Defences of the western Roman empire in 5th century

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Jaime,

to the people of the 5th c., nothing changed, it was the same as the other warring emperors of the 4th c., only now they were warring generals - big deal.

How can you say 'big deal' ? Some North African provinces suffered much more heavily than others. The country side was devastated. And you've said that North Africa never fully recovered from the Vandal conquest (on another thread)

You missed my point entirely. I did not comment on the devastation, but on the difference it made to the political situation and the common man. The former made no difference to ex-barbarians or Roman powerful men dominating the imperial rulers, and so-called ‘barbarians who strived to do the same. The main difference is a Victorian image that made the former defenders of civilization and the others fur-clad hooligans and robbers. In reality, they were very similar to one another.

For the population in the path of their armies, there sure was no difference between the armies of Constantine the Great or those of Gaiseric.

Again, how can a civil war compare to invading barbarians bent on conquest ? In civil war, Romans armies, afaik, did not scorch the country side. From the locals' point of view, being taken over by barbarians must have been a much more brutal business, I would think.
(Good point, btw, on Arians vs Catholics)

Well, that’s the point, there was no difference. The image of the vandals as ‘barbarians bent on conquest is largely a Victorian one. The citizens could see no difference between warlords like Stilicho, Aetius, or Alaric, Gaiseric. All were legitimate rulers, all were warring invaders as well as rivals. Roman armies of Stilicho and Aetius did no more or less ‘scorch the countryside’ on campaign than ‘Roman’ armies of Alaric or Gaiseric.

For the taxpayers, a general like Gaiseric could mean a tax relief.

The benefits of any tax relief would be more than balanced by the devastation to the land, though. The locals' fortunes were better off under direct Roman rule and higher taxes, IMO.

There are enough sources that challenge your view. But then I think your image of the ‘much more devastating barbarian’ is way off the mark to begin with.

And when Gaiseric stopped paying taxes to Rome or halting the shipping of food to Italy, he just acted like generals and usurpers before him.

Yes, but it must be said that he attained a level of unprecedented power and influence because of his unassailable position in North Africa. Gaiseric was the most successful warlord after only Attila, IMO.

In what way was his power more unprecedented? North Africa was hardly an unassailable position, as usurpers like Gildo, rebels like Boniface before him, or Vandal kings after him experienced.

I would rank Gaiseric as maybe the most successful warlord. Just above Ricimer and Aspar, Aetius and Stilicho. Alaric made a big impression but in the end died without achieving any of his goals. Attila may be seen as very dangerous, but his threat was very short-lived (just a few years) and all of his invasions came to naught.

More damaging than destroying individual towns and cities, IMO, is burning crops and farms, etc... The latter effects a whole province whereas the effects of the former are highly localized.

??? How come? Please explain that. Farms can be rebuilt quite easily, and a burnt crop is of course bad, but a) why would that affect a whole province and b) why would all the crops be burnt be a more wide-ranging effect than the burning of cities?

The beleaguered population pulled back into the walled towns, destroying them would be far more effective than burning farms. Unless all the farms and all the crops in a province would be burnt, but since than would mean starvation for any invader no invader was so stupid to do that.
But the Vandals did not destroy all the towns either, so what are you saying here?

As you say, Ian, barbarians would attack for food and they would damage farmland in pursuing that goal. But I slightly disagree when you say that it is not in barbarians' best interest to destroy what they want. Think of it - they could never take cities by force but they could starve them into submission - meaning they must burn farmland to deprive many towns at once of their food supplies.

Twice a big no.
One, barbarians need not burn a farm or crops to get food – they steal the food. And if they want to occupy the land – and the Vandals, Franks and Goths were not mere raiders, who robbed the stuff and then pulled back home again – if would be extremely stupid to destroy it. So they didn’t. Of course the provinces suffered from their occupation, but not because they went about burning the place down.
Two, you don’t starve a city into submission by destroying the farmland – again, that would be suicide because you starve yourself in the process. Alaric did that went besieging Rome and the first time he had to break off the siege because he could not feed his army. No, you starve a city into submission by creating a solid ring around it – nothing in nor out.

Why waste time blockading one town when you can burn farmland and starve many towns at a single stroke ? Caesar pursued such a 'scorched earth' policy against the Gauls.

No he did not.

I also remember Constantine the Great was careful with his men during his invasion of Italy.

Eh? But then, Constantine had to win the people over to accept him instead of Maxentius, so like Caesar, political goals played a part there, too. Later warlords were past that.

Of course in the C5th many (a majority?) of those "barbarian invaders" were actually Roman armies anyway to one degree or another.

Yes, but under Roman commanders. A small but crucial distinction.

How so? Constantine also commanded a Roman army with tens of thousands of Germanic short-term volunteers. His armies, when needing food, commissioned it with the same force from the population as armies consisting of Roman troops only.

Btw, you’re wrong to state that. Alaric did command a Roman army as much as Gaiseric did, after both had been ‘legalised’. That was my ‘big deal’ point about - the Vandal s, from a certain point on, operated well within the Roman political system.