Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome

by Ian Hughes

  26 Hoffmann, D, ‘Der Oberbefehl des spätrömischen Heeres im 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr.’, in D M Pippidi (ed.), Actes des IXe Congrès International d’études sur les frontières romains, Cologne, 381–97, as referenced in Liebeschuetz, 2004, 54, n.8.

  27 This situation is similar to the command structure of the German army in the Second World War, where Hitler appears to have shared power around in order to discourage opposition, since his generals were too busy politicking against each other.

  28 Southern and Dixon, 1996, p. 57.

  29 Amm Marc. 39.3.7

  30 O’Flynn, 1983, 17–22.

  31 Scholae, Cod. Th. 6. 13. 1: legionis, Cod. Th. 7. 20.10.

  32 Elton, 2004, 129.

  33 Liebeschuetz, 1991, p. 20.

  34 See Southern and Dixon, 1996, p. 69.

  35 Amm. Marc. 15.12.3.

  36 Cod. Th. 7. 13. 5.

  37 Amm. Marc. 15.12.3: Elton, 2004, 115..

  38 Elton, 2004, 129.

  39 Cod. Th. 7.13.7.

  40 Cod. Th. 15.1.13.

  41 Zos., 4.23.2–4.

  42 Amm. Marc., 27.2.2–8

  43 Amm. Marc., 22.7.7

  44 Tomlin, 1990, 117.

  45 Zos., 4.23.2–4.

  46 Hamstringing, Amm. 23.5.21; Parading in women’s clothes, Zos. 3.3.4–5; Hand-loss, Amm. 29.2.22–4.

  47 E.g. decimation; 471 BC (Livy, 2.59), 71BC (Appian, Civil Wars, 1.118) and AD 20 (Tacitus, Annals, 3).

  48 Amm. Marc., 16.12.37.

  49 E.g., Southern and Dixon, 1996, p. 170.

  50 E.g., the defeat of the combined force of both Germanic provinces under Charietto, comes per utramque Germaniam: Amm. Marc. 27.1.2–3

  51 Amm. Marc., 14.10.4.

  52 Amm. Marc., 19.11.2.

  53 Southern and Dixon, 1996, pp. 62–3: Burns, 2003, 183.

  54 Burns, 2003, 184: Cod. Th. 7.4.28.

  55 E.g., Southern and Dixon, 1996, 38, simply mirror the disaster for the East at Adrianople and the West at Frigidus.

  56 Burns, 1994, 113 and 149.

  57 Soc., 7.10

  58 Zos., 5.34.

  59 Cod Th. 7.13.16 (406).

  60 Milner, Vegetius, 1996, 19, n.6.

  61 Bishop and Coulston, 2006, 208: AM. 16.10.8; 19.8.8; 24.6.9; 25.1.16 etc.

  62 Veg., 2.15 and 4.21.

  63 Veg., 4.22.

  64 No examples of the plumbatae tribolatae have been found, so the weapon must still remain a possibility rather than a certainty.

  65 Elton, 2004, 108.

  66 Veg., 2.15.

  67 Veg., 2.15.

  68 Elton, 2004, 108.

  69 Elton, 2004, 108.

  70 Bishop and Coulston, 2006, 205.

  71 Amm. Marc., 19.6.7; Proc. 2.21.7.

  72 Theoph., Hist. 8.4.13.

  73 Lasso, Elton, 2004, 108.

  74 Bishop and Coulston, 2006, 213–14.

  75 Bishop and Coulston, 2006, 213.

  76 Attaching of crests, Bishop and Coulston, 2006, 214.

  77 Earlier claims, e.g. James, 1986, cited in Bishop and Coulston, 2006, 230, n.43.

  78 I would like to thank the members of www.romanarmytalk.com for their in-depth discussions on these topics: for example at www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/view topic.php? f=17&t=25150 &p=224574&hilit=spangenhelm#p224574 (December 2008 – July 2009).

  79 Elton, 2004, 110f.

  80 Bishop and Coulston, 2006, 216.

  81 For more detailed analysis of mail manufacture, see Bishop and Coulston, 2006, 241–2 and associated bibliography.

  82 The exact nature of ‘cuir boulli’ as used from the ancient to the medieval period is unknown. It may have been made by using hot wax, or boiling oil or water. Unfortunately, until a piece from the period is found and examined, the process – and therefore the protection offered as armour – will remain a mystery.

