Kingdom Of The Vandals

[Lex]

I was quite impressed after reading about the Vandals in 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' by the fact that a relatively small amount of them managed to seize North Africa, a vital part of the Western Empire, and then still be able to rule over it relatively succesively for quite a while until they were wiped out by Belisarius' troops.

 

What also impressed me was just how ambitious they were, since besides having parts of North Africa in their possesion they also conquered Corsica and Sardenia and even parts of Sicily.

 

The thing that interested me lately was that I watched a documentary about the fall of the Roman Empire a few weeks ago and it showed to what extent they had adopted the Roman lifestyle. Apparently, once they had settled in North Africa they all adopted togas and built large country villas in imitation of the Romans along with elaborate gardens. The documentary even showed some remaining frescos of the long-haired Vandals reclining in their divans wearing togas eating fruits and using Roman style goblets, besides their long hair they looked quite Roman.

 

I was wondering if the Vandals had left any long lasting impact on the territories they controlled in Africa in terms of culture? Did the locals perhaps prefer to be ruled under the Vandals rather than the Romans? And generally how was their treatment of the locals? And how was their soldiers generally equipped and was their army relatively disciplined or were they the same as the other Barbarians? How efficient were they in ruling the territory in terms of crop production?

 

If anyone has any information regarding their Kingdom, I would be greatly interested to hear, as they were the only Barbarians that I read about that I couldn't help but feel sympathetic towards.

[Zeke]

I suppose not much is known about Vandal Culture in North Africa becausae what the Byzantine Troops didn't wipe out, the Muslims who came in the 5th Century did. There is very little trace of Vandal Culture in that area because it has been suppresed by Islam and the Vandals have become another "Lost tribe" so to speak of history.

 

My assumations are that with their small population the Vandals were looking for an area that was huge in size but small in population, offered rich plunder, and a place for them to settle down with their small family units, they found that in North Africa. As with most Germanic Barbarians the Vandals came from the region where the Franks, the Lombards, the Goths and all others were from. The Vandals came after the Franks I believe and they headed into Spain. I have feeling they left Spain for two reasons: They were too small of a tribe to have any control over the large population of it and the Visigoths that were arriving were pushing them out. So they sailed across the straits of Gilbraltor and claimed all of North Africa from the borders of what is now present day Maraco to Egypt. Carthage becoming their ransack capital.

 

Knowing that the Vandals were barbarians they may have adopted Roman Villas and togas but still kept their old way of life. The Vandals really didn't care about the "Local population" and most likely extorted them by forced labour and yearly if not monthly tirbute. The Vandal econmey was run off their excessive piracy industy and the only way it would stay active was through stealing what other people of the falling Roman Empire had already built. If the Vandals didn't engadge in piracy, they would have had a very small economic infastructure, I doubt they grew any crops to speak of, they left this hard daily toil to their African/Greek/Carthigian serfs. Their social statues was probably based around local Warlords who served their main King at Carthage. Their army was typical barbarian (huge war axes, running up and down oppnent's army screaming curses and going beserk then the classic mass charge ) except they probably flew aside their furs in favor of lighter clothing because after all Africa is hot!

 

My impression of the Vandals is that they fit the classic criteria of what a "Good Barbarian" is suppose to be, brutal, using, a stealer and extorter. The only reason many mainstream historians mention them is because they had a fairly large territory and they did succeed in sacking Rome for the second time.

They didn't esablish any sort of realm like the Franks did and when the Byzantins decided to take back North Africa their kingdom ceased to exist

 

Zeke

[Lex]

Thanks for the info Zeke.

So it would seem that the Vandals still used the traditional Barbarian tactics instead of trying to emulate the Roman way of ruling their territory and still kept piracy as their main means of income. Did the piracy consist mainly of Viking-style coastal raids or was it mostly intercepting supplies? I'm not sure, but I think they might have eventually had a peace-treaty with the Western Empire, or am I mistaken?

 

If they had been more forward thinking and tried to include the locals in their government and treated them equally they could have probably developed a good economy, a loyal population and a sizable army...but I guess that wasn't their way of thinking. So basically, in the end, even though they adopted Roman luxuries and fashions they remained Barbarians.

 

The Byzantines though with far less troops didn't seem to have a problem defeating them, does anyone have any knowledge of this campaign and way the war was conducted in Africa?

[Segestan]

"Vandals;member of a Germanic people who maintained a kingdom in North Africa from AD 429 to 534 and who sacked Rome in 455. Their name has remained a synonym for willful desecration or destruction.

Fleeing westward from the Huns at the beginning of the 5th century, the Vandals invaded and devastated parts of Gaul before settling in Spain in 409. There the Asdingi Vandals under King Gunderic became the ascendant group after attacks by allies of the Romans had dissipated the Silingi and Alani Vandals. In 429 Gunderic's brother and successor, Gaiseric (q.v.; reigned 428

[Lex]

Segestan, thanks for the info, the numbers of Vandals that went into Africa is then considerably higher than I had thought, for some reason I had mistakenly thought they were around 30 000.

