neighbouring tribes by economics and directed distribution of goods.
I disagree with both statements. Arminius did forge a successful alliance, but it was extremely shortlived and did not end Roman rule in germania. It showed exactly the flaws of the system of that age: small tribes going together but falling out with each other as soon as the first targets were reached. I think this was part of the learning process that eventually brought the tribe to working togethr in a more substantial context. This must have seemed the only way to withstand or attack a massive enemy like the Roman empire was.
I disagree about the Agri decumates - the construction of the Limes in that area was not the result of a single policy. Instead, it is shown to have grown over the years, eventually reaching the form that we know - shorthening the defences and allowing better communications.

Quote: 3) Civil wars
The 3rd century AD saw a lot of usurpators. Most of them were military men, supported by their soldiers. It resulted in civil wars, which were fought by the same Roman troops – which weakened the Empire’s defense and also „invited“ Germanic tribes to cross the border and to devastate the hinterlands. At least, that’s many historians’ belief. It seems to be backed by destroyed Roman towns, castles and villas. But recently there have been brought up some doubts: What if not Germanic warriors but Roman soldiers have to be accused for all that devastation? I’d like to add: Or what if Germanic warriors were hired by Romans to support their individual case? It is known that Germanic leaders were present at the acclamation of emperors, that they even were asked for their support. As late examples, think of Constantine’s „usurpation“ in 303 or Iovinus made emperor some 100 years later. But even the Batavian uprising of 68/69 springs to my mind as it was clearly linked to the events of the struggle for the emperor’s laurel.
You don't give historians enough credit. :wink: It's actually known that some emperors or usurpers (as if there was any difference) invited some 'Germanic neighbourly visits' to make it hard for their opponents. Also, we know of enough evidence (that's contemporary evidence, not just burnt-out villas) that there was plenty of Germanic raiding going on.
Of course we can't link a ruin to an ethnic perpetrator, or on whose account that perpeetrator worked. But the historians paint a clear enough picture.
I don't really seee, btw, how the Batavian Insurrection was directly linked to an imperial power struggle. :?:

Quote: 4) Germanic & Roman warlords
So, why not think of Germanic tribes as an additional ressource for warrying fractions within the Empire? There’s clear archaeological evidence for the Romans having a major impact on Germanic social structure, probably also in supporting warlike attitudes among the newly forged tribes. Eventually, in the 3rd century AD the Romans had established a tribal system of reliable allies beyond their directly controlled border regions. Unlike the Eastern front, the Romans had not had to deal with a set society in Germania. On the contrary, they had been able to build it almost from scratch. This resulted in a very warlike society, perfectly adapted to their duty of guarding the border to the North. In any case, why should those warlords turn on the Romans, to whom they debted their power? – if not by invitation to do so from another Roman fraction, who promised them even more power should their case be successful? It seems to me, that not necessarily Germanic chieftains but Roman intrigues initiated the invasions of the 3rd century.
Like I said, I don't believe in such a system created by the Romans. Furthermore, what you describe looks far more like the situation from the late 4th c. onwards, where for the first time whole Germanic tribes were used to guard the frontiers (a task it must be said they carrried out very well. It were not these groups that brought the West to its knees). However, this is more than a hundred years too late for what you advocate for the 3rd century. I think there is no evidence for a Roman-created set of Germanic tribes guarding the frontier at any point during the 3rd c.

Quote: 5) Punishment & political consequences
However, Roman emperors at least officially did not triumph over usurpers until Constantine (I.) defeated Maxentius. Civil war was a bad thing, so to speak. Honour was gained only by defeating barbarians. Hence many military expeditions against allegedly rioting Germanic tribes could in fact have been (preventive) oppression of usurpations. The possible involvement of Romans was deliberately not mentioned. Instead, fighting barbarians showed the emperor’s prowess – but also his will to subdue any other pretender. Interestingly, most of these expeditions were ended by signing a contract of alliance. To name but a few, think of Commodus, Caracalla or Julian the Apostate. The employment of Germanic tribes as supporters of an emperor’s legal claim for power became institutionalized at last in the Foedus system of Late Antiquity (though there were prequels as early as the Republican era).
I'm not sure how to interpret your statement about emperors and usurpers. Of course they did. Any such a victory would have been milked properly to strengthen the (often shaky!) claim of the victor. remember that Constantine was a usurper himself - it's final victory that makes the legal emperor. Honor was by no means only gained by foreign victories. That's just incorrect.
About claims of falsifying history - when you start with assuming that sources on purpose fail to mention facts (which you claim to 'know'), you start special pleading, which is not part of a discussion of history. it's OK to hypothesize of course, but best stick to what we know for arguments. Assumptions are not arguments.

Quote: 6) Straighten the line
But also the Romans were now confronted by massive blocks of Germanic tribes, which had in turn established their own diplomacy and alliances.
No no, I seriously have to disagree with that. We know for a fact that the germanic tribes had no sense of nationality, and never operated en bloc against the Romans. The latter had always possibilities for intrigues, often even within one single tribe - it was posssible, for instance, to turn one Alamannic king against another. That 'massive Germanic block' never existed. Rome never fell under a masssive onslaught of barbarians. That's sooooo 1950s. :wink:

Quote: There was need to „straighten the line“ between the Empire and its neighbours. The Germans couldn’t be impressed anymore by a thin line of outposts, which had divided them from Rome’s small possessions beyond the Rhine.
What 'thin line'? The line had been a fairly well-defended one, but it so happened that the manpower on that line must have been severely depleted during the crisis of the 3rd c.

Quote: Additionally, it had proved quite risky to concentrate troops along the Limes, which could possibly be joined now by Germanic tribes to give rise to another Roman usurper. Perhaps Gallienus was the last to experience that: Just after his campaigns against the Alamanni a new emperor was acclaimed in Gaul, whose first action possibly was to draw back the Limes troops to the river Rhine – obviously not to shorten the frontier line (in fact, it was elongated) but to prevent the employment of these troops (and their Germanic neighbours) by his rivals. The former Limes garrison was dispersed along the Rhine, whereas the Germanic warlords were compensated with the urbanized territory of the Limes hinterland.
Somehow you seem to completely misunderstand the concept of Roman border defence, as well as ignore Roman military history. :?
The Limes was not 'just' the Obergermanische and Rätische Limes, it consisted of the whole Roman frontier system from Scotland to the Black Sea, from Armenia to Marocco. And all along that Limes, the system of troops defending the frontier did not change. At least not until decades into the 4th c., and in some areas not even then. What you described just did not take place. The Agri decumated were given up, because at the time (260s) it was no longer possible to hold these lands - evidently, a river frontier was easier to defend than a land-based frontier. And the Agri decumates were given up because there was a rival empire that could not defend them - had the west been united, it would maybe have been a different story?

Quote: In effect, the troops were drawn nearer to the new centre of Gaul, where they could be directly controlled. Not at last because the river itself functioned as a transporting route between the garrisons and was accessible from all the major strongpoints like Colonia, Moguntiacum, even Treveris via the Mosella river. (As a note: Doing the same in Britain wasn’t possible yet as it would have meant to completely abandon the island. However, it was finally made up when the usurper Constantine (III.) shipped his troops to the continent and Emperor Honorius announced that the British people should look after themselves.) Anyway, the new establishment had its advantages and wasn’t altered even after the fall of the Gaulish emperors. It lasted for another 150 years (some say even deep into 5th century).
Like I said above, this was not the change of Roman strategy that you make of it. i was caused by the breakaway empire of Postumus, not by any re-dispositioning of large troop concentrations because of the civil wars - all along the rest of the frontier, nothing happened in the sense of what you desccribe. The legions remained where they were (including the ones guarding that part of Limes that you describe) until much, much later they were broken up (and sometimes not) during the next century.

Quote: 7) Conclusion
It doesn’t seem very likely, that Rome drew her troops from the Limes as a result of repeated invasions by barbarians. In fact, the system had its value, but might have turned out as too risky for emperors, as they had become almost completely dependent of the army. The combination of massed troops and valiant Germanic warlords was a bit too dangerous, and finally it could have persuaded at least the „local“ emperors with their bases in neighbouring Gaul, that the small strip of land beyond the Rhine wasn’t worth the effort at all.
Therefore it was, at last, mainly for political reasons on either side – a Roman forged tribal society here, continuing Roman usurpations there – that the Romans left some parts of Germania Superior and Raetia to the Germans.
And that did not happen. Archaeololy has established that the evacuated lands of the Agri decumates were not immediately overrun and resettled by Germanic farmers - a process that took years instead of a few seasons which one would expect if the evacuation had happened under barbarian presssure. The 'massed troops' simply were not there.