  83 For example, Pliny the Elder dismisses hippopotamus armour as useless when wet: NH. 8.9.5.

  84 Coulston, 1990, 143.

  85 For example, Bishop and Coulston, 2006, 208.

  86 Germanic influence, Bishop and Coulston, 2006, 217; guardsmen using round shields, Elton, 2004, 115.

  87 Amm. Marc., 16.12.6

  Chapter 5

  1 For example the Goths, Wolfram, 1990, 145.

  2 Elton, 2004, 22.

  3 Elton, 2004, 72.

  4 Elton, 2004, 72.

  5 Proc., 3.5.18.

  6 Elton, 2004, 58.

  7 Veg, 1.20.

  8 Elton, 2004, 58.

  9 Todd, 2004, 35.

  10 Aur. Vic., Caes. 21.2.

  11 Todd, 2004, 41–2.

  12 Todd, 2004, 39.

  13 Although usually dismissed as poor in comparison to the composite bow, it should be noted that the English longbow of the Middle Ages was made from a single piece of wood, utilising the differences in compression and flexibility between the heartwood and the outer layers.

  14 Agathias, Hist., 2.5.4.

  15 Elton, 2004, 68.

  16 E.g., Vandals 3.8.15–28, Goths 5.27.1f.

  17 Isidore, 6.9. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Isidore/18*. html#6 (June 2009).

  18 Greg. Tur., securis e.g. 2.27; 8.30: bipennis e.g. 8.19; 10.27.

  19 Elton, 2004, 65.

  20 Elton, 2004, 108.

  21 Bishop and Coulston, 2006, 200.

  22 Elton, 2004, 65.

  23 Elton, 2004, 67.

  24 Defined by the Bosworth-Toller dictionary as a short-sword or dagger http://beowulf.engl.uky.edu/~kiernan/BT/bosworth.htm, p. 853 (June 2009).

  25 Elton, 2004, 65.

  26 Elton, 2004, 67.

  27 Elton, 2004, 67; Amm. Marc., 16.12.24. Unfortunately, the claim does not seem to be attested by the reference.

  28 Elton, 2004, 70.

  29 Elton, 2004, 69.

  30 Elton, 2004, 45.

  31 Elton, 2004, 45.

  32 Elton, 2004, 74.

  33 Amm. Marc. 16.12.21–2 and 37–42.

  34 Elton, 2004, 81.

  Chapter 6

  1 Zos., 4.59.

  2 Claud., Stil II. 88f; cf Cameron, 1970, 121.

  3 E.g. Zos., 4.58.2.

  4 Liebeschuetz, 1998, 56.

  5 Alaric’s reward; Soc. 7.10 where he is ‘honoured with Roman dignities’, the most obvious is being given the title comes rei militaris; wanting regular forces to command, Zos. 5.5.4.

  6 Liebeschuetz, 1998, 56–7; Heather, 1998, 141, especially footnote 12. Burns, 1994, suggests that the army comprised barbarian troops that had been serving as regulars in new units within the Roman army, although this must remain doubtful.

  7 Kulikowski, 2002, 164f.

  8 Halsall, 2007, 191–2.

  9 It should be noted, however, that Kulikowski is correct in noting that there is no ancient source that supports the assumption that Alaric was followed by a large number of the Goths from the treaty of 382 (2007, 165). Unfortunately, this is somewhat negated by the fact that there is no alternative, since the sources fail to mention any origins for Alaric’s troops.

  10 Halsall, 2007, 190–95.

  11 Liebeschuetz, 1998, 27, esp. n. 12.

  12 Eun., fr. 59: Zos. 4.56.1.

  13 Halsall, 2007, 190.

  14 Jord., Get. 267; Liebeschuetz, 1998, 56; Kulikowski, 2007, 154.

  15 This concept is reinforced by the deduction that the force did not contain many family groups, since between 395 and 400, when Alaric was given a post in Illyricum, he and his troops were likely billeted on the towns of the region and there would have been great difficulty in maintaining coherence if large numbers of families were involved

  16 Liebeschuetz, 2004, 49.

  17 Zos., 5.5.4. see also, Claud. In Ruf. II, 75–85

  18 Liebeschuetz claims that Alaric and Rufinus came to an agreement and that Alaric and his followers were settled in Thessaly prior to the arrival of Stilicho with the army (1998, 58).

