Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome

by Ian Hughes

  The intention is not to follow either of these views, but to look afresh at Stilicho’s career and attempt to reach a balanced conclusion as to his aims and motives and success or failure in achieving them. All of the available information will be analysed and modern viewpoints weighed before conclusions are reached. However, throughout it should be noted that all of the conclusions are open to question, as the sources are not conclusive, and that new theories are constantly being formed.

  One other factor needs to be borne in mind. Stilicho lived and died 1,600 years before this book was written. In the intervening time the vast majority of information concerning his life and times has been lost. What remains is heavily biased either for or against Stilicho and needs to be closely analysed to determine how useful it is. As a consequence, it is impossible to form a clear picture of Stilicho as an individual and to gain a clear insight into his mental processes. All that is possible is an attempt to reconstruct the broad outline of his policies and personality.

  The sources

  The majority of the primary sources that cover the life of Stilicho are biased, either for or against him. As an example, Claudian wrote panegyrics (eulogies written in praise of individuals) for Stilicho and is definitely favourable to his regime, whilst Eunapius, a pagan, was hostile to Stilicho. Historians have tended to choose between these extremes, depending on their ultimate aim. However, this method is not really acceptable. Roman writers were extremely well-versed in their art and capable of writing very effective pieces of propaganda. Yet, as anyone who has studied the methods of propaganda will know, the aim is not to invent flaws, since invention can be disproved, after which the argument loses much of its force. Instead, wherever possible, actual events are manipulated until they fit the desired portrayal. As a result, whenever possible, when two different portrayals of events occur they will be analysed to determine whether they can both be seen as describing the same event but from different perspectives. In this way it is hoped that a more balanced view of Stilicho can be achieved, rather than one which relies on specific texts which are undeniably flawed. In the list of sources given, wherever possible their overall bias either for or against Stilicho is given and needs to be remembered at all times.

  However, one other factor must be mentioned. Ancient historians were not writing ‘modern’ history. It is now believed that the best form of historical writing tries to present a balanced view of events, and includes all of the relevant information in order to build a complete picture of ‘cause and effect’. This was not true in the past. Roman historians ‘insisted upon personalizing events and on reducing complicated historical developments to a simplistic narrative’.2 Therefore, each individual historian had an agenda, whether it was to promote a patron, to see all events as being acts of treachery, or some other variation on these themes. Therefore, anybody reading the ancient sources must always remember which theme the writer is developing and incorporate this into the analysis.

  Secular sources

  Ammianus Marcellinus

  Ammianus Marcellinus (c.325–390) wrote a History of Rome covering the Empire from the accession of the Emperor Nerva (96–98) to the Battle of Adrianople (378). Although the first thirteen books have been lost, the work is valuable for its detail and accuracy when covering the events leading up to the Battle of Adrianople and the elevation of the Emperor Theodosius.

  Claudian Claudianus (Claudian)

  Claudian Claudianus (Claudian) (died c.404) was the ‘best known of a long list of Egyptian poets from the fourth to the fifth centuries’.3 Travelling from Egypt to Rome before 395 he wrote a panegyric to the brothers Probinus and Olybrius when they were elected as consuls by the Emperor Theodosius for 395. Shortly after, he accepted the patronage of Stilicho, for whom he wrote several panegyrics. He also wrote panegyrics on other occasions for the Emperor Honorius, as well as a ‘History’ in poetic form of the war against Gildo (Chapter 8) and many other works. His works are the main source of information about the life and career of Stilicho. However, as they are panegyrics they must be used with extreme caution. Despite this, they are invaluable in attempting to unravel Stilicho’s personal life and the policies he adopted with regard to ‘ruling’ the Western Empire.

  Eunapius of Sardis

  Eunapius of Sardis (Sart, Turkey: c.347 to early fifth century) wrote a continuation of the History of Dexippus which covered the years c.270–404. His work does not survive but is partially and indirectly preserved because Zosimus did little more than paraphrase Eunapius when recording events up to c.404. Eunapius was a pagan and was bitterly opposed to Christianity, a factor which affects his works. He was also hostile to Stilicho, which in one way is useful as it acts as a balance to the panegyrics of Claudian.

