Migration and the Fall

[Gaius Octavius]

The other day B.M. interviewed Thomas Cahill. Cahill suggested that he felt that the prime reason for the Fall, was that the barbarians wanted to get into the Empire for a better life and not to conquer it. It was Rome's refusal of entry that led to the invasions.

[Ursus]

I think it was the Hunnic hordes pushing behind them that caused them to seek entry into the Empire - they had nowhere else to go. The Empire couldn't possibly assimilate all the Germanic supertribes that had aggregated thanks to the Hun's advance. And the empire's failure to exterminate the hordes is what led to the fall.

[M. Porcius Cato]

On top of that, the Romans DID give lands to the Germanic tribes (to the Visigoths between Bordeaux and Toulouse), and the Visigoths were a nightmare.

[ASCLEPIADES]

It appears that, for any reason, the germanic people didn't like the idea of being enslaved for eventually becoming Roman citizens.

[spittle]

On top of that, the Romans DID give lands to the Germanic tribes (to the Visigoths between Bordeaux and Toulouse), and the Visigoths were a nightmare.

 

Didn't the grant of land in Gaul happen much too late to offset the problems that had been set in motion?

[M. Porcius Cato]

On top of that, the Romans DID give lands to the Germanic tribes (to the Visigoths between Bordeaux and Toulouse), and the Visigoths were a nightmare.

Didn't the grant of land in Gaul happen much too late to offset the problems that had been set in motion?

 

It depends on what you think the "problems that had been set in motion" were. If you view the chief problem as super-nasty barbarians (i.e., the Hunnic hordes) pushing nasty barbarians (i.e., the Germanic tribes) into the Romanized lands of Europe, then no time was a good time for the grant of land in Gaul.

 

I didn't see the Moyer special (not that I make any effort whatever to watch Bill Moyer), but as summarized above, the view that the Roman Empire fell because it wasn't accommodating enough of the barbarians seems contradicted by the consequences of the land grant to the Visigoths.

[spittle]

My question was based on the Rise and Fall docudrama.

 

Which showed the events as Honorius trying to stall the Visigoths until they lost patience and sacked Rome. It ended with the line "...eight years later the Visigoths found a home in South West France'.

 

The entire programme was very sympathetic towards the 'barbarians' but that seems to be the way the wind blows in the current climate.

[Ursus]

On top of that, the Romans DID give lands to the Germanic tribes (to the Visigoths between Bordeaux and Toulouse), and the Visigoths were a nightmare.

 

Yeah, good point. It was a devil's bargain with the Vandals. And the devils took their due when they seized North Africa, thus ending any hope left for the West.

[M. Porcius Cato]

On top of that, the Romans DID give lands to the Germanic tribes (to the Visigoths between Bordeaux and Toulouse), and the Visigoths were a nightmare.

Yeah, good point. It was a devil's bargain with the Vandals. And the devils took their due when they seized North Africa, thus ending any hope left for the West.

 

Exactly. Africa was almost undefended despite its vital importance, leaving almost the entire former Carthaginian empire vulnerable.

[M. Porcius Cato]

My question was based on the Rise and Fall docudrama. Which showed the events as Honorius trying to stall the Visigoths until they lost patience and sacked Rome. It ended with the line "...eight years later the Visigoths found a home in South West France'. The entire programme was very sympathetic towards the 'barbarians' but that seems to be the way the wind blows in the current climate.

 

I know what you mean. Maybe a reasonable case can be made that the Roman treatment of the Goths led to problems for Rome, but to think that Rome should have thrown open her borders to every wandering Germanic tribe flies in the face of the fundamental differences in lifestyle and in values that kept these tribes from Hellenizing in the first place. If these tribes weren't open to specialized trade, specialized agriculture, and city-building, what good could possibly come from giving them a swath of land? Without knowing how to make the most productive use of the land, they couldn't possibly do more with it than the Romanized Gauls.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I think the Visigoths were not given land, they took it.

 

Here comes Jordanes, Getica, Cp. XXXV-XXXVI:

 