  19 Ferrill, 1991, 92.

  20 Claud., de IV Cons. Hon. 439–59: cf Priscus fr. 48.1; Ma
lchus fr. 2. 20. 222–5. Elton, 2004, 183.

  21 See for example, O’Flynn, 1983, 28; Jones, 1966, 74; Halsall, 2007, 195.

  22 Cameron, 1970, 59.

  23 Cameron, 1970, 59–60.

  24 E.g., this is often given as one of the major factors behind Claudius’ decision to invade Britain in AD 43.

  25 Matthews, 1998, 269; Burns, 2003, 327.

  26 O’Flynn, 1983, 22.

  27 Cameron, 1970, 60.

  28 Claud., In Ruf. II. 186–96.

  29 Ferrill, 1991, 91.

  30 Zos., 5.4.

  31 Liebeschuetz, 1994, 135.

  32 Cameron, 1970, 89 and especially 159f.

  33 E.g., see Williams and Friell 1994, 144.

  34 Cameron, 1970, 159f.

  35 Cameron, 1970, 89 and especially 159f.

  36 Claud., de Cons. Stil. I. 94–6; In Ruf. I. 314–22, 350-1; III Cons. Hon. 147–50.

  37 Zos., V. 7. 3.

  38 Frigidus, being a civil war, was a different matter; Theodosius had to fight and had to win. The chances of using blockade as he had against the Goths were small, as the armies of the West could match his own forces.

  39 E.g. Halsall, 2007, 195.

  40 Claud., In Ruf. II. 275f, esp. 340–5; 402–3. See also Cameron, 1970, 90–91.

  41 Phil., EH, 11.3. 507–8.

  42 For example, Phil., EH, 11.3. 507–8.

  43 Burns, 1994, 155.

  Chapter 7

  1 Christie, 2007, 547.

  2 Christie, 2007, 548.

  3 For information on these defences and associated bibliography, see Potocnik, A J, Claustra Alpium Iuliarum at http://www.ars-cartae.com/claustra/claustra.htm (May 2009).

  4 For more on these considerations, see Chapter 12.

  5 Heather, 1994, 202.

  6 On the condition of the defences over the Alps, see the discussion in Burns, 1994, 164.

  7 Cod. Th. 11.16.21 (January 397); 11.30.58 (January or June 399).

  8 PLRE II, 83: Cod. Th. 11.14.3 (June 397): Cod. Th. 6.28.6. (November 399).

  9 E.g., Burns, 1994, 159f.

  10 See below.

  11 See, for example, Liebeschuetz, 1994, 159–61.

  12 Burns, 1994, 159f.

  13 Liebeschuetz, 1998, 94–5.

  14 The vast majority of historians have placed Eutropius’ negotiations with Alaric in the small period of time between Stilicho’s campaign and Eutropius’ campaign against the Huns, which took place towards the end of 397. For further analysis, see the remainder of the chapter.

  15 Zos. 5.5.5–6 blames Antiochus and Gerontius for Alaric’s being allowed to pass Thermopylae. cf. Claud, in Ruf II, 187f. Eunapius in his Lives of the Sophists attributes the treachery to Christian monks, Eun, LS, 439. See also, Jerome, Ep. 60.16.

  16 This list and the suggestion that the author of the Historia Augusta was here commenting on events that were occurring during his own era, see Cherf, 1993. The troops described as being deployed by Claudius are more likely to have been those given to Gerontius, since the level of detail in the passage is unlikely to have been possible to an event in the previous century.

  17 Liebeschuetz, 2004, 57.

  18 CAH, 2004, 115.

  19 Paulinus., Vita Amb. 34.

  20 See Chapter 3.

  21 As evidenced by his laws concerning provisions for the army. Cod. Th. 7.4.22–3.

  22 Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks, 2,9. (Medieval Sourcebook: http//www.fordham. edu). In this section he is quoting from Sulpicius Alexander, Book 3. It is likely that this is the ‘disaster’ suffered when fighting against Marcomeres and Sunno described by Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus (LH 2.9) referenced by Halsall (2007, 199).

  23 Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks, 2,9. (Medieval Sourcebook: http://www.fordham.edu). In this section he is quoting from Sulpicius Alexander, Book 4.

  24 Claud., Stil I 218–20.

  25 Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks 2.9; quoting from Orosius, Book 7.

  26 Claud., Stil I. 241–45; cf. Elton, 2004, 39.

  27 Claud., Stil I, 210–13; cf. IV Con Hon. 439f.

  28 Claud., Stil I. 232–40; IV Cons Hon. 439–58.

  29 Cod. Th. 7.18.9.

  30 Jones, 1966, 377f.

  31 Williams and Friell, 1994, 144.

  32 Burrell, 2004, 252.

  33 Paulinus, Vita Amb. 45.

  34 There is no historical evidence for Liebeschuetz’s claim that Stilicho was en route to Constantinople, 1994, 157.

  35 For example, Halsall, 2007, 200.

  36 Baynes, 1922, 214.

  37 Claud., IV Cons. Hon. , 459f.

  38 E.g. Claud., IV Cons. Hon. 479f.

  39 Cameron, 1970, 86.

  40 Claud. IV Cons. Hon. 459f, cf. de Bello Get. 513–17.

  41 Zos., 5.7.2.

  42 E.g., Cameron dismisses Claudian’s version of events whilst Mazzarino, Grumel and Bury dