Late Roman Barbarian State Polices and Cultralism

[Mrbsct]

I have a quick question on what was Rome's policy on Babarian client states and tribes living within their borders(like Goths and Vandals).

Would these peoples live under a soverign state with its own citizenship or a Gothic citizen in the Visigothic kingdom can gain Roman citizenship? Would these states be a mixture of Romans and Germans or just Germans?

Also of Army service. Are their two types of Foderetii? Independent ally and mixed troops?
For example, Theodosis army was made up of Romans and its own allied attatchment of Goths? But was the Roman force made up of Germans that gained Roman citizenship as well?
Would these German(with Roman citizenship) troops be considered Foderetii or Legionaire?
Was their treatment different?

How was the social status differences of these two peoples? I heard to Goths were horribly mistreated, does this policy apply to the ones that haven't gained citizenship? If they did why didn't they bother thinking about since most their soldiers were Goths? Honorious perscuted many Goths, forcing 30,000 Gothic troops to defect to Alaric.

Also what tribe was Odoacer in??? Or he was a mixture with Romans under him?

Lastly: Was the fall of Western Roman Empire be defined as a military conquest or just a simple change of culture?

[Urselius]

Odoacer is thought to have been a Scirian, but other origins - including Hunnic - have been suggested.

A Goth who entered the Roman Army, ie in a Roman unit, would have attained Roman citizenship. Goths in allied units led by their own leaders, attached to Roman forces, would probably have remained peregrini.

Non-citizens would have come under ius gentium ("law of peoples") which allowed basic levels of rights. As long as Rome held some level of power over the barbarian groups settled within the Empire then Roman Law would have been used in dealings between any barbarian and a Roman citizen, though the customary law of the particular barbarian tribe would have been retained for barbarian to barbarian legal interactions.

[Michael Kerr]

In regard to barbarian client states & Rome. I found a paper by Herwig Wolfram “The Visigoths in Aquitaine" & how they were settled around Toulouse by the Romans he gives an idea how land & resources may have been shared or distributed.

The Gothic army, therefore entered Aquitaine as hospites, guests; they were to share the domains with the great Aquitanian landlords, becoming, in the proper sense of the word, their consortes. At first glance, the conditions of this contract, officially recognized in 418, appear excessive; the sors Gothica, or Gothic part, comprised two-thirds of the cultivated land, half of the uncultivated land and probably a third of the labor force. But upon close examination, the division proves far more limited. Senators still held possessions not touched by the arrangement and the curiales, members of the Roman urban middle-class, seem to have been excluded totally from the forced division. The original center of the Gothic settlement comprised an area of about one hundred kilometers around Toulouse. The Gothic expansion was made primarily at the expense of the great senatorial possessions called regna, kingdoms, and these were only partially expropriated. Thus, though for some the word hospes, Gothic guest, became a name for ruthlessness and recklessness, these opinions were probably exaggerations.

On paper it probably seemed fair to the Gallic nobles & residents but in disputes over land when the Goths have the troops I assume they usually won any arguments. I suppose over time the loyalty of the tenants changed to their Gothic lords rather than what to them seemed a far off Roman administration. Hope this helps?
Regards
Michael Kerr

[ValentinianVictrix]

There were Gothic units in service to the Roman empire probably going back to the time of Constantine the Great. Two such units that Ammianus speaks about are the Equites Taifali and the Auxilia Palatina unit called the Tailfali. The Tailfali had a treaty arrangement with the Romans, probably imposed in 323AD by Constantine, and Constantius II called upon them for assistance on at least one occasion.

Many of the most highest ranking Late Roman officers were of 'barbarian' stock, Victor, RIchomeres, Vadomarius etc, and this was before the Goths and Vandals settled within the borders of the empire.

The treatment of the Goths you refer to were probably the incident of 376AD where Roman officers treated the Goths who were massed on the north bank of the Danube so badly that the Goths rebelled, killing many Romans and led to the breakout of the Goths into the Roman Empire.. Also, Goths hired by Valens and stationed in Adrianople were abused by the citizens there leading the Goths to go on the rampage, killing many in that city. After the battle of Adrianople itself orders were given to slay the Goths who Valens had hired and stationed throughout the Eastern provinces. Apart from those incidents I'm not aware of any other ill-treatment episodes.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Flavius Gaudentius Aetius was Gothic (probably born in the Empire though prior to the Gothic revolt), and attained the titles of Comes Africae and Magister Militum per Gallias.

