Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome

by Ian Hughes

  3. The tetrarchy and the prefectures of the Roman Empire.

  As time progressed there had also been a change in the nature of the higher officers commanding the army. Although barbarian leaders were able to enrol in the army from an early date, they could not rise to the highest level earlier in the Empire due to being outside the ‘cursus honorum’ (‘course of honours’), the sequential order of public offices held by the Roman nobility. The granting of citizenship to the free population of the Empire by Caracalla in 212 and the crises faced by the Empire during the third century appear to have eroded traditional appointments. For example, senators had been barred from holding military office, probably in an attempt to restrict the number of revolts.2 Subsequently, men of the equestrian class came to fill the posts previously reserved for senators. The barbarian nobles expected and received the status of equestrian and so gained the benefits that went with that status, including increasingly high posts within the army hierarchy. By the early fourth century Germanic officers were reaching the higher levels of military command within the Empire.3 This trend would reach its pinnacle during the lifetime of Stilicho: by the end of the fourth century many of the top ranking officers were of Germanic extraction.

  An often-overlooked development was in the financial sphere. Massive inflation had resulted in coins rapidly losing their value, partly as a product of debasement – the mixing of base metals with the gold or silver used to make the coins. The result was that lower denomination coins became increasingly worthless and only when Constantine introduced the aureus, a relatively stable gold coin, did the problem of inflation ease slightly. However, what is usually disregarded is that this would only help the rich and powerful, not the lower classes: the lower denomination coins continued to lose their value as they were continually debased. As a consequence, when Germanic invaders demanded gold for their peaceful cooperation, the burden tended to fall on rich senators who had political power. Consequently, any leader who gave away too much money in subsidies to barbarians would incur the hostility of powerful men who had the means to make their grievances felt.

  Society

  It is possible to see the later Empire as one in which the divisions within society contributed to the fall of the West. Over time the rich became wealthier. This was partly because many farmers were forced to sell their lands or their service to the rich in order to fulfil their tax obligations. Consequently, the rich greatly increased their holdings and wealth whilst many of the poorer people were forced into poverty. The outcome was that the wealthy came to hold power greatly disproportionate to their numbers. Once ensconced in their position, these same men tended to use their influence to protect their own interests rather than those of the state.

  An example of their influence may be seen in the repeated elevation of usurpers in outlying provinces to the role of ‘emperor’. These usurpers were supported by local magnates who felt that their own interests were at risk, and decided to support a man who promised to protect them. Usurpers could not have made such a bid without the support of the local magnates.

  At the opposite end of the spectrum is the rise of the bacaudae in the West. The origin and nature of the bacaudae remains unclear, but it would seem that the phenomenon was mainly one of armed ‘uprisings’ by peasants in the less-Romanized areas of Gaul and Spain. The movement may have been enlarged, if not started, as a result of poorer peasants taking up arms to protect themselves and/or survive. Yet this is not the only example of peasant unrest in the West: there are numerous instances of local peasants helping invading armies, either by joining them or by guiding them to stockpiles of food and supplies.

  Yet we must be wary of exaggerating the tendency of people to rebel against the Empire. Although it is natural for those with wealth to wish to safeguard it, there is a large difference between desiring a change of policy and actively becoming involved in supporting a usurper: if on the losing side, the magnates risked not only their own lives but those of their entire families. Likewise, the tendency amongst the poorer citizens was probably to see events as just one more burden that they had to bear in an extremely unjust world. The power of apathy amongst the poor should not be underestimated. The apathy may to some extent have been assisted by the rise of Christianity. The promise of rewards in the afterlife will have made many more tolerant of conditions in this life, as they were confident that their forbearance would be rewarded by God.

  The fourth century

  After the death of Diocletian there were further outbreaks of civil war. These continued until 324, when Constantine I gained complete control of the Empire. His dynasty continued to rule – in between fighting each other in yet more civil wars – until the death of Julian in 363 during his invasion of Persia. Jovian was made emperor on the spot to replace him and was forced to conclude a humiliating peace treaty to extract his army from Persia. Possibly as a reaction to the peace treaty, Jovian was killed in the following year (364) on his journey to Constantinople to accept the throne.

  There followed the accession of Valentinian I and the beginning of a new dynasty. Valentinian, who was to reign until 375, quickly appointed his brother Valens to rule in the East. These two men were the emperors at the time of Stilicho’s birth, and Valentinian’s generalship and strength ensured that during this period the Germanic tribes in the West were contained and their invasions repelled, although the pressure on the borders of the Empire remained intense.

  Valentinian I

  After his accession, Valentinian spent time organizing his half of the Empire before travelling to Gaul to direct operations against the Alamanni, who in 366 had entered imperial territory. Forced to retreat, they regrouped before launching a further attack in 367. Valentinian and his army defeated them in battle, but the Romans also suffered high casualties. After negotiations, in 371 Valentinian made peace with their king, Macrianus and then spent time on improving defences along the Rhine.

