Civilian Passivity

[Kosmo]

When looking at the large losses of terittory suffered by the romans from germans in the West and later from persians and arabs in the East I wonder how this large areas with many inhabitants were taken so fast by the small invading forces.

In later ages conquests will be much slower despite smaller and poorer populations. I'm not talking of the resistance of the army, but that of the civilian population.

If we look at the jewish revolts we see remarcable resistence of the civilian population against romans, but little resistance of romans against "barbarians".

 

I know some of the reasons: the long military service meant few had military experience, fortifications were built during the crisis, emperors were gelous to any other military force, there was no established militia.

 

My opinion is that beside this reasons was the fact that many romans of late empire did not care much about being a part of the empire and that their view of invaders was not so dark as we see it today.

The inhabitants of Byzantium resisted alone the forces of Septimius Sever for three years, long after Niger was killed. They had a good defensive position, is true, but so had Carthage that was taken so swift by vandals after a long campaign in unfamiliar conditions.

The only example I know of bitter resistance was that of the christians in Lebanon against the first arabian caliphs in contrast with Egypt that was taken and holded very easily.

[caldrail]

Rome had a policy of preparing the way. Before this territory was invaded, deals were done and one tribe set against another. A case of divide and conquer. Also, barbarians aren't usually united. It takes a leader like Arminius to present a unified obstacle.

 

Sorry, I missed the point. I agree with most of what you said, particularly since Rome as an empire didn't have the same appeal with romans that it once did. But it did for the barbarians. They were keen to be in on the deal to improve their living standards etc. Its just when they finally got there they didn't really like running it, and weren't to good at it

[Neos Dionysos]

When looking at the large losses of terittory suffered by the romans from germans in the West and later from persians and arabs in the East I wonder how this large areas with many inhabitants were taken so fast by the small invading forces.

In later ages conquests will be much slower despite smaller and poorer populations. I'm not talking of the resistance of the army, but that of the civilian population.

If we look at the jewish revolts we see remarcable resistence of the civilian population against romans, but little resistance of romans against "barbarians".

 

I know some of the reasons: the long military service meant few had military experience, fortifications were built during the crisis, emperors were gelous to any other military force, there was no established militia.

 

My opinion is that beside this reasons was the fact that many romans of late empire did not care much about being a part of the empire and that their view of invaders was not so dark as we see it today.

The inhabitants of Byzantium resisted alone the forces of Septimius Sever for three years, long after Niger was killed. They had a good defensive position, is true, but so had Carthage that was taken so swift by vandals after a long campaign in unfamiliar conditions.

The only example I know of bitter resistance was that of the christians in Lebanon against the first arabian caliphs in contrast with Egypt that was taken and holded very easily.

 

 

You're overlooking some key issues though. For many, having Barbarians as your 'leaders' or those in control of you in the late empire was because either, 1) Rome put them in charge of the area like the Franks on the West Banks of the Rhine for instance, or 2) because after so many years of Rome's inability to protect and safeguard the people of the provinces, it must have seemed a welcome relief to know a powerful new force was governing the area and one which would safegaurd the people. Little was done to change the adminstration or the civic authority system and so you had no real change in daily life. While there were those who supported a 'barbarian' leadership and those who simply refused to accept the disappearance of Roman control, most just exchanged one overriding power for another with little more than a blink of the eye.

 

In regards to Egypt and the Near East falling into Arab hands, the quick success of the Arabs is due to a series of factors, one of course being the Empire was exhausted militarily and financially after it's long war with Persia, (who easily fell to the Arabs because they were defeated by the ERE), but also because during the reign of Justinian and followed by his successors there was a large push to consolidate the church and to 'purge' the versions of Christianity the Patriachcy of Constantinople and the Emperor viewed as hereitic. This involved large areas of the Near East and Egypt, and so when the Arabs invaded and took over the land, there was little resistance because the the very foundations of Islam preached tolerance of other religions and a freedom of people to be whatever they choose. This freedom, lack of persection on the Arabs part was in contrast to the ERE's, "Either join us or pay..." mentality and policy and so the Arabs were seen as a relief more than a curse or bruden or something to fight against.

[tflex]

The only example I know of bitter resistance was that of the christians in Lebanon against the first arabian caliphs in contrast with Egypt that was taken and holded very easily.

 

By the way the christians in Lebanon are still resisting up until today. As a Lebanese christian myself, I fought in the war when I was 16 years old for about a year. I don't live there anymore but it seems like things might blow up again very soon between muslims and christians. The Lebanese Forces (christian militia) trace the origins of their resistance back to the time of the rise of Islam and the Crusades.

Edited February 14, 2006 by tflex

[Virgil61]

.. beside this reasons was the fact that many romans of late empire did not care much about being a part of the empire and that their view of invaders was not so dark as we see it today.

The inhabitants of Byzantium resisted alone the forces of Septimius Sever for three years, long after Niger was killed. They had a good defensive position, is true, but so had Carthage that was taken so swift by vandals after a long campaign in unfamiliar conditions.

The only example I know of bitter resistance was that of the christians in Lebanon against the first arabian caliphs in contrast with Egypt that was taken and holded very easily.

 

Recent scholarship seems to be pulling back from the view that it wasn't all that dark with barbarians aspiring to be Romans in favor of a more violent interpretation of the era. One thing comes through, in spite of the barbarian leaders supposed affinity for Roman culture the rank-and-file were far less admiring and prone to looting, pillaging and all those sorts of things. Both Professors Peter Heather--whose book I've recently read--and Brad Ward-Perkins have weighed in on the side of the incursions being definitely on the ugly side of things. Carthage and it's province weren't quite a walkover, the Vandals landed in Africa in 428 AD and the city didn't fall until 439 AD.

[Neos Dionysos]

Recent scholarship seems to be pulling back from the view that it wasn't all that dark with barbarians aspiring to be Romans in favor of a more violent interpretation of the era. One thing comes through, in spite of the barbarian leaders supposed affinity for Roman culture the rank-and-file were far less admiring and prone to looting, pillaging and all those sorts of things. Both Professors Peter Heather--whose book I've recently read--and Brad Ward-Perkins have weighed in on the side of the incursions being definitely on the ugly side of things. Carthage and it's province weren't quite a walkover, the Vandals landed in Africa in 428 AD and the city didn't fall until 439 AD.

 

There is evidence that points to some areas coming under intense violence with the new barbarian arrivals and others of realtive calm. Peter Heather is an excellent scholar, though I have read books by J.H.W.G Liebeschuetz, (and a few other not so famous ones), who refute Heather.

 

Then again... it seems to a lot of scholars, they are right and everyone else is wrong...

 

Overall I'd say the areas I see hit hardest with violence is Hispania and Gaul, the other provinces, (when compared), got off kinda easy...

[Virgil61]

...

There is evidence that points to some areas coming under intense violence with the new barbarian arrivals and others of realtive calm. Peter Heather is an excellent scholar, though I have read books by J.H.W.G Liebeschuetz, (and a few other not so famous ones), who refute Heather.

 

Then again... it seems to a lot of scholars, they are right and everyone else is wrong...

 

Overall I'd say the areas I see hit hardest with violence is Hispania and Gaul, the other provinces, (when compared), got off kinda easy...

 

I'm sure it was very regionally specific and as usual the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle between the barbarian yearning to be a Roman and the foaming at the mouth pillagers. It's academia, new scholars have to make their mark so what's old is often new again and so on.

 

The area north and northwest of Macedonia got hit pretty hard as well when the Goths crossed over and set up shop for a couple of years. I'll look up Liebeschuetz and see what he's written.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Virgil61

[Neos Dionysos]

...

There is evidence that points to some areas coming under intense violence with the new barbarian arrivals and others of realtive calm. Peter Heather is an excellent scholar, though I have read books by J.H.W.G Liebeschuetz, (and a few other not so famous ones), who refute Heather.

 

Then again... it seems to a lot of scholars, they are right and everyone else is wrong...

 

Overall I'd say the areas I see hit hardest with violence is Hispania and Gaul, the other provinces, (when compared), got off kinda easy...

 

I'm sure it was very regionally specific and as usual the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle between the barbarian yearning to be a Roman and the foaming at the mouth pillagers. It's academia, new scholars have to make their mark so what's old is often new again and so on.

 

The area north and northwest of Macedonia got hit pretty hard as well when the Goths crossed over and set up shop for a couple of years. I'll look up Liebeschuetz and see what he's written.

 

He's written some excellent books... one of which as soon as I finish I'm reviewing for UNRV.

