08-20-2004, 01:02 PM
Theo,<br>
<br>
I beg to differ. Sure, I agree this was one of the worst defeats and it certainly did set a standard. But I would hesitate in calling it the beginning of the end, etc.<br>
Goths were indeed settled undertheir own leaders and with tax deductions (I presume you refer to the settlement of 41, but that was no permanent state of affairs. After all, these Goths were so dependent on the Roman authorities for supplies that Rome was in complete control over them. This was borne out by fact several times, and the only lebverage the Goths had after 418 was the damage they would cause. All in all, they werre loyal subjects while settled in Gaul, and no Roman source ever thought they would not be assimilated.<br>
<br>
A generation earlier, after 378 and Adrianople, the situation was different. here, too, the Goths eventually accepted terms, mainly because they had no means of an independent food supply. They could settle of course, but all parties realised that the Roman state would gain the upper hand.<br>
Then came Frigidus, the battle in which so many Goths were killed, and that indeed set some standard. Alaric never hated the Romans. Such Goth vs. Roman scenarios work as propaganda or hollywood stuff, but it is not borne out by what we know about him. Alaric mainly tried to get huis troops to be enrolled in the Roman army as regulars, this is what he demanded and what the Romans would not give him. It would have ensured his position as leader of the Goths (and surely endager Stilicho as de facto leader of the West), but it would also have ensured a stable economic position for the Goths These would then be sure of stable income and supplies, instead of having to fear being dismissed after each campaign. The sack of Rome was not so much a thing of Roman humiliation by Goths, as well as the making good of a threat by a disgruntled general.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>
<br>
I beg to differ. Sure, I agree this was one of the worst defeats and it certainly did set a standard. But I would hesitate in calling it the beginning of the end, etc.<br>
Goths were indeed settled undertheir own leaders and with tax deductions (I presume you refer to the settlement of 41, but that was no permanent state of affairs. After all, these Goths were so dependent on the Roman authorities for supplies that Rome was in complete control over them. This was borne out by fact several times, and the only lebverage the Goths had after 418 was the damage they would cause. All in all, they werre loyal subjects while settled in Gaul, and no Roman source ever thought they would not be assimilated.<br>
<br>
A generation earlier, after 378 and Adrianople, the situation was different. here, too, the Goths eventually accepted terms, mainly because they had no means of an independent food supply. They could settle of course, but all parties realised that the Roman state would gain the upper hand.<br>
Then came Frigidus, the battle in which so many Goths were killed, and that indeed set some standard. Alaric never hated the Romans. Such Goth vs. Roman scenarios work as propaganda or hollywood stuff, but it is not borne out by what we know about him. Alaric mainly tried to get huis troops to be enrolled in the Roman army as regulars, this is what he demanded and what the Romans would not give him. It would have ensured his position as leader of the Goths (and surely endager Stilicho as de facto leader of the West), but it would also have ensured a stable economic position for the Goths These would then be sure of stable income and supplies, instead of having to fear being dismissed after each campaign. The sack of Rome was not so much a thing of Roman humiliation by Goths, as well as the making good of a threat by a disgruntled general.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
