06-18-2019, 10:21 AM
I've just been watching the video of an interesting 2012 lecture by Michael Kulikowski, 'The Accidental Suicide of the Roman Empire' (linked below).
Kulikowski makes a number of intriguing suggestions - and one rather bizarre straw-mannish claim that Peter Heather and Bryan Ward-Perkins believe the empire fell because it "stupidly let in too many foreigners", and this belief is "a reaction to multiculturalism in Britain in the 1990s"![[Image: shocked.png]](https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/images/icons/shocked.png)
Aside from this, I was mostly struck by Kulikowski's portrait of Alaric (from about 34m 53s onward) as "The Roman general Alaric, probably known to most of you as the Visigoth who sacked Rome". He goes on to describe Alaric as a 'native officer' in Roman service, who 'rose through the ranks', 'commanded his native unit valiantly and achieved promotion', and was generally speaking 'an ambitious junior officer'.
He goes on to suggest that this Roman officer Alaric became frustrated with the slowness of his promotion and so decided to 'play the barbarian', acting in the role that Rome was somehow forcing upon him, by invading Italy and 'threatening the government as an outsider'. His sack of Rome is "the culmination of a frustrated career, an act of despair after his every attempt at compromise has met with rebuff or betrayal".
But what evidence do we have for Alaric's 'Roman military career'? Zosimus and Socrates Scholasticus mention that he commanded troops during the campaign against Eugenius, presumably at the Frigidus. Aside from this (and both before and after this) he seems to have been some sort of tribal chieftain or bandit leader. He was rewarded with a senior position, according to Claudian's invectives, presumably Magister Militum per Illyricum, by the eastern empire, c.398, but this only lasted a couple of years. His troops were never brought officially into the Roman army, and could not really be described as 'Roman soldiers'. Whatever command he was awarded or promised by Stilicho in the west c.406 appears not to have been honoured by the court of Honorius.
So can we really call Alaric a 'Roman General' in anything but the most technical sense? He seems rather more of a brigand than a Roman military officer; in which case his sack of Rome was not an 'act of despair' by a frustrated yet honorable officer, but one of naked aggression by an opportunistic gangster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltjH6HPs7vg&t=2895s
Kulikowski makes a number of intriguing suggestions - and one rather bizarre straw-mannish claim that Peter Heather and Bryan Ward-Perkins believe the empire fell because it "stupidly let in too many foreigners", and this belief is "a reaction to multiculturalism in Britain in the 1990s"
Aside from this, I was mostly struck by Kulikowski's portrait of Alaric (from about 34m 53s onward) as "The Roman general Alaric, probably known to most of you as the Visigoth who sacked Rome". He goes on to describe Alaric as a 'native officer' in Roman service, who 'rose through the ranks', 'commanded his native unit valiantly and achieved promotion', and was generally speaking 'an ambitious junior officer'.
He goes on to suggest that this Roman officer Alaric became frustrated with the slowness of his promotion and so decided to 'play the barbarian', acting in the role that Rome was somehow forcing upon him, by invading Italy and 'threatening the government as an outsider'. His sack of Rome is "the culmination of a frustrated career, an act of despair after his every attempt at compromise has met with rebuff or betrayal".
But what evidence do we have for Alaric's 'Roman military career'? Zosimus and Socrates Scholasticus mention that he commanded troops during the campaign against Eugenius, presumably at the Frigidus. Aside from this (and both before and after this) he seems to have been some sort of tribal chieftain or bandit leader. He was rewarded with a senior position, according to Claudian's invectives, presumably Magister Militum per Illyricum, by the eastern empire, c.398, but this only lasted a couple of years. His troops were never brought officially into the Roman army, and could not really be described as 'Roman soldiers'. Whatever command he was awarded or promised by Stilicho in the west c.406 appears not to have been honoured by the court of Honorius.
So can we really call Alaric a 'Roman General' in anything but the most technical sense? He seems rather more of a brigand than a Roman military officer; in which case his sack of Rome was not an 'act of despair' by a frustrated yet honorable officer, but one of naked aggression by an opportunistic gangster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltjH6HPs7vg&t=2895s
Nathan Ross