Flavius Aetius was Half-"Scythian" and most ancient and modern scholars thought he was half-Gothic.

[Robert Vermaat]

I have a quick question on what was Rome's policy on Babarian client states and tribes living within their borders(like Goths and Vandals). Would these peoples live under a soverign state with its own citizenship or a Gothic citizen in the Visigothic kingdom can gain Roman citizenship? Would these states be a mixture of Romans and Germans or just Germans?

First of all, there were very many forms of these societies. Purely tribal, kingships, and when on Roman soil these could vary from subjugated Laeti to near-independent Foederati, with a lot in between.
I think your idea of the purely barbarian ‘states’ is correct. We have no indication that barbarian tribal warriors societies came even close to resembling anything the Romans had, not even when on Roman soil. Leadership was fluid and depended on military success as warriors were free to join or leave (we know this happened to Alaric and the Franks even exiled Clovis before he was made king). In fact the leader who attracted the most followers (by success or Roman coin) would be the most likely to survive.
When situated on Roman soil we see a shift. In the past, the Romans mostly settled barbarians in areas that depopulated or where the foreigners disappeared into the local populace within a few generations. We know where Constantine settled his Sarmatians, but they are untraceable later. Such groups mostly had Roman officials. The first evolution we see is after Adrianople, when Gothic groups can settle under their own leadership. This makes them free to change sides in case of Roman civil war (a common event), and paves the way for an enormous growth in power for such groups. During the 5th c., we see such groups gain the upper hand in the West 9eventually replacing the Roman state), while in the East this development is stopped.

Also of Army service. Are their two types of Foderetii? Independent ally and mixed troops? For example, Theodosis army was made up of Romans and its own allied attatchment of Goths? But was the Roman force made up of Germans that gained Roman citizenship as well? Would these German(with Roman citizenship) troops be considered Foderetii or Legionaire? Was their treatment different?

Again, too simple. Germanic (or any other foreigner) could take up service in the army, and after the Diocletianic/Constantinian army reforms they could join the legions as much as any other type of unit. No differences. Foederati were usually large groups of barbarians (usually mixed groups) who fought with their leaders but as far as I can tell always under Roman high command. Also, barbarians could make a career in the Roman army and it was possible to reach a very high position.
You think too much in black/white groups – reality was much more mixed. It hardly mattered whether troops were citizens or not, the value/significance of that was not very important by the mid-5th c.

How was the social status differences of these two peoples? I heard to Goths were horribly mistreated, does this policy apply to the ones that haven't gained citizenship? If they did why didn't they bother thinking about since most their soldiers were Goths? Honorious perscuted many Goths, forcing 30,000 Gothic troops to defect to Alaric.

I don’t think Goth were much more mistreated than others, or barbarians in general. As was common practice, federates (like the old auxilia) took the brunt of the fighting. They were not pleased with that, but they were paid to do that. The incident with Honorius had to do with Stilicho falling from grace, Honorius (or rather Olympius, the rival) was afraid that these people would be loyal to the executed Stilicho. A bad miscalculation, indeed.

Also what tribe was Odoacer in??? Or he was a mixture with Romans under him?

A mixture probably, with Goths and a lot of other Germanics, but no Romans.

Lastly: Was the fall of Western Roman Empire be defined as a military conquest or just a simple change of culture?

neither. Certainly no conquest, it was the failure of a state, constantly at war with barbarians but far more with itself, which allowed new groups that we once used in that struggle, to fill the gaps and take over where the Roman state failed.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Olybrius was right to calculate the Goths would be Loyal to Stilicho.

When Aetius was executed the Illyrian Army defected to Marcellinus, Majoran was unable to win over anything more than the Protectores (When he was appointed Comes Domesticorum in 454) and the Roman Armies and Aetius' Bucellarii all basically were no longer loyal to the Empire, they had free reign to do what they wanted and to put whomever they wanted on the Throne. That's part of how Ricimer and Avitus came to power - Avitus, with the help of the Visigoths who would in turn become the second barbarian kingdom, was put on the throne and the Army was loyal to his capable leadership.