  Gregory of Tours

  See Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

  Jordanes

  Jordanes (c.550) wrote two books. The Romana (On Rome) is a very brief epitome of events from the founding of Rome until 552. Due to the fact that it is extremely condensed, it can be useful but offers little that cannot be found elsewhere. He also wrote the Getica (Origins and Deeds of the Goths). This work is valuable in that it contains a lot of information that would otherwise be lost, especially those parts which may demonstrate a Gothic viewpoint. Unfortunately, due to its bias towards the Goths it must be used with extreme caution.4

  Olympiodorus of Thebes

  Olympiodorus of Thebes (born c.380) wrote History of the Western Empire, which covered events between 407 and 425, but this has been lost. However, like the works of Eunapius it has in a way been preserved due to it being used by Zosimus and Sozomen as the basis for events up to 410 and the sack of Rome by the Goths. A diplomat, he had good access to sources and so the History may have contained a lot of accurate information. Again like Eunapius, he was a pagan but, unlike Eunapius, he approved of Stilicho’s policies. The early contradictions between Eunapius and Olympiodorus demonstrate that Stilicho’s policies divided opinion.

  Procopius

  Procopius (c.500 to c.554) wrote the Wars of Justinian. In these he describes the wars fought by the general Belisarius on behalf of the Eastern Emperor Justinian. Included are many asides and brief entries concerning the history of the West and of the Germanic peoples who had overrun the Empire. Usually he is assumed to be reliable but caution is needed where his work concerns events outside his own lifetime.

  Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus

  Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus (fl. fifth century) wrote a history that only survives in fragments. Fortunately, he was used as a source by Gregory of Tours, from which many items of value can be gleaned.

  Salvian

  Salvian (fl. fifth century) wrote a work known as De gubernatione Dei (On the Government of God: also known as De praesenti judicio) in which he describes life in fifth-century Gaul and contrasts the ‘wickedness’ of the Romans with the ‘virtues’ of the barbarians. Although written with a specific purpose, it can be used with care to furnish relevant information about conditions in Gaul after the invasions of 406.

  Scriptores Historiae Augustae

  The Scriptores Historiae Augustae was probably written in 395 by an unknown author or authors. Although too early to include information on Stilicho, many of the attitudes and assumptions upon which it is based can be used to interpret the views and beliefs of the Western Senate at the start of the reign of Honorius and the supremacy of Stilicho.5

  Zosimus

  Zosimus (c.500) wrote the Historia Nova (New History), which covers the period from the mid-third century to 410. He appears to have used two main sources for his information. Eunapius was used for events to 404 and Olympiodorus was used for the years from c.407–410. Zosimus was a pagan, writing in Constantinople, who was determined to show that Christianity was the reason for the disasters suffered by the Empire. He closely follows Eunapius and Olympiodorus, including in his work their biases towards Stilicho. This copying is so close that in the early part of the work he follows Eunapius and castigate
s Stilicho. Eunapius’ work ends in 404 and at this point Zosimus is forced to turn to Olympiodorus. The transition is obvious, as in Book 5, Chapter 34, he stops castigating Stilicho, following Eunapius, and starts to praise Stilicho, following Olympiodorus. As it is obvious that he is not critical of his sources, although his work is useful it needs a great amount of caution when it is being used.

  Church histories

  Much of the information about Stilicho has to be gleaned from sources more concerned with ecclesiastical affairs. In some respects this can be interpreted as a negative aspect, but it is only their focus upon church history and the subsequent copying by churchmen that has allowed them to survive.

  Ambrose

  Ambrose (c.340 to April 397) was the Bishop of Milan during the early years of Stilicho’s dominance. He wrote and delivered a eulogy on the death of the Emperor Theodosius in 395, the De obitu Theodosii and many of his letters still survive. His works are extremely useful in attempting to assess Stilicho’s early policies and the workings of the bureaucracy, but unfortunately only a few items are relevant.

  Augustine

  Augustine (354–430) wrote many works, including De civitate dei (The City of God), which was written after the Gothic sack of Rome in 410. It includes information which is useful in reconstructing events concerning Stilicho, but the moralizing Christian nature of the work needs to be taken into account.

  Orosius

  Orosius (c.380 to c.418) wrote the Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII (Seven Books of History Against the Pagans), which he completed in 418.6 As Ororius was more concerned with defending Christianity rather than writing a true history the work is ‘superficial and fragmentary’.7 However, it is extremely valuable in that it includes a lot of detail concerning the years 395 to 410.

  Socrates Scholasticus

  Socrates Scholasticus (born c.380) wrote the Historia Ecclesiastica (Church History), which covers the years 305–439. It was written during the reign of Emperor Theodosius II (408–450). Written solely as a history of the church it contains much information on secular events, but mainly only where they impinge on church history. However, these items are otherwise unrecorded so they can offer unique insights into events.

  Sozomen

  Sozomen (c.400 to c.450) also wrote a Historia Ecclesiastica (Church History) sometime around the year 430. The section covering the life of Stilicho is in Book 9, which, like Zosimus, incorporates a lot of information from Olympiodorus. Therefore, it should be remembered that the two writers cannot be cross-referenced against each other as proof of events, since they both used the same source.

  Theoderet

  Theoderet (c.393 to c.457) wrote many works on Christian doctrine, but more importantly also wrote a Historia Ecclesiastica (Church History) which begins in 325 and ends in 429. He used several sources, including, amongst others, Sozomen, Rufinus, Eusebius and Socrates. Possibly due to the mixed nature of his sources, the work is chronologically confused and must be used with caution.

  Letters

  Many letters written at this time survive. Although most are obviously of a personal nature, some include snippets of information about Stilicho and imperial affairs. These can be valuable in filling in details but their accuracy in most areas remains unknown.

  Amongst others, the letters of Saint Jerome (c.347–420), who also wrote a chronicle that ended in 380, Gaudentius (d. 410) and Paulinus of Nola (c.354–451) can help to illuminate otherwise unknown aspects of Stilicho’s life.

  Chronicles

  The Chronica Gallica of 452 is a continuation of the Chronicle of Jerome covering the years 379 to 452. The Chronica Gallica of 511 also begins in 379 and continues to 511. Due to the similarity between the two, it is possible to see the Chronicle of 511 as a continuation of the Chronicle of 452. Both of these works contain useful information but need to be used with care, since the dates given may not in fact be accurate.

  Hydatius

  Hydatius (c.400 to c.469) wrote a chronicle covering events from 379 to the middle of the fifth century. Although potentially valuable, his work contains many errors and must be used with extreme caution.

  Marcellinus Comes

  Marcellinus Comes (c. Sixth Century) wrote a chronicle which covers the period from 379 to 534 (an unknown writer continued the chronicle down to 566). Although mainly about the Eastern Empire, he included some information concerning the West, drawn mainly from Orosius.

  Prosper Tiro

  Prosper Tiro (Prosper of Aquitaine: c.390 to c.455) wrote a continuation of Jerome’s Chronicle. Prosper’s Chronicle finishes in 455.

  Other sources

  Notitia Dignitatum

  The Notitia Dignitatum is an extremely important document. It purports to list the bureaucratic and military organization of both the Eastern and Western ‘Roman’ Empires. Thousands of offices are listed. Dated to c.420 for the West and c.395 for the East, it is potentially a mine of statistical and legal information. Unfortunately there are many problems. Probably originating with the Emperor Theodosius in the East, it may in theory have been intended as a full list of offices. Unfortunately, it was not kept strictly up to date and there are many omissions and duplications. Moreover, due to the fragmentation of the Empire during and immediately after Stilicho’s lifetime, it is uncertain whether many of the army units listed existed in reality or only on paper. As a consequence, information taken from the Notitia should be accepted as possible rather than certain.

  Collectio Avellana

  The Collectio Avellana is a collection of documents dating from 367 to 553. Included is a letter from the Emperor Honorius to the Emperor Arcadius.

  Codex Theodosianus

  The Codex Theodosianus is a collection made during the reign of Theodosius II in the East of all of the laws since the reign of Constantine I. It includes many laws made either by or for Stilicho and so gives a window into aspects of his life and career that would otherwise be blank. As the laws are usually dated the Codex is also useful as evidence for the timing of events and can give insights into Stilicho’s political and military policies.

  As has already been noted, the detailed information that is available in the sources should not detract us from the knowledge that they were all written with a purpose. Even when this bias is openly declared it can easily be overlooked or forgotten. If this is the case with the major sources as listed above, it is even more the case with the multitude of minor sources not listed. The less important sources which are used are of varying accuracy and utility; however, where necessary, an analysis of these will be dealt with in the body of the text. However, if the source only gives us one or two snippets of information then it is possible that the source will not be analysed.

  Abbreviations

  In order to make the references more manageable, the following abbreviations have been used for ancient sources:

  Saint Ambrose Amb.

  Ammianus Marcellinus Amm. Marc.

  Augustine Aug.

  Chronica Gallica of 452 Chron. Gall. 452

  Chronica Gallica of 511 Chron. Gall. 511

  Claudian Claudianus (Claudian) Claud.

  Collectio Avellana Collect. Avell.

  Eunapius of Sardis Eun.

  Gaudentius Gaud.

  Gregory of Tours Greg. Tur.

  Hydatius Hyd.

  Jordanes Jord.

  Marcellinus Comes Marc. Com.

  Notitia Dignitatum Not. Dig.

  Olympiodorus of Thebes Olymp.

  Orosius Oros.

  Paulinus of Nola Paul.

  Procopius Proc.

  Prosper Tiro Prosp.

  Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus Ren. Prof.

  Saint Jerome Jer.

  Salvian Salv.

  Scriptores Historiae Augustae Scrip. His.

  Socrates Scholasticus Soc.

  Sozomen Soz.

  Theoderet Theod.

  Zosimus Zos.

  1. The Roman Empire on the death of Theodosius.

  2. The ene
mies of the Roman Empire, AD 395.

  Chapter One

  The Roman Empire and its Neighbours

  Rome

  Stilicho was born sometime around the year 360. By this time the Empire had recovered from the rapid turnover of emperors and the barbarian invasions of the third century. Although civil war was still common and the threats of attack by ‘barbarians’ across the northern and eastern borders still remained, it was a period of relative peace after the chaos of the previous century.

  The emperors Diocletian and Constantine are credited with major changes in the structure of the Empire, especially with regard to the bureaucratic, financial and military spheres. The details of these changes need not detain us here: where such detail is needed this will be covered at the appropriate point. However, certain trends need to be highlighted as they play a pivotal role in the life of Stilicho.

  The first of these concerns the bureaucracy. The ‘civil service’ had greatly expanded following the reign of Diocletian and his inauguration of the Tetrarchy. In this the Empire had been divided and each half had been ruled by an Augustus (emperor). Each Augustus had his own Caesar (deputy and successor) to help run his half of the Empire. Each of the four co-rulers had a Praefectus Praetorio (praetorian prefect) to help with the administration of their ‘quarter’ of the Empire. Over the course of time the role of the Praefectus had changed from a military to a civilian post. However, each Praefectus still wielded great power and could influence military affairs as they retained control of the main logistical system of the Empire. Although abandoned on the death of Diocletian, the system of using four Praefecti was revived under Constantine. As time passed the position of prefect became more influential.

  The second trend was a change in the nature of the army. The ‘old’, c.5,000-man legions were replaced by smaller entities numbering c.1,000 men, although some of the older formations may have continued to exist, possibly at the reduced number of c.3,000, on the borders.1 This was for a variety of reasons, for example easing the logistical burdens by splitting troops into smaller formations and having them supplied from local areas to ease the difficulty of transporting goods over long distances. It was also in response to changes in the nature of Roman warfare. Large-scale battles were now becoming rare, with most conflicts being small-scale skirmishes and the repelling of limited border raids. Roman forays into barbarian territory rarely ended in battle, the tribesmen preferring to withdraw before the might of Rome. A further change was a policy of deploying troops either in or near to cities to act as garrisons, as described in the Notitia Dignitatum. Although still often perceived as being ‘mobile field armies’, in practice they tended to remain stationary unless called on by the very highest military authority: either an Augustus or a Caesar.