Anti-barbarian sentiment in the 5th Century

[Majorianus Invictus]

I have been watching Rome:Rise and Fall, and a common theme (at least suggested by the narrator) is the high level of anti-barbarian sentiment in the Empire, and Rome itself. I know the Greeks and Romans looked down on the barbarian tribes, but had the feeling or sentiment been exacerbated by the worsening political and military situation? Were the Romans so suspicious of these Barbarian generals like Stilicho and Ricimer, coupled with the increasing power of the Vandals and Visigoths, that they began to become almost xenophobic?

 

I ask this because it could be an interesting subject of research (if valid) and it would explain why Ricimer and his ilk used "purebred" and I use that term lightly, Romans as puppets to the throne. I am particulartly interested in the reign of Majorian, and the hope which the populace placed in him.

 

I know there are many great minds here at UNRV, and any assistance in formulating a topic would be greatly appreciated.

 

sincerely,

 

H. Bassianus "Invictus"

[Northern Neil]

Maybe the answer to some of these questions can be explained by looking at present-day trends in movement of peoples, and immigration from less developed to more developed countries? Pannonians, Gauls and Britons - at an earlier phase of the Empire - were all regarded as barbarian and uncouth, but within decades of annexation had become Romanised, and were considered citizens of 'Romania'. Indeed, after the third century this became a reality. The Germans, on the other hand, demanded a share of the Roman wealth and prosperity and a say in its government, and yet steadfastedly retained their own culture and language. This may have been seen at the time as taking, but not giving back.

 

A modern parallel could be drawn with regard to attitudes towards ( and by ) immigrant communities in Western industrialised countries. Immigrant communities who 'fully integrate' are generally tolerated by the host population, whereas immigrant communities who are seen as wanting to reap the benefits but not contribute or integrate are regarded less favourably. Take for example Stilicho, pictured on a 5th century diptych with his Roman wife, but sporting a very German style moustache, or 'Gothic Beard' as it was called then. It probably wouldn't have gone down well at all. And moving into the 21st century, it is notable that some European countries are in the process of attempting to ban modes of dress employed by immigrant groups who find it difficult, in several ways, to integrate with the parent culture.

 

Maybe the answers to some of these questions can be found by looking at present day communities in Britain and Holland, where certain immigrant communities are regarded with fear and suspicion, and others welcomed without any major problems? But this is all very delicate stuff, and one has to tread carefully!

[Majorianus Invictus]

Thank you NN, that is is definitely food for thought, and yes, one does need to tread carefully. I am of Hispanic birth, and from Texas, The arizona immigration law may well come here in the near future, and while I can see both sides of the argument, I know all to well the anti-immigrant sentiment. Some hispanics see me as a sellout for my embracing american culture. How could I not, I was born here. On the other hand, caucasians (some) see me as no better than an illegal. Most of the people I talk to say the same thing; if they would only integrate into our society.

 

There is an interesting parallel.

 

That would make sense why the Romans clamored for men like Majorian. There way of life was crumbling, and it would be easy to see how such a sentiment would come about, but instead of alleviating the situation, it only worsened it.

[sonic]

You would need to be careful in other ways as well. For example, probably the most-quoted extract given as proof of anti-barbarian feeling is that of Synesius of Cyrene, who made a speech, De Regno (

[Majorianus Invictus]

Thank you sonic. I will keep that in mind. Thus far the replies have been extremely helpful.

[Majorianus Invictus]

Perhaps I need to include the so called "barbarization" of the army. I know foreign forces always served in the legions, but when did the balance from ethnic Italian/Roman troops to barbarian Fedorati start? Were their any edicts by the Emperors or Church which restricted the service of Romans? Was this strictly a Pagan issue or Christian, or neither? The topic is still broad, but I am starting to narrow it down. Thanks again to everyone who has responded.

 

H. Bassianus

[M. Porcius Cato]

For evidence on Roman attitudes towards barbarians, you needn't look only at what the Romans said but what they did. Roman governors and generals treated unarmed, starving Goths and Britons much more harshly and cruelly than they treated Greeks and other Hellenized people. This, by the way, also exonerates Romans from pure xenophobia (a la the Spartans) -- rather, it was a graded xenophobia.

[Ursus]

Perhaps I need to include the so called "barbarization" of the army. I know foreign forces always served in the legions, but when did the balance from ethnic Italian/Roman troops to barbarian Fedorati start?

H. Bassianus

 

From what I have read, the trend can be observed from the time of Augustus. With the recovery from the civil war, there was an economic boom In Italy. Italians seemed less enthusiastic to join the regular army, for they could find well paying jobs that were less dangerous than military service. Italians still constituted the better paying and more prestigious Praetorian Guard, but provincials came to increasingly fill out the legions.

Edited May 29, 2010 by Ursus

[Majorianus Invictus]

Antonio Santosuosso, in his book (which I have not read, but will be looking at today), Storming the Heavens, claims that ethnic Italian troops made up 65% of the army under Augustus, 49% under Nero, and only 10% under Hadrian. If true, the barbarization of the army had begun quite early. If these numbers are accurate, I wonder if the problem lie not with the composition of barbarian or non-italian troops, but the establishment of non-mobile field armies stationed in certain portions of the Empire, and such decrees that created the Numeri and the Annonae Foederaticae? While there is most likely more examples, these both seemed to add to the non-integration or romanization of "barbarian" troops, and would make it much easier for a man like Arbogast, Stilicho, or Ricimer to rise up and take advantage.

[Ludovicus]

The distaste for the barbarians didn't stop the Roman craze for blonde and red hair... barbarian hair. I think you'll find several references to this on the writers of the Empire. Rather than distain the German tribes, at one level Rome eroticized them.

 

Romans were of different social classes and religions. You might give some thought how each of theses social niches viewed the barbarians. There is evidence, I have it in one of my books on the later Empire, that when Alaric left after sacking Rome in 410, thousands of Roman slaves went with him, on their own accord.

[Majorianus Invictus]

Thank you Ludovicus. May I ask what book this is? It would be very useful too my efforts. Again, to all, thanks for the suggestions and thoughts, it is truly helping me hammer out a topic.

[Ludovicus]

Thank you Ludovicus. May I ask what book this is? It would be very useful too my efforts. Again, to all, thanks for the suggestions and thoughts, it is truly helping me hammer out a topic.

 

From Bertrand Lan

[Majorianus Invictus]

In my research on the barbarization of the Legions (yes, this is from wikipedia, because my source books are still enroute), I found this statement.

 

The barbarisation of the lower ranks was paralleled by a concurrent barbarisation of its command structure, with the Roman senators who had traditionally provided its commanders becoming entirely excluded from the army.

 

Ok, was this an Imperial edict? Is there validity to this statement?

[Majorianus Invictus]

The more I research the matter of barbarians within the ranks of the Legion, the more questions I have, lol. My current question pertains to just who was considered a barbarian to the Romans? I know that is said that the Severan dynasty had punic blood, and that Maximinus Thrax is the first so called "Barbarian Emperor", but what of the Illyrian Junta (I love that word) starting with Claudius Gothicus and ending with Probus, and the Gaul's Carus and much later Avitus? I know there are many more examples, but there are also examples of those denied the purple because of their barbarian heritage. Stilicho and Ricimer come to mind. And even these two were said to believe themselves Roman through and through, even though their familial history speaks different.

 

So just exactly what was the difference? Were the Illyrian Emperor's romanized? The Severan's? Were some barbarians more acceptable to the Roman people?

 

I put the question to the masses of UNRV to assist me in understanding, because as I dig deeper I am seeing evidence that the problem was not just being barbarian, but whether they assimilated into the Roman culture or not.

 

Your thoughts are needed, and to all who respond, I thank you truly.

[Ludovicus]

The more I research the matter of barbarians within the ranks of the Legion, the more questions I have, lol. My current question pertains to just who was considered a barbarian to the Romans? I know that is said that the Severan dynasty had punic blood, and that Maximinus Thrax is the first so called "Barbarian Emperor", but what of the Illyrian Junta (I love that word) starting with Claudius Gothicus and ending with Probus, and the Gaul's Carus and much later Avitus? I know there are many more examples, but there are also examples of those denied the purple because of their barbarian heritage. Stilicho and Ricimer come to mind. And even these two were said to believe themselves Roman through and through, even though their familial history speaks different.

 

So just exactly what was the difference? Were the Illyrian Emperor's romanized? The Severan's? Were some barbarians more acceptable to the Roman people?

 

I put the question to the masses of UNRV to assist me in understanding, because as I dig deeper I am seeing evidence that the problem was not just being barbarian, but whether they assimilated into the Roman culture or not.

 

Your thoughts are needed, and to all who respond, I thank you truly.

 

Just as the concept of "Roman" changed over the centuries, the notion of who was a "barbarian" must have, too. Ideas of nationality, race, and ethnicity are elastic. They change according to the times.