Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome

by Ian Hughes

  Conclusion

  The Roman frontiers in the West underwent a profound change in nature that is not always described by historians and rarely shown on maps. The Empire continued to claim the territory up to and across the Rhine and Danube, but some of the frontier provinces should probably no longer be described as ‘Roman’, since a large proportion of the population living there now had little or no real loyalty to the emperor in Italy.

  With Britain and northern Gaul in economic decline, the Empire was forced to rely more and more on the revenues from Spain, southern Gaul, Africa, Sicily and Italy. The senators of southern Gaul ensured that they maintained a presence at court to defend their rights and privileges and to demand protection from external threat. The province of Spain appears to have been maintaining its position thanks to its comparative safety. However, the majority of the large landowners in Italy, Sicily and Africa were members of the Senate at Rome. Once it is recognized that the policy of ‘withdrawal’ from the frontier provinces resulted in the Empire becoming more dependent on a very limited number of people as its main tax base, Stilicho’s relations with the Senate and his dependence upon their revenues and manpower becomes easier to understand.

  In this context it is possible to support claims that Stilicho’s policy towards the Senate may have been partly one of conciliation, but to a very large degree it was based on ‘common concerns, vested interests and political and military pressures’.19 Without the support of the Senate, the declining tax revenue of the West could no longer support the armies that were needed to defend it against attack, and without the Senate’s reserves of manpower, the armies of the West did not have the numbers with which to repel invasion. As imperial control of the West declined, reliance came to be placed more and more on the senators of Southern Gaul and Rome.

  Symmachus

  One event in 402 is usually mourned by classicists and passed over by historians as being interesting but of little real import. During the course of Alaric’s invasion of Italy in 401–2 Symmachus travelled on a mission from Rome to Milan.20 This is the last mention of him in the sources and it is clear that he died soon after completing his mission. With his passing Stilicho lost his voice in the Senate. It is hard to estimate the damage that this loss did to Stilicho. When Symmachus died Stilicho was almost at the height of his prestige: Africa had been recovered, the tribes on the Danube had been cowed into supplying troops and Alaric had been defeated in Italy, with much of the plunder the Goths had taken during and after the battle of Adrianople being recovered. At first Symmachus’ death would have had little effect on events.

  Yet slowly his loss began to be felt. Obviously, he had helped to promote Stilicho’s policies, but his presence had probably been far more effective that that. As the dominant figure in the Senate, he had helped reduce opposition. There can be little doubt that his seniority, oratory and auctoritas (a combination of the authority, influence and esteem in which an individual was held) had helped to overawe resistance to Stilicho. Apart from his ability to convince his audience, his influence and force of will ensured that opposition remained within containable bounds. With his death, and the lack of any replacement of equal standing and ability, opposition – especially amongst the strongly orthodox Catholics – began to grow. Fortunately for Stilicho, as yet he still had enough personal auctoritas, thanks both to his previous actions and his relationship to Honorius, that opposition remained muted.

  Yet increasingly as time passed Stilicho came to rely on a small number of officials to run the Empire. During the final years of his rule a tendency to give repeated tenures to powerful officials becomes apparent. In many ways this can be seen as natural, since individuals who are gifted and willing to serve actually need to serve, otherwise they become obstructive and their petulance can damage their patron. Yet it is possible that the nature of his appointments illustrates that support was narrowing and opposition growing in strength.21

  Alaric

  There is no direct information in the sources concerning the activities of Alaric from 402 to 405. The sole evidence for affairs in Illyricum comes from the Collectio Avellana. In a confusing passage in a letter from Honorius to Arcadius, dated after 20 June 404, it is clear that Eastern Illyricum had recently been devastated by barbarians.22 The letter is difficult to translate, and has been taken as Honorius sincerely apologizing to Arcadius for the depredations of Alaric in Eastern Illyricum, or of Honorius accusing Arcadius of not informing him of barbarian depredations in Illyricum.23 The specific meaning is unknown, but is of vital importance. If Honorius is apologizing for attacks by barbarians upon Eastern Illyricum, it means both that Alaric had disturbed the peace and that he was in official employment of the Western government. If the letter is an accusation that Arcadius had withheld information, it is unlikely that Alaric was the culprit and we may instead be seeing an otherwise unrecorded attack upon the Empire.