All in all I think that you overvalue Roman acts and influences, and that you (as a result?) undervalue Germanic evolving society. Also, the ideas of 'masssed Germanics' on the border seeems not confirmed by the present evidence.

Re: The 3rd c crisis & its impact on the Germanic frontier - L C Cinna - 12-11-2008

Salve!

I just want to give a short comment about the Agri Decumates (yes I have no time as usual :wink: ):


First of all, nice to see someone who has discovered his interest for the 3rd century (my fav topic of interest as I'm working on several issues concerning Gallienus and the period until the end of the 1st Tetrarchie)...

The consensus nowadays is that the Agri were given up not due to pressure from the outside but because of the political situation after the creation of the "Gallic Empire".

you said:

Quote:Additionally, it had proved quite risky to concentrate troops along the Limes, which could possibly be joined now by Germanic tribes to give rise to another Roman usurper. Perhaps Gallienus was the last to experience that: Just after his campaigns against the Alamanni a new emperor was acclaimed in Gaul, whose first action possibly was to draw back the Limes troops to the river Rhine – obviously not to shorten the frontier line (in fact, it was elongated) but to prevent the employment of these troops (and their Germanic neighbours) by his rivals. The former Limes garrison was dispersed along the Rhine, whereas the Germanic warlords were compensated with the urbanized territory of the Limes hinterland.

This is more than just debatable imho. The concentration of troops to counter an attack has happened before and after this and not always had consequences.

Gallienus operated with a rather small army in this area when he defeated the Alemanni and he took most of this force with him when he went to the Balkans to fight some usurpers and invasions. He left his son and a Praef.Praet. behind in CCAA with the overall command of the forces along the Rhine. Postumus was just a field commander and can't have had too many troops at his disposal (still enough but anyways)...I just noticed that this is not really important so I'll go on with something else lol

ok so the usurpation happened because of some argument (probably kind of the same as happened under Diocletian: a commander usues money in his own interest and is accused...then rebels).

Anyway evidence shows that the Rhine frontier was reinforced with troops from Britain (probably an order by Gallienus but might also have been one of the first actions of Postumus). The Agri are another story...

The Inscription from Augsburg tells us that Raetia changed sides and switched to Postumus but was taken back not long after (it also tells us that the province must have lacked additional troops and mainly had local militias and auxiliaries at that time...the troops stationed along the limes there). After Gallienus took back Raetia it was the boardering area between him and Postumus and this seems to be the most likely reason for the withdrawal of the troops along the limes there because they would have been squeezed right in between Gallienus and Postumus. Instead we know that the Alpine passes in between those 2 "empires" were occupied and both sides kept watching that boarder between them. So the withdrawal did not happen because they wanted to give the Agri to the Germans but because they were an unfavourable position in between two civil war parties.

Archaeology also suggests that the troops were withdrawn first and the Alemanni took over the civil settlements later.

There is no indication Gallienus made any such agreement with "warlords" (something he did do near the Danubian frontier with the Marcomanni). Indeed the sources are so hostile that they would have mentioned if one of them gave up this area as a "present" to the Alemanni.

One thing that does happen in this period is very intense movement of troops (because of shortages): Valerian took troops with him to the East (many of which Gallienus got back later when they defected from the Macriani), Gallienus was left with not enough troops to defend both frontiers as both came under attack at the same time. He defeated the Alemanni and then moved east towards the Danube. He took some troops with him (Vex. of I.Minervia from Bonn seem certain but I want to check further newly registered inscriptions first because the 2 we have are not exactly dateable)., as replacements troops from Britain were sent to the Rhine.

Re: The 3rd c crisis & its impact on the Germanic frontier - Lupianus - 12-11-2008

Hi Robert and Micha,

First of all, many thanks for your input and efforts. My intention was to start a discussion - mission accomplished! -, but not to offend anybody who has a greater knowledge on the said matter. My excuses if it turned out this way.

Admittedly, I'm a bit confused by the force in some of the responses. I've now read over my own text and the answers several times, and it appears to me that some of my arguments were simply misunderstood or overrated.
I can't answer to all claims in detail, but I'll try.