 

Yeah I know it did... infact Macedonia and Thrace and Epirus kinda got reamed for that period around 378-408. Though it was not constant pillaging, several times they were peaceful and simply inhabiated the land like a stationed army, not some migrating people. I simply choose Gaul and Hispania because they seemed hardest hit and the hitting lasted the longest compared to what the Goths did in the East and Italy, they came and went while in the Gaul etc, they just kept coming in successive waves for over 100 years with little down time...

[Kosmo]

For many, having Barbarians as your 'leaders' or those in control of you in the late empire was because either, 1) Rome put them in charge of the area like the Franks on the West Banks of the Rhine for instance,

The offical settelment as foederati is not a conquest so is not covered in what I'm talking about when I'm refering to open resistance to an invader.

or 2) because after so many years of Rome's inability to protect and safeguard the people of the provinces, it must have seemed a welcome relief to know a powerful new force was governing the area and one which would safegaurd the people. Little was done to change the adminstration or the civic authority system and so you had no real change in daily life. While there were those who supported a 'barbarian' leadership and those who simply refused to accept the disappearance of Roman control, most just exchanged one overriding power for another with little more than a blink of the eye.

Raiding was limited to border area where resistance was harder then in the depth of teritory. For exemple vandals and there allies suebians and alans broke the Rhine limes then thru Noricum to Italy where were defeated and their leader killed then to Southern Gaul towards Iberic peninsula. If a defeated army with loose components was able to carry such a trip thru the Western Empire it means that no serious resistance was offered after the army was pulled to Italy. No prolonged sieges, they just gave what were asked. And no guerilla campaigns or destruction of supllies to starve them, either.

 

In regards to Egypt and the Near East falling into Arab hands, the quick success of the Arabs is due to a series of factors, one of course being the Empire was exhausted militarily and financially after it's long war with Persia, (who easily fell to the Arabs because they were defeated by the ERE),

Again I'm not alking about the resistance of the roman army

but also because during the reign of Justinian and followed by his successors there was a large push to consolidate the church and to 'purge' the versions of Christianity the Patriachcy of Constantinople and the Emperor viewed as hereitic. This involved large areas of the Near East and Egypt, and so when the Arabs invaded and took over the land, there was little resistance because the the very foundations of Islam preached tolerance of other religions and a freedom of people to be whatever they choose. This freedom, lack of persection on the Arabs part was in contrast to the ERE's, "Either join us or pay..." mentality and policy and so the Arabs were seen as a relief more than a curse or bruden or something to fight against.

So, they were willing to give up being a part of Rome and christianity and to submit themselves to "pagans" and "barbarians" that they knew nothing about. Later persecutions started until christianity and local hellenistic and coptic groups were assimilated or destroyed. That is what i'm talking about, they did not care being "romans".

 

[just edited the quote tags = PP]

Edited February 15, 2006 by Primus Pilus

[Neos Dionysos]

Raiding was limited to border area where resistance was harder then in the depth of teritory. For exemple vandals and there allies suebians and alans broke the Rhine limes then thru Noricum to Italy where were defeated and their leader killed then to Southern Gaul towards Iberic peninsula. If a defeated army with loose components was able to carry such a trip thru the Western Empire it means that no serious resistance was offered after the army was pulled to Italy. No prolonged sieges, they just gave what were asked. And no guerilla campaigns or destruction of supllies to starve them, either.

 

If raiding was only limited to border actions, why did whole provinces fell it better to break away from central authority in Rome on a few key points from the 3rd century to the 5th.

 

The fact there was no military resistance, (because the army was concerned more with defending Rome), then the land could easily become under barbarian control. Are you then, a civilian or group of people in communities going to resist when you know how little Rome has done to protect you? No... they are going to accept the new rulership.

 

So, they were willing to give up being a part of Rome and christianity and to submit themselves to "pagans" and "barbarians" that they knew nothing about. Later persecutions started until christianity and local hellenistic and coptic groups were assimilated or destroyed. That is what i'm talking about, they did not care being "romans".

 

Well, you need to understand the short term. Would you rather live under a government that openly persecutes you and who will either force you to convert or kill you? Or would you rather take your chances with a new power who, in the beginning allowed freedom of religion and practice. Yes later on the same thing happened again, but not to the same people who showed passiveness to the newcomers. They cared about being Romans to a point, they cared more about thier faiths and beleifs and would rather give up being Roman than being forced away from thier choosen religious path.