Alaric - 'Roman Officer'?

[Robert Vermaat]

but aren't there signs of massive movement away from the towns and villas into remote areas in Gaul and so on?  Those ˁapiru miao Baguadae folks?  If you can't get out because the limes are guarded by soldiers, you drop out.

To me, its obvious that complex society collapsed in the 5th century (especially the kind of civilization with high-tech pottery and monolithic pillars paid for by collecting 2 drachmas a year from desperately poor people whose ancestors 400 years ago rebelled), but his talk does not have much to say about whether that is a bad thing and whether the systems failure was the result of nasty ignorant invaders or of Roman aristocrats who were more interested in bullying their neighbours than keeping civilization running.  He tells us that it was the barbarians wot did it, but in the talk he makes exactly 0 arguments for this.

In some areas you see desertion, and lenty o room for the Franks tomove into. But it is by no means a universal picture. Take my country for instance. The Rhine limes is mostly given up and a lot of people seem to be moving to Gaul, while Frankish communities cross the Rhine into Northern Belgium, all as part of Roman programs. So far, that confirms the picture of Roman retreat, especially as you see the main line of defense taken back to the Bavay-Colgne road.

But then, there is plenty of ativity along the Meuse, with Maastricht active until deep within the 5th c., as is Nijmegen (almost on the Rhine) which shows plenty of activity, civilian as well as military, into the 5th c. as well. 

So I would call it a checkered picture, which has need of study and not generalised claims.

---

Perhaps like those circus factions that Procopius (I think) mentions, getting 'Hunnic' hair-dos?


"At no point can we deny that Alaric’s troops were Goths", Halsall writes, and also "there were good reasons why Alaric, Gaïnas and the rest – Stilicho even – could not be just ordinary Roman officers." But also "Alaric and his army were firmly ensconced within the established frameworks of Roman politics."
This seems right to me - Alaric was not a 'Roman soldier', but neither was he a 'barbarian invader' - his troops and his power base were both inside the empire from the start, pretty much. It's a sign of the weakness of the Roman state, and of the Roman army in the west at this point, that Alaric was able to use his (perhaps not too huge) independent army/warrior group to such devastating effect. Clearly he knew what he was doing.



I suspect that the rather cosy gentleman's-club narrative of the 'civilised' Sack of Rome is about due for some major revision; I've seen a couple of papers by younger female historians that take quite a different view!

@ styles - Yes indeed LOL. Plus there is Sionius who describes (with clear disdain) the practise of Romans to dress as barbarians, including fur - but I suspect he may have overdone it a bit

@ Goths - do we even know they were exclusively Goths? I fear mr Halsall may be a bit too hasty at this point, lacking evidence. From what we know of Germanic warnbands in the 5th c. is that they could be from all kinds of tribal backgrounds (Alans, Huns, Scyrians etc. joining Gothic bands et al), so I would not take credit for such a generalistic view. Alaric was a Goth and so were most of his followers, but even Romans could join such military groups.

I agree immediately with you that such groups were no (longer) 'barbarian invaders' either, but they were indeed a new phenomenon inside the Empire - a non-Roman powerbase, sometines under Roman control, sometimes acting under Roman legitimate orders but at the same time with their own (non-Roman) agenda. I blame Theodosius for that, even though he may not have acted willingly- ineed Roman weakness. This new reality hastened the demise of the West alng, and it took the East great pains to reverse the impact. 

If only at some point the West had been able to nullify their impact, but Romans had already seen the use they could make of such groups, and with a strong Roman (army) they could be held in check. Stilicho would have used Alaric for his own ill-guided attempts to invade the East, and so did other like him, up until Aetius. But after Aetius it was no longer possible, and finally the Alarics took over. 

@ Sack of Rome. I don't know. Gentleman-like it was not, but compared to the Vandals in 455 it may have been limited to plunder and some rape - probably not women of the powerful families, as Alaric still needed their support.

---

We would have to ask, I suppose, what alternative there was at the time. Was there a society of the 1st-5th centuries that offered something different? Or even  a contemporary culture that could have offered a reasoned critique of Roman mores?
If not, are we not just looking back from our present situation (full of injustice and abuses too) and decrying the immorality of the past?


Unless we evoke some sort of image of the free barbarian, living at one with nature, paying no tax and obeying no master, which seems as much a product of 19th-century thinking as the idea of the ravaging horde destroying the empire, it seems very difficult to claim that things were necessarily better after Roman control faded and vanished.


 

Certainly - as there wasn't much in the way of public works after the mid 4th century*, and most of the 'brave soldiers' were barbarians themselves!
[edit * - except walls. Plenty of walls going up in the 4th-5th century. Not all of which can be explained by the stresses of civil conflict...]




No doubt. But similarly the romantic image of the 'degenerate' and immoral late empire being vanquished by freedom-loving barbarians is a tool of power as well.

I have no doubt that Roman society was harsh, especially to those without power and/or means, from our point of view. A labourer tied to the mne in Pakistan might have a different view on this though but we are an elite living in a paradise (although we tend to forget that). 

Roman society grew more insecure as well as moreunequal when we get to the 5th entury, and that no doubt also resulted in a more militarised society with harsher laws. At no point however do I see any barbarian ruler 'liberate' the poor oppressed citizens from this rule - they tried to buy into the system, not overthrow it. I'm not surprised to see bagaudae in post-Roman Spain. 

Roman walls went up by the 3rd c., which is also the time when we see baths being discontinued, used for different activities (industrial) until the roofs and walls are taken down. Villas become larger (less owners of more land?) but populations shrink - more people migrate inards or they simply vanish due to lower birthrates and higher mortality? A difficult picture, as mentioned above.
However, at no point do I see citizens move cross the border into a 'free Germany' where they'll live happily ever after, free of military service and taxes! That is indeed a omantic view best thrown into the bin of history.