  Both of these hypotheses suggest that Stilicho had settled Alaric in Illyricum (Pannonia) with a fixed command. In the first, Alaric was employed by the Western government and invaded Eastern Illyricum, demonstrating that he had come to an agreement with Stilicho in 402 and settled on the border between East and West. In the second, he was not involved in the conflict at all and his presence may have helped deter attacks on Pannonia and Noricum. On the other hand, there must have been a compelling reason for him not to join his forces with Radagaisus in order to invade Italy again. After all, this was likely to put him in a better position to issue demands. The only explanation must be that Alaric had already been given an official post by Stilicho which was better than anything Radagaisus would have to offer; it is unlikely that fear of Stilicho would have been the motive.

  The sources

  Unfortunately our knowledge of events from 404 is clouded both by the death of Claudian and the ending of the history of Eunapius. Claudian’s last poem is ‘Panegyricus de Sexto Consulatu Honorii Augusti’ (‘Panegyric on the Sixth Consulship of the Emperor Honorius’), which was written in early 404 and does not display any hostility to the East (see below). Therefore, his death occurred in early to mid-404.

  The result of Claudian’s death and the ending of Eunapius’ work is that we are left with a very large gap in our knowledge concerning the actions, outcomes, and motives of Stilicho in relation to the Eastern court and the events that were to unfold from mid-404 to 408. The loss is irreplaceable and we are forced to rely instead upon the fragments of Olympiodorus that are left, and the histories of Sozomen and Zosimus.

  Relations East and West

  The thaw in relations between the courts at Ravenna and Constantinople was not destined to be permanent. From the start there was doubt in the East about Stilicho’s motives and aspirations. After all, he had always laid claim to be parens principum of the Empire; many of the leading men of the East would always regard him as a threat.

  This is clearly illustrated by events already alluded to. In 404 Fravitta spoke against John, the comes of the treasury and allegedly the father of the younger Theodosius. Fravitta accused John of opposing the concept of imperial unity, after which John arranged for Fravitta to be tried and executed.24 Fravitta’s death may have seriously damaged relations, since it is possible that Fravitta was an ally of Stilicho. Even at this early stage the accord between East and West was clearly fragile and soon to be destroyed again. The breach was opened wider by two further events in the East.

  John Chrysostom (‘the Golden-mouthed’)25

  The first of these surrounded John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople. He had earned his epithet due to his blistering sermons against abuse of authority by secular and ecclesiastical authority, especially on the part of Eudoxia. Chrysostom had been summoned to the capital from Antioch and made bishop by Eutropius in 398. When Eutropius was overthrown in 399 he fled to Chrysostom. Not only did Eutropius claim sanctuary, but he reminded Chrysostom that he owed his position as bishop to Eutropius’ patronage. However, Chrysostom had not wanted to be bishop and
hence the claim of patronage was not acknowledged. Yet Chrysostom actively defended Eutropius’ right to sanctuary and gave him shelter in the church. Although Eutropius was exiled and later executed, Chrysostom had earned his reputation as a fearless protector of morals in the capital.

  Throughout this period Chrysostom was in dispute with Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria. There was a major disagreement over which bishopric was to be paramount in the East, in the same manner as Rome was paramount in the West. Theophilus believed that he, as the Bishop of Alexandria, should be dominant over Chrysostom, the bishop of Constantinople. Unfortunately for Chrysostom, he had allegedly made comments supporting the teachings of Origen. Origen, who lived in the third century, had suggested that Jesus was subordinate to God, rather than following the orthodox Catholic teachings of the equal trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Obviously, this was unacceptable. However, nothing more was made of it until after his death, when some of his more fervent followers took his teachings to their extremes. This resulted in these views being declared anathema by the church in the sixth century. Yet even before this his views were being attacked and, by being seen to defend Origen, Chrysostom left himself open to criticism.