Quote:About claims of falsifying history - when you start with assuming that sources on purpose fail to mention facts (which you claim to 'know'), you start special pleading, which is not part of a discussion of history. it's OK to hypothesize of course, but best stick to what we know for arguments. Assumptions are not arguments. [...] Somehow you seem to completely misunderstand the concept of Roman border defence, as well as ignore Roman military history.

Okay, that made me gulp. I'm absolutely aware of my thoughts not being the last word on the subject. But if I wanted to start something more than an "open-minded" (like the subtitle of this forum suggests) exchange, I would have brought it up in university. I'm thinking of myself being able to distinguish between scientific argument and a casual chat - forum talk counts to the latter for me.

I consciously went for provoking theses, the more as I wanted to keep the text as short as possible (reading on the net isn't everyone's cup of tea). Obviously some content became afflicted as well.

However, I thought my first sentences explained my interest and intention. As stated there, I am explicitly NOT convinced by the "1950s" explanations, of which I'm now blamed. Wink

Okay, now to some direct answers:

Quote:Dropping the idea of client kingdoms in the West

Any guess when this took place? I didn't find anything.

Quote:Arminius overthrowing Roman rule

Arminius is an early example, no question. The tribes he drew together differed a lot from those of the 3rd century. Anyway, he was one of those Germanic leaders heavily supported by the Romans at first to build up a system of loyal partners in Germania. Eventually he overthrew Roman government structures, but, right, not Roman control.

Quote:Germanic tribes guarding Roman frontier

Okay, guarding wasn't the right word. Sounds like Foederati. Actually I was aiming at the Germanic tribes being used as a 'buffer' against possible dangers from the North-East. For sure, Roman influence didn't end at the outer palisade of the Limes, especially not the cultural influence. Developments on the border were transported to the East, so of course Germanic tribes even far off the Roman frontier would undergo a change. From archaeological evidence this change started in the 1st century BC. For example it is signified by the rise of "chieftains" (for the lack of a better word) building up small local centres and provided with expensive Roman goods, furthermore a change in cult at least towards the 3rd century (deposition of weapons instead of agricultural items (e.g. Thorsberg in particular, but also Nydam)).

Quote:Honour gained by victories over barbarians

I'm referring to the actual triumph ceremony in Rome. You couldn't triumph over a defeated foe in civil war. However, a new emperor could call himself restitutor pacis/orbis, but there's a difference to the accumulation of titles like Germanicus (maximus), Parthicus (maximus) etc. As far as I know that was (even in Republican times) the only way to outdistance yourself from your predecessors.

Quote:Germanic 'bloc' buidling

No such thing as sense of nationality suggested! However, I stress that Germanic tribes (or at least warbands) were able to act coordinated, and I assume (!) that this was more likely as Roman diplomacy created contact persons along the different tribes. That's not to deny Roman principles of "divide et impera".

Quote:New frontier line

Again, no argument necessary, it is linked with a rival Gaulish empire, that's what I suggested as well. In my view it had many (mainly political) advantages to draw Roman troops back, nearer to Gaul and abandon the area beyond the Rhine - by this necessarily allowing Germanic dominions to overtake it. Here I appreciate your input, Micha, very much! Haven't thought about these coherences.

That's all so far. If people feel uneasy about this discussion, I'll ask for a removal. Well then, you live and learn. Wink

Re: The 3rd c crisis & its impact on the Germanic frontier - Simplex - 12-11-2008

Hello, yo' all
....I find this a revealing and essential topic.
Whrereas I got the impression the late antiqity has been in some kind of a focus in archeology for some time now, with even the 5th century under research now a bit more. (A far cry from Albert Steeger's "The 5th century only happened in Krefeld" on occassion of his research in Krefeld-Gellep-Gelduba from the mid-30's to roughly about the mid-60s !)
I'm still convinced that the era of transition to the late antiquity in Central Europe is still being treated a bit "backhanded". Maybe my impression is wrong, but there we have a thread now to cope for my ( and other folks) "underinformation".
So please, do carry on, I'll be participating from time to time, throwing in my cent or two for it from time to time, if I see myself fit enough for doing so.
For now I'recommend two books (and an essay):
1. http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... ght=speyer (In german language)
2. Gestürmt-Gräumt-Vergessen ? -- Der Limesfall und das Ende der Römerherrschaft in Südwestdeutschland. Stuttgart 1992.
(Assaulted-Evacuated-Forgotten ? -- The Fall of the Limes and the End of Roman reign in the southwestern part of Germany)
One of the older publications questioning the older mainstream theses /opinions of archeological/historical science.
As far as I can tell this has become kind of "lege artis" on this topic.
It was published on occasion of an exhibiton on the end of the "Obergermanische Limes" at the Aalen castellum. (...and other locations as well.) . In German language.
3. Hans-Ulrich Nuber has contributed to this topic in the Catalogue of the
Imperium Romanum exhibtion at Stuttgart (Imperium Romanum, Part 1: Roman Provinces on Neckar, Rhine & Danube; Stuttgart 2005; In German). One of the better essays in this book, although ridden with mistypings like all the other essays therein.
BTW:
The question that intrigues/haunts me most in that context is how to attribute roman military buildings to this era. (How and where did the Roman Empire under Gallienus hold its "Limites" on the Rhine and Danube frontier and the lines in between.)

So for now

Greez

Simplex

Re: The 3rd c crisis & its impact on the Germanic fronti - D B Campbell - 12-11-2008

As an Anglophone scholar based miles away from the mainland frontiers, I am always eager to hear the thoughts of my Dutch/German/Austrian/etc contemporaries. In particular, the 3rd C crisis seems doomed to be ignored in the English-language literature, because Britannia experienced a different chain of events.
Quote:By now most historians agree that the Limes system broke down around 260 AD, and most blame Germanic tribes for it, who repeatedly had overrun the Roman frontier in the 3rd century. However, I’m not fully convinced by that explanation alone.
Agreed -- things are seldom simple!
Quote:1) Roman control: ... The Romans controlled the apron of their frontiers by diplomacy and, if needed, by force of arms and military expeditions. It’s well known that in the East they had vassal kings. In the West the Romans ... needed some to negotiate with, so they gave rise to tribal chieftains with a greater amount of might and control over their subjects.
We see essentially the same sequence of events on the northern frontier of Britain, where two tribal groupings (Caledonii and Maeatae) replace the earlier multiplicity of tribes. I'm not sure that the Romans necessarily "gave rise to tribal chieftains with a greater amount of might", but circumstances certainly seem to have encouraged this process. You are correct to emphasise that the Romans routinely treated with kings (and, occasionally, queens) beyond her frontiers. But the availability of Roman subsidies (we see this clearly in Dacia) encouraged the development of these "tribal chieftains with a greater amount of might".
Quote:2) Germanic tribes: Therefore, the establishment of large Germanic tribes were a result of Roman diplomacy. However, ... after some decades the Romans were back and pushed their frontiers forward again, probably to cut the Germans off their most valuable land, namely the Wetterau area and the Agri Decumates. ...
I'm not sure I agree that "the establishment of large Germanic tribes were a result of Roman diplomacy", but there is certainly a coincidence between the presence of the Roman frontier and the consolidation of trans-frontier tribes (above, no. 1). Of course, it's quite another matter to suggest that one is the cause of the other.
Quote:3) Civil wars: The 3rd century AD saw a lot of usurpators. ... what if Germanic warriors were hired by Romans to support their individual case?... But even the Batavian uprising of 68/69 springs to my mind as it was clearly linked to the events of the struggle for the emperor’s laurel.
We know that the Batavian Revolt was "engineered", but we have no evidence to suggest any further encouragement of trans-border tribes (unless you know different?). As someone previously noted, we must be careful of just inventing stuff; then ancient history becomes historical fiction.
Quote:4) Germanic & Roman warlords: ... Unlike the Eastern front, the Romans had not had to deal with a set society in Germania. On the contrary, they had been able to build it almost from scratch. This resulted in a very warlike society, perfectly adapted to their duty of guarding the border to the North. ... It seems to me, that not necessarily Germanic chieftains but Roman intrigues initiated the invasions of the 3rd century.
This sounds a little too much like historical fiction! You must first demonstrate that the Romans had fostered the development of trans-border tribes, which (as far as I am aware) we have no evidence for (above, no. 2).
Quote:5) Punishment & political consequences: However, Roman emperors at least officially did not triumph over usurpers ... Civil war was a bad thing, so to speak. Honour was gained only by defeating barbarians. Hence many military expeditions against allegedly rioting Germanic tribes could in fact have been (preventive) oppression of usurpations...
Not so. Emperors were never shy of advertising the defeat of their rivals. Septimius Severus springs to mind, but there were others, I'm sure.
Quote:6) Straighten the line: ... There was need to „straighten the line“ between the Empire and its neighbours. The Germans couldn’t be impressed anymore by a thin line of outposts, which had divided them from Rome’s small possessions beyond the Rhine ...
I'm not sure that I understand your point. Maybe you could explain further? Roman frontiers were seldom a "thin line of outposts" but usually had some depth. Is this the point you're making?
Quote:7) Conclusion: It doesn’t seem very likely, that Rome drew her troops from the Limes as a result of repeated invasions by barbarians. ... The combination of massed troops and valiant Germanic warlords was a bit too dangerous, and finally it could have persuaded at least the „local“ emperors with their bases in neighbouring Gaul, that the small strip of land beyond the Rhine wasn’t worth the effort at all.
Therefore it was, at last, mainly for political reasons ... that the Romans left some parts of Germania Superior and Raetia to the Germans.
As we observed at the start, nothing is ever simple. As far as the frontier in Britain is concerned, we see that political events (and not necessarily military events) generally influenced overall strategy. The constant low-level harrassing of outposts must have played a part. But it was no more expensive for Rome to maintain garrisons in the Agri Decumates (for example) than to maintain them in Gaul, and it may even have been cheaper, if they were subsisting off the local economy. So any withdrawal was probably occasioned as much by a need for redeployment (whether real or perceived), as by a desire to avoid further barbarian depredations.