 

Can anyone remember who Gaiseric's successor was? I remember reading that his successor greatly regretted the damage caused to Rome and I think it was him who withdrew the Vandals out of Italy?

[Zeke]

80,000 isn't that much if it was like 200,000, 300,000 I could call that alot lol.

 

Zeke

[Lex]

The thing that bothers me about the sack of Rome by the Vandals was that Honorius had the military man-power at his disposal to prevent it but he just didn't seem to care and prefered to have the bulk of his army stationed around Ravenna for his personal protection. Sending troops to relieve Rome would have obviously been a risk but I think the remaining Legions could have handled it or that after the Romans had bribed the Vandals to leave Roame after the first siege they would have prefered to withdraw with their gold instead of risk a battle.

 

The Romans (of the city) had sent Honorius numerous requests begging him for help but he pretty much only gave them false promises in return. It is my believe that the Italians at the time (since this was basically what the Western Empire was reduced to) must have hated the current Roman government because they paid heavy taxes and the government could still hardly protect them or their property from Barbarians. It was like they didn't really have a government anymore and had to fend for themselves.

 

What are your opinions? Could Honorius have sent his army South to relieve Rome of the siege and save much misery and suffering of his citizens who's duty it was for him to protect? Gibbon seems to insinuate that Honorius was basically a coward hiding in Ravenna with all his ships ready to escape at a moments notice and abandon Italy, and that all the troops were basically used for his own protection.

[Zeke]

Honorius was ill-suited to defend the falling Empire, he probably wouldn't have sent the Legions to Rome to relieve it because of two reasons: Yes I believe he was a coward and probably one of the worse emperors though he was in his youth so what can you expect? Also if he had sent the Legions that would have left Northern Italy open to attacks from the Lombards or the Franks. Honorius was still protecting his little fragmant of Rome though Rome was nothing by the time of the Vandal sack in 455 A.D.

 

The speculation here is there is one or two reasons why Rome was sacked a second time in 455,

 

1. The Vandals had suppieor military tatics, (Which I doubt, 1 Legion could have crushed an army of 30,000 in a couple hours) or

2. The city was despised and lightly deffended that it was easy counquest for the invaders. I believe this is true. Nobody really cared for Rome anymore, the only thing that was there was the Pope all the REAL Legions and real goverment officials had all fled to Constatinople in the late 300s.

 

Zeke

[Lex]

It seems that in my last post I got the events of 410 AD confused with those of 455 AD since the sack of Rome that I referred to was that by the Visigoths and not the Vandals. Though everything stated by myself and Zeke in the last posts is correct if you simply change the year to 410 and replace the name of the barbarians from the Vandals to that of the Visigoths instead.

 

The two scenarios are however very similar and are in basically the same in that both Emperors at the time didn't do anything to protect Rome, one actually fled the city iteslf and the other was planning to leave Italy. Both didn't provide any military to protect Rome.

 

My apologies for that mistake, I did some frantic research to rectify this mistake, and this is actually what happened:

 

The Emperor at the period when the Vandals sacked Rome was Petronius Maximus who resided in the city of Rome itself. On hearing of the Vandals rapid approach he advised the senate and nobles to follow his example and flee from the city. As he was in the process of escaping from the city he was mauled by a group of angry protesters who accused him of betraying his subjects and was then beaten to death in the street.

 

The Western Empire then temporarily was without an Emperor and the Vandals under Genseric approached the gates of the city. As he approached, there was no army to stop him and he was greeted by the Pope Leo who asked him to spare the unresisting citizens and to protect the buildings from fire and to not torture the captives. The Vandals promised to these terms but of course the orders weren

[Zeke]

yeah I was kinda wondering.....Horonius??? Wasn't he during Alaric's sack?!?!?!?!?

 

hhahahahahaha sorry misunderstanding!

 

Zeke

[PerfectimusPrime]

... and then still be able to rule over it relatively succesively for quite a while until they were wiped out by Belisarius' troops.

Actually they serious diffculities ruling their kingdom, because the majority of the population was highly romanized, either they hated the barbarians or the arianists chirstians that vandals were.

 

Yes, Vandals ruled north Africa quite well for such small numbers, but I would guess, they probably ruled because they caputared Carthage which was a major city of the empire, and could easily serve as a governmental center for any future kingdoms.

 

Also, according to some article, the Vandals had quite good relations with the berbers and what ever there were in the south, and hired alot mercenaries from them.

 

Anywayu, nothing of them survives except their name.

[Lex]

It would seem that the Vandals were in fact more powerful than I had previously thought. They were also joined by the barbarian group known as the