  In 403 the dispute between Chrysostom and Theophilus reached its height. The Empress Eudoxia exploited the allegations as an excuse to depose Chrysostom and send him into exile. That night there was an earthquake and rioting in Constantinople. Eudoxia interpreted the earthquake as a sign of God’s displeasure at the deposition and Chrysostom was quickly reinstated.

  Three weeks later there was an inauguration ceremony outside Chrysostom’s cathedral for a silver statue to Eudoxia. Chrysostom claimed that this interrupted his services and again denounced the Augusta. As a result, at a synod in the following spring Chrysostom was condemned and debarred from his church. Unfortunately, shortly afterwards at Easter two thousand people arrived to be baptised by Chrysostom. Having no church in which to carry out the procedure, he reverted to using the nearby Baths of Constantine. The event quickly turned into a protest. The government ordered troops to be sent to restore order and they subdued the uprising with much bloodshed.

  Eudoxia could no longer tolerate Chrysostom’s presence; on 24 June 404 Chrysostom was exiled again and sent to Armenia, despite the fact that on the same evening Santa Sophia was destroyed by flames. However, before his departure he sent a letter to Pope Innocent in Rome demanding a formal trial. The pope arranged for a Western synod, which declared the earlier Eastern synod invalid and letters were sent by Innocent and Honorius to Arcadius to organize a joint synod in Thessalonica to finally settle the question.26 Arcadius appears to have ignored the letter – or at least no response survives. Unfortunately, the ambassadors sent to convey the letters from Honorius, Stilicho and Innocent were poorly treated. There is little doubt that Honorius was as angry as Pope Innocent and Stilicho over the blatant insult.

  The Empress

  The Western intrusion into specifically Eastern affairs was undoubtedly one of the main causes of increasing tension between the two courts. The other occurred at some time in mid-404, after the death of Claudian, who does not mention the event. At some point in the year Arcadius paraded statues of Augusta Eudoxia alongside his own throughout the East. The conservative West was deeply affronted by this constitutional innovation, and saw in it yet more evidence that the East was in political and moral decline. As a consequence of these events, Stilicho refused to recognize the Eastern nominations for consul for either 404 or 405.27 Tensions continued to grow between the two courts.

  The claim to Illyricum and the problems of dating events

  It is extremely frustrating that Claudian died in 404, as events between 405 and 407 are possibly the hardest to unravel of any during the life of Stilicho. According to the most commonly accepted theory, faced with the worsening relations between East and West Stilicho now decided to put into action his long-held designs on Illyricum. However, as has already been noted, there is no evidence whatsoever that Stilicho had any long-term plans to annex the prefecture. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to impose a chronology on events and without a precise chronology it is impossible to decipher Stilicho’s motives with any degree of certainty.

  It has to be acknowledged that the sources state specifically that Alaric was promoted to magister militum per Illyricum, and sent by Stilicho to Epirus, which was undoubtedly still under the jurisdiction of the Eastern Empire.28 Some authorities have dated this to 405 using Zosimus, some to 406 using Olympiodorus and Sozomen.29 Dating the event to 405 using the history of Zosimus is fraught with danger. The text at this point is very confusing and worth quoting in full:

  After ravaging all of Greece, Alaric retired, as I have already described, from the Peloponnese and the Achelous valley and stopped in Epirus to await the fulfilment of his agreement with Stilicho, which was this: seeing that Arcadius’ ministers were alienated from him, Stilicho intended with Alaric’s help to add the whole of Illyricum to Honorius’ Empire and, as a result of their agreement about this, he soon expected to put his plan into action. While, however, Alaric was standing by ready to obey Stilicho’s orders, Radagaisus gathered four hundred thousand Gauls and Germans from over the Danube and the Rhine and started to invade Italy.