  4. The division of the Empire under Valentinian II, Gratian and Valens.

  Due to his personal focus on the activities of the Alamanni, when in 368 groups of Saxons, Picts and Scots raided Britain, Valentinian sent one of the comes rei militaris (‘count’ of the military), Theodosius, to recover and stabilize the situation across the Channel. In a similar manner, when in 372 a Moorish prince named Firmus rebelled in the province of Africa, in the following year Theodosius was again sent to restore the province to imperial control. Betrayed by some of his supporters, Firmus committed suicide rather than allowing himself to be captured. However, Theodosius was not to enjoy his reputation for long: in late 375 or early 376, possibly due to political intrigues at court, he was arrested and executed. His son, also named Theodosius, was spared and retired to live on his estates in Spain.

  Unfortunately for Valentinian, the building of new forts along the Rhine resulted in increased tension. Following the death of one of their leaders, Gabinius, in 374, and claiming that the Empire had erected forts on their territory, the Quadi invaded Pannonia. Valentinian moved with an army to meet them. However, infuriated by the behaviour of their ambassadors, Valentinian suffered an apoplectic fit and died on 17 November 375.

  Gratian and Valentinian II in the West

  Valentinian was succeeded by his sons Gratian and Valentinian II, who were born of different mothers. Gratian had been acclaimed as Augustus as early as 367 at the age of eight but on the death of Valentinian in 375 the troops in Pannonia had acclaimed Valentinian II as co-emperor, although he was only around seven years old. Rather than fight a civil war Gratian acceded to their claims. Gratian chose to rule Gaul, Spain and Britain, leaving Italy, Illyricum and Africa to Valentinian II.

  Gratian accepted his Uncle Valens’ decision to allow the Goths to enter the Empire in 376. However, when the Goths rebelled against Roman rule in 378 Gratian was delayed as he was fighting against the Alamanni (being only ten years old, Valentinian was not expected to lead the army in the West). The delay meant that Gratian and the Western army missed the Ba
ttle of Adrianople.

  Valens

  Upon his accession in 364 the most pressing dilemma faced by Valens was the situation on the Eastern frontier. The Persians were intent on gaining the maximum benefits from the peace treaty of 363–4 and Valens’ first task was to limit the extent of the damage to the frontiers. However, this was to be postponed for several years.

  First, in 366 he was faced with the rebellion of Procopius, the last member of the Constantinian family. Valens had a shaky start yet managed to prevail and Procopius was defeated, but before Valens could head East he was faced with disturbing reports from across the Danube. He was informed that the Tervingi, a Gothic tribe north of the Danube, were planning to invade. Earlier in the century (332), Constantine I had defeated the Tervingi and made a treaty with them. They had kept to the treaty and had been preparing to support Procopius as the last descendant of Constantine’s dynasty. When Procopius’ attempt on the throne failed, their king, Athanaric, appears to have decided to act unilaterally.

  In order to pre-empt their invasion, in 367 Valens crossed the Danube. The Tervingi retreated and Valens could not bring them to battle. Floods on the Danube the following year halted any attempt to repeat the invasion, but in 369 Valens crossed the Danube and defeated the Greuthungi (another Gothic tribe) before defeating the Tervingi. Athanaric was forced to sign a treaty, but was now hostile to the Empire and especially to the Arian Christianity supported by Valens and followed by many of his own people. According to some sources, as a result of his ‘defeat’ Athanaric began a persecution of those amongst his own people who had become Arian Christians.4

  Sozomen and Socrates claim that the persecution resulted in a civil war amongst the Tervingi. The details are unknown, except that Valens appears to have supported Fritigern, the leading Arian Christian, against Athanaric. The precise chronology of these events is unknown, but this is unimportant. The vital information is that Valens and Fritigern had been allies prior to the events of 376.

  The German tribes

  By the fourth century many changes appear to have taken place within ‘Germanic’ society. These appear to have been partly the product of prolonged contact with Rome and a consequence of Roman interaction with German politics. The presence of an imperial power on their borders seems to have resulted in tribes being willing to form confederations far larger than those of earlier centuries, as their combined size made them more resistant to attack, either by the Romans or from other Germans. Yet one difficulty remained for these new confederacies: the individual tribes always had the option of forsaking the confederation and of acting on their own. An example of the complex nature of these tribal alliances can be found in the work of Ammianus Marcellinus. At the Battle of Strasbourg in 357 the Alamanni had two supreme kings, five subkings (proximi reges), ten princes (regali) and numerous lesser nobles.5 The net result was that various leaders were always vying for power within each confederation.

  Therefore, Germanic tribal groupings were not necessarily permanent, but dependent upon shifting loyalties and external influences. An illustration of this was the Goths. Until recently, it has been assumed that from time immemorial there had been two ruling ‘dynasties’, the Balthi and the Amals. This is far too simplistic a picture. Under pressure from the Huns they split into a myriad of smaller tribal entities. At different times some, but not all, of these smaller tribes attempted to enter the Empire.6

  Another basic concept that has been challenged recently is the ‘ethnic’ nature of the various tribes. Tribal composition has usually been accepted as homogenous. For example, all Goths would be in tribal associations with other Goths, all Franks with other Franks and so on. An inspection of the evidence has led to this too being reassessed. Although groups such as the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths and the Franks had a core of eponymous tribesmen, they were often joined by neighbouring tribes in attacks upon the Empire. The most famous example of this is the crossing of the Rhine by a mixed force of Vandals, Sueves and Alans in 406. Yet it would appear from recent analysis that even where a single name is given to a large force, other tribes would be present. In fact, archaeology has shown the continuation of Dacian and Sarmatian cultures under Gothic rule, so there is a strong possibility that Sarmatian and Dacian tribes at least were represented amongst those that pleaded to be allowed to cross the Rhine in 376.7

  The question then remains as to how well these tribes could communicate. Broadly speaking, it is now assumed by linguists that Franks on the Rhine would find it difficult, if not impossible, to communicate on a daily basis with Goths on the Black Sea. As a result, two possible models emerge.

  The first is that different tribes tended to amalgamate only with those near to them. These peoples had the ability to communicate using a ‘common language’, possibly a simplified version of their combined languages using shared words and phrases. This model probably applies to the tribes which appeared on the Danube in 376, helping to foster the notion that they were all ‘Goths’.

  The second model is where the leaders of the tribes conversed, probably in Latin, but the rank-and-file members of the tribes failed to merge and so kept their separate identities. This would appear to be the case with, for example, the Vandals, Alans and Sueves that crossed the Rhine in 406, since once in Spain they separated into their tribal groupings and each took one of three distinct areas.

  The amalgamation of large groups that could not converse with each other may have been helped by the Romans. During the course of the fourth and fifth centuries it became more common for at least some tribesmen, and especially the nobles, to spend some time in service in the Roman army. It is possible to suggest therefore that the leaders of tribes that did not share a language learned to use Latin to communicate, since by the end of the fourth century this could be understood by a large number of the nobles amongst the tribes.

  One final aspect of Germanic culture needs to be addressed. Most of the tribes on the northern frontiers are grouped as ‘Germani’ by the majority of Roman authors and called ‘German/Germanic’ by modern historians. However understandable and useful, this simplistic approach can lead to false assumptions and biases that had no place in the fourth and fifth centuries AD.

  A clear example of this comes in the discussions about Stilicho’s Vandal birth and loyalty to Rome. Both ancient and modern writers wonder why he remained loyal to the Roman cause when fighting fellow ‘Germans’ such as the Goths. Such a question would be meaningless to Stilicho: of Vandalic descent, he shared neither a cultural bond nor a language with the Goths. Furthermore, the tribes of the fourth century did not have a ‘shared cultural heritage’: to the tribes of the Rhine those of the Danube were simply an alien group of warriors.

  As a consequence, it should be remembered that when historians talk about ‘The Goths’ or ‘The Huns’ (and others), allowance must be made for the likelihood that included in these groupings would be tribes of different origin, and that many of the rank and file may have been unable to converse freely with each other. It should also be emphasized that due to the linguistic barriers there may not have been a shared sense of kinship and intrinsic loyalty to other members of the group.

  Accordingly, it is extremely important to remember that there was no sense of political unity among the Germans: assumptions that the Germans would band together against the Romans is not reflected in the historical sources and does not reflect reality. It also explains why the Romans were willing to use German warriors when they had the option. The tribesmen that Stilicho hired or assimilated into the Roman army remained loyal to the end and had no qualms about fighting other ‘Germans’.

  The Huns and Goths

  Although the Huns had little direct impact upon the life of Stilicho, a little explanatory note may be in order. In the pages of history the Huns appear out of the East like a whirlwind bent on destruction. Modern historians have tended to follow this catastrophic view of the Huns, emphasizing the sudden arrival of these fierce and irresistible tribes. Although rec
ent research suggests that the picture is over-simplified, this is the image embedded upon the consciousness of the modern Western World.8

  Yet there needs to be a full reappraisal of the Huns, although this seems unlikely given that the experts appear to differ on many topics within Hunnic studies. One thing that is clear is that, contrary to popular opinion, the Huns did not arrive driving all before them. There appears to have been a stout Gothic resistance under their leaders. King Ermanaric resisted the Hunnic advance ‘for a long time’, and his successor Vithimer ‘died only after many defeats’.9 This implies that the Goths fought long and hard against the Hunnic advance, suggesting that their impact was felt over several years – if not longer than a decade – before the Goths splintered and some headed towards the Empire. The impression is reinforced by the fact that, even after the defeat of the Goths, it took around ten years for the Huns to arrive on the Roman frontier in person. These are not the actions of an irresistible horde driving all before them.

  It should also be noted that the Goths appear to have largely fragmented politically, with separate tribes wandering in exile and individually requesting entry into the Empire. There is also evidence that a large number of Goths remained in place and accepted the dominion of the Huns.