"The Visigoths, who were their other allies and inhabitants of the western country, were terrified as their kinsmen had been, and knew not how to plan for safety against the race of the Huns. After long deliberation by common consent they finally sent ambassadors into Romania to the Emperor Valens, brother of Valentinian, the elder Emperor, to say that if he would give them part of Thrace or Moesia to keep, they would submit themselves to his laws and commands. That he might have greater confidence in them, they promised to become Christians, if he would give them teachers who spoke their language... They themselves as we have said, crossed the Danube and settled Dacia Ripensis, Moesia and Thrace by permission of the Emperor. Soon famine and want came upon them, as often happens to a people not yet well settled in a country. Their princes and the leaders who ruled them in place of kings, that is Fritigern, Alatheus and Safrac, began to lament the plight of their army and begged Lupicinus and Maximus, the Roman commanders, to open a market. But to what will not the "cursed lust for gold" compel men to assent? The generals, swayed by avarice, sold them at a high price not only the flesh of sheep and oxen, but even the carcasses of dogs and unclean animals, so that a slave would be bartered for a loaf of bread or ten pounds of meat. When their goods and chattels failed, the greedy trader demanded their sons in return for the necessities of life. And the parents consented even to this, in order to provide for the safety of their children, arguing that it was better to lose liberty than life; and indeed it is better that one be sold, if he will be mercifully fed, than that he should be kept free only to die. Now it came to pass in that troubIous time that Lupicinus, the Roman general, invited Fritigern, a chieftain of the Goths, to a feast and, as the event revealed, devised a plot against him. But Fritigern, thinking no evil, came to the feast with a few followers. While he was dining in the praetorium he heard the dying cries of his ill-fated men, for, by order of the general, the soldiers were slaying his companions who were shut up in another part of the house. The loud cries of the dying fell upon ears already suspicious, and Fritigern at once perceived the treacherous trick. He drew his sword and with great courage dashed quickly from the banqueting-hall, rescued his men from their threatening doom and incited them to slay the Romans. Thus these valiant men gained the chance they had longed for--to be free to die in battle rather than to perish of hunger--and immediately took arms to kill the generals Lupicinus and Maximus. Thus that day put an end to the famine of the Goths and the safety of the Romans, for the Goths no longer as strangers and pilgrims, but as citizens and lords, began to rule the inhabitants and to hold in their own right all the northern country as far as the Danube. When the Emperor Valens heard of this at Antioch, he made ready an army at once and set out for the country of Thrace. Here a grievous battle took place and the Goths prevailed. The Emperor himself was wounded and fled to a farm near Hadrianople. The Goths, not knowing that an emperor lay hidden in so poor a hut, set fire to it (as is customary in dealing with a cruel foe), and thus he was cremated in royal splendor... From this time the Visigoths, in consequence of their glorious victory, possessed Thrace and Dacia Ripensis as if it were their native land."

 

A good example of bad politics regarding the Germanic people from the Roman side.

[Primus Pilus]

The original Goths were also given land by Valens (or not rejected after they forcibly settled) on the south side of the Danube c. 376. In fact these are the very same Goths who essentially took over Dacia roughly a century earlier. This settlement quickly devolved into violence and led to the defeat of Valens at Adrianople, but it shows that the Romans did attempt to be accommodating. They either mismanaged those who were allowed to settle or were overwhelmed by massive migration beyond their control.

 

Edit.. woops... ASC beat me to the punch in the post above. In any case, be aware of the difference between the two situations... the settlement of Dacia/Moesia and further migrations west.

[Divi Filius]

The Franks were also given a small piece of territory in the northern point of Gaul under the time of Julian on the basis that they would protect the frontier there -- which they did. However, like the Vandals, they then began their expansion from there. As the imperial sources were thinning, grants of such land to the barbarians was a way that the Romans could maintain their empire. Originally, these lands were still under Roman control and contributed what was then a very important asset to the empire: defense and soldiers. As time went on, the Franks began to expand and experienced much of the same thing that other tribes did.

 

This is a very typical imperial method under decline. As the borders begin to be troubles and resources fail, many empires resort to sort of nominally-independent entities that are given extra freedoms in the hope of controlling the frontier. The Normans were given Normandy in the hope that they would defend it against further Viking(Norseman) raids. During the Byzantine Empire, various groups were settled in territories that the Byzantines expected them to defend these lands. In a very similar case to the Roman decline, around the 13-14th century Albanian tribes began invading regions around modern Greece. In an effort to bring them into his control, the Byzantine Emperor granted them land around many of the regions that they had settled in the hopes that they would now defend those lands(hitherto undefended) against further incursions, which they did.

 

Roger Collins, in Early Medieval Europe: 300-1000, argues that this is actually a positive development as if often frees up valuable resources. In the case of the later Romans, Byzantines and Ottomans, as the empire heads into headlong decline, these independent entities serve their purpose by strengthening their individual provinces, thus allowing them to thrive again. Under the later Ottoman Empire, you had the famous Ali Pasha who created a semi-independent state in Epirus. The state actually became quite a power and was viewed as a bigger threat to European interests then the Ottoman Empire itself. Collins argued that as empires decline, its only logical that independent entities will spring up that would seek to centralize resources. We can find such cases in the Gallic Empire, which sprang up during the 3rd century. The problem with the Germanic Kingdoms is that they lacked the Roman skill for administration and bureaucracy.

 

Other examples can be found in events such as the reconquest of Africa and Italy, which actually weakened the Byzantine state and the given provinces.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Divi Filius

[Kosmo]

Good point DF!

Granting land does not solve problems for a long period. If the settled tribe it's weaker then other enemies it can not defend the province it's given. This happened with the vandals that were given Pannonia only to be chased out by huns and forced in to the empire where they gave some nasty blows (I see the vandal invasion as the begining of the end for the west)

If they are strong enough to defend the area that they were given then they are strong enough to beat the romans (or use the many problems the emire had) and expand and that is what happened in Gaul.

Giving roman land to barbarians was a stop gap measure and I don't think it was used too much. Usually by this grants the romans had to accept what has already happened - the de facto germanic conquest of an area. I like Peter Heather opinions on this.

[Northern Neil]

... but to think that Rome should have thrown open her borders to every wandering Germanic tribe flies in the face of the fundamental differences in lifestyle and in values that kept these tribes from Hellenizing in the first place. If these tribes weren't open to specialized trade, specialized agriculture, and city-building, what good could possibly come from giving them a swath of land? Without knowing how to make the most productive use of the land, they couldn't possibly do more with it than the Romanized Gauls.

This may have been true of the Visigoths in Aquitaine, but it must be said that the Roman way of life, political structures and material culture remained almost unchanged in Italy during Odoacer's reign and that of the Ostrogoths. It only ended when the Roman Empire re-took the province smashing up half of the cities whilst so doing.