Your turn! Smile

Re: The 3rd c crisis & its impact on the Germanic frontier - Marcus_Ulpius_Trajanus - 12-12-2008

I think it would be useful to establish a chronology of Emperors and their activities to better understand what was going on.

The turbulence from the AD240's to the 270's, if you map it out may indicate some of the choices being made by the various Emperors.

Re: The 3rd c crisis & its impact on the Germanic frontier - Gaius Julius Caesar - 12-12-2008

There is an excellent book on the Roman emperors, called
'Chronicle of The Roman Emperors' by Chris Scarre.

Re: The 3rd c crisis & its impact on the Germanic frontier - Marcus_Ulpius_Trajanus - 12-12-2008

I've heard of that one--(I've got the one on the Chinese Emperors) but I do have Michael Grant's book on the Roman Emperors which I can recommend, and also for the entire period, his "Climax of Rome", which is definitely worth a look.

Re: The 3rd c crisis & its impact on the Germanic frontier - Gaius Julius Caesar - 12-13-2008

I'll have to take a gander sometime. Cheers!

Re: The 3rd c crisis & its impact on the Germanic frontier - Robert Vermaat - 12-13-2008

Quote: My intention was to start a discussion - mission accomplished! -, but not to offend anybody who has a greater knowledge on the said matter. My excuses if it turned out this way.
Not at all! If it seemed that way then I apologise wholeheartedly. I must say (in my defense?) that I was at home with flu when writing my response. I've mailed the rest of this in a PM.

Quote:
Quote:Dropping the idea of client kingdoms in the West
Any guess when this took place? I didn't find anything.
After ending the client kingdoms in Britain (Iceni and Brigantes) and across the Danube (Marcomanni), no more is heard of client kingdoms in the West.

Quote:
Quote:Arminius overthrowing Roman rule
Arminius [..] was one of those Germanic leaders heavily supported by the Romans at first to build up a system of loyal partners in Germania.
Was he really 'heavily supported to build up a loyal systrem of supporters'? How do we know that? It's a bit before my area of expertise, but so far I missed that he had a job uniting all the tribes for Rome.

Quote:
Quote:Germanic tribes guarding Roman frontier
Okay, guarding wasn't the right word. Sounds like Foederati. Actually I was aiming at the Germanic tribes being used as a 'buffer' against possible dangers from the North-East.
That's what a client kingdom really is. Foederati do that behind the border, client kingdoms in front of the border. But so far I've seen no evidence in one source that such a system existed.