  Zosimus, New History, VIII. 26. 1–2.

  In this account eight years is omitted from Alaric’s life in the East, as Zosimus has him ravaging Epirus in 397 before waiting for Stilicho in 405–6. The confusion is caused by the ending of Eunapius’ history and the subsequent switch by Zosimus to using Olympiodorus. Eunapius ends with Alaric in Epirus and Olympiodorus begins with Alaric in Epirus. Consequently, Zosimus connects the two without accounting for the intervening years.30 Accordingly, whatever the merits of Zosimus, on this occasion his testimony must be viewed with extreme caution and not necessarily be taken at face value.

  It is also worth quoting from Sozomen’s Ecclesiastical History, 8.25:

  Stilicho, the general of Honorius, a man who had attained great power, if any one ever did, and had under his sway the flower of the Roman and of the barbarian soldiery, conceived feelings of enmity against the rulers who held office under Arcadius, and determined to set the two Empires at enmity with each other. He caused Alaric, the leader of the Goths, to be appointed by Honorius to the office of general of the Roman troops, and sent him into Illyria; whither also he dispatched Jovius, the praetorian prefect, and promised to join them there with the Roman soldiers in order to add that province to the dominions of Honorius. Alaric marched at the head of his troops from the barbarous regions bordering on Dalmatia and Pannonia, and came to Epirus; and after waiting for some time there, he returned to Italy. Stilicho was prevented from fulfilling his agreement to join Alaric, by some letters which were transmitted to him from Honorius. These events happened in the manner narrated.

  Translation: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.iii.xiii.xxv.html

  (March 2009)

  It would appear that Sozomen has a better understanding of events at this time, and it is interesting to note that he does not ascribe Stilicho’s failure to join with Alaric to Radagaisus’ invasion, but rather to ‘letters from Honorius’. It is almost certain that if Stilicho’s plans had been thwarted by Radagaisus’ invasion of Italy, Sozomen would have openly declared it. Furthermore, Sozomen also states that Jovius was appointed praefectus praetorio Illyrici and sent with Alaric to Epirus, an appointment that is attested to 407 but may have been given in late 406.31

  As a consequence it is almost certain that in 405 Alaric remained in situ in the Diocese of Illyricum (Pannonia) and that Stilicho made no move to attack the East or annex the Prefecture of Illyricum. On the other hand, it is possible that Stilicho had, at last, recognized the strategic, financial and military importance of the prefecture. It is plausible that, either before relations began to deteriorate or just as they began to fail, Stilicho realized that his claims to be parens were going to be rejected again. Stilicho instea
d decided that he might succeed with a lesser claim. Therefore, he alleged that Theodosius was planning to return the whole of the Prefecture of Illyricum to the West before he died.32 It was possible that the ministers in Constantinople would see this as a small price to pay in return for his dropping the claim to being parens. Obviously, on the negative side this was likely to accelerate the decline in relations between the Ravenna and Constantinople.

  It may also have helped intensify opposition in the West to his policies. Up to this date there is little evidence for any resistance to Stilicho, but it would appear to have been steadily growing. According to Rutilius Namatianus in the ‘de Reditu suo’ (‘A Voyage Home to Gaul’), opposition to Stilicho was mounting and was using the prophecies in the Sibylline Books, a collection of oracular sayings kept in the Temple of Apollo in Rome, to throw doubt on Stilicho’s actions. As a result, possibly in the year 405, Stilicho had the books burned.33 Although the story may not be true, it does suggest that Stilicho’s enemies were becoming more vocal in their opposition to his rule.

  The death of Eudoxia

  Before the end of 404 circumstances once again intervened to cloud events. Probably brought on by the religious and political strains of the year, the Augusta Eudoxia had a miscarriage. It was to prove fatal for herself as well as the child; on 6 October 404 Eudoxia died.