Quote: Roman influence didn't end at the outer palisade of the Limes, especially not the cultural influence. Developments on the border were transported to the East, so of course Germanic tribes even far off the Roman frontier would undergo a change. From archaeological evidence this change started in the 1st century BC. For example it is signified by the rise of "chieftains" (for the lack of a better word) building up small local centres and provided with expensive Roman goods, furthermore a change in cult at least towards the 3rd century (deposition of weapons instead of agricultural items (e.g. Thorsberg in particular, but also Nydam)).
Absolutely, I totally agree. Such goods reached them by trade or by ambassadors, and the aquired status may well have been used for a more centralised rule, leading to the changes of the 3rd c.

Quote:
Quote:Honour gained by victories over barbarians
I'm referring to the actual triumph ceremony in Rome. You couldn't triumph over a defeated foe in civil war. However, a new emperor could call himself restitutor pacis/orbis, but there's a difference to the accumulation of titles like Germanicus (maximus), Parthicus (maximus) etc. As far as I know that was (even in Republican times) the only way to outdistance yourself from your predecessors.
You overrate the uses for the victory ceremony. Besides, during the crisis of the 3rd c. there were so many usurpers, it would at any time have been impossible to diffentiate between 'legal' and 'illegal' emperors.
But for real, many emperors would not have caered for that ceremony - it did, by the 3rd c., add little or nothing to the extent of their power. It did not outdistance your rivals. If you beat a germanic tribes, well, good for you. if you defeated German raiders and freed Roman citizens and good, even better. But defeating a rival Roman army did much more for your power. It was quite a bit more practical. Times had changed.

Quote:
Quote:Germanic 'bloc' buidling
No such thing as sense of nationality suggested! However, I stress that Germanic tribes (or at least warbands) were able to act coordinated, and I assume (!) that this was more likely as Roman diplomacy created contact persons along the different tribes. That's not to deny Roman principles of "divide et impera".
OK, no nationality then. :wink:
Yes, I agree that tribes began to coordinate more, that was what the changes of the 3rd c. seem to have been about, the emergence of the 'supertibes'.

Ah, you're assuming. Well, that's the whole thing - what do you base that on? It's nice to hypthesise :wink: but where does your Roman strategy actually come in? Sure, Romans would be very pleased with one tribe fallling out wwith another if they could help that take place, but you were desscribing something way above and beyond that:
Quote:Eventually, in the 3rd century AD the Romans had established a tribal system of reliable allies beyond their directly controlled border regions. Unlike the Eastern front, the Romans had not had to deal with a set society in Germania. On the contrary, they had been able to build it almost from scratch. This resulted in a very warlike society, perfectly adapted to their duty of guarding the border to the North.
To me that suggested a Roman-built system of Germanic tribes defending the Roman border. And I've seen nothing to prove such a suggestion.

I like the discussion, but I'd like to seperate discusssion of hypotheses and 'what if's' from the evidence that we have.

Re: The 3rd c crisis & its impact on the Germanic frontier - D B Campbell - 12-16-2008

Quote:
Lupianus:1o64rlzy Wrote:
Quote:Dropping the idea of client kingdoms in the West
Any guess when this took place? I didn't find anything.
After ending the client kingdoms in Britain (Iceni and Brigantes) and across the Danube (Marcomanni), no more is heard of client kingdoms in the West.
No doubt a failure of our sources, Robert. After all, Roman material was still making its way across the frontiers, some of which might've been subsidies for friendly chieftains. There's a suggestion that the tribes in Lowland Scotland continued in some form of clientage with Rome up to the Severan period, when the emperor eventually had to sort them out in person. It looks as if Rome was always receptive to cultivating friendly tribes around the periphery, but relations would inevitably break down eventually.

Re: The 3rd c crisis & its impact on the Germanic frontier - L C Cinna - 12-16-2008

About the client Kingdoms:

Robert when you talk about the end of the client kingdom of the Marcomanni do you mean the one during the 1st century?

There are indications for such things existing later in the West. Gallienus is said to have established a Marcomanni client kingdom along the boarder (the story of Pipa is connected with this, Kuhoff also suggests that the Marcomanni untit mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum is a result of that [Honoriani Marcomanni seniores, Honoriani Marcomanni iuniores]). A similar contract is mentioned with some Alemanni (but only in the HA).

Re: The 3rd c crisis & its impact on the Germanic frontier - jho - 12-17-2008

I believe that the evidence we have indicates that it may not be possible to find the cause for the fall of the limes because the "fall" of the limes took place in different forms in different regions and Roman policies vis-á-vis Germanic groups may have substantially differed in different regions:

Whereas there appears to be growing evidence that the limes of Germania superior was drained of troops and may have become dysfunctional long before the middle of the third century (e.g.: (a) substantial reductions in the size of garrison baths or even the forts themselves, see Jae, M. Scholz, M., Reduktion von numerus- und Kleinkastellen des obergermanischen Limes im 3. Jahrhundert In: Limes XVIII. Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000). BAR Int. Series 1084 (I) (Oxford 2002), (b) the first generation palisade apparently never having been replaced in many places, see Forschungen zur Funktion des Limes, ISBN : 978-3-8062-2117-6), the Raetian limes shows little signs of such problems and it has recently been claimed (Reuter, Marcus, Das Ende des raetischen Limes im Jahr 254 n. Chr., in: Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 72 (2007), S. 77–149), based on a reappraisal of the existing evidence that it fell to a single catastrophic event in or about 254 AD (this at least appears to be the date for the fall of Rainau-Buch based on dendrochronological data, coin evidence is difficult to use because only limited numbers of new coins arrived in the limes region in the 3rd century).

Similarly, while there is evidence of substantial Roman influence on the peoples north of the Danube river ("Rex Quadis datus" coins of Antoninus Pius, peace terms of Marc Aurel with the Marcomanni and Quadi requiring supervision of gatherings by Roman centurions, influx of Roman materials) which may be characterized as the formation of client kingdoms, recent intensive research of settlement patterns in the glacis of the German limes (DFG project "Germanische Besiedlung im Vorfeld des Wetterau-Limes", see e.g. [url:1yjw511t]http://www.dainst.org/medien/de/forschungsplan.pdf[/url]) has reconfirmed that, except for 3-4 "settlement pockets", the area in front of the limes was mostly a deserted no mans land. In addition, the substantial Germanic settlement area in front of the Wetterau limes shows no material signs of Roman influence whereas Germanic groups much further away from the limes (e.g. the Thuringian material linked by the excavators to service to the Gallic Empire, see Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde on "Haßleben" (link here), or the large amount of Roman weapons in the German/Danish bog finds) show signs of intensive contact.

It should also be noted that the agri decimates do not appear to have been settled in any noticeable fashion until long after the fall of the limes (there is, however, limited evidence that small Germanic groups may have been settled at certain important cross roads in the ex agri decumates after the fall of the limes, presumably by Roman authorities, see Reuter op.cit.).

All of this appears to indicate that there may have been as many different "causes" for the fall of the German limes as there have been different "falls" of different parts thereof. Where we do find evidence of Roman-German interaction it appears to have been local, limited and opportunistic rather than based on any grand strategy of either party. The fact that such relationships may however have been long-lasting may be indicated by the Thuringian evidence cited above. This has been linked to the Hermunduri who according to Tacitus already had a privileged status with respect to trading in the Roman empire in the first century AD.

Re: The 3rd c crisis & its impact on the Germanic frontier - Robert Vermaat - 12-18-2008

Hi Duncan,

Quote:
Vortigern Studies:353r9ohi Wrote:
Lupianus:353r9ohi Wrote:
Quote:Dropping the idea of client kingdoms in the West
Any guess when this took place? I didn't find anything.
After ending the client kingdoms in Britain (Iceni and Brigantes) and across the Danube (Marcomanni), no more is heard of client kingdoms in the West.
No doubt a failure of our sources, Robert. After all, Roman material was still making its way across the frontiers, some of which might've been subsidies for friendly chieftains. There's a suggestion that the tribes in Lowland Scotland continued in some form of clientage with Rome up to the Severan period, when the emperor eventually had to sort them out in person. It looks as if Rome was always receptive to cultivating friendly tribes around the periphery, but relations would inevitably break down eventually.

Oh, I have no doubt that Roman diplomacy continued to 'work' on the chieftains and tribes across the border, and such weapons will have been a good way to 'buy' the 'positive attitude' of such contacts. But gifts for a chieftain are very different from a client kingdom - the latter is in fact in a relation of servitude to you, the Romans would not have to 'buy' the loyalty of a client king.

Therefore I don't think our sources are to blame, but a change in Roman foreign policy. Or maybe there were simply no barbarian tribal structures to 'form into' a client kingdom. In the East, we see a different picture, with Armenia and Palmyra being the most notable client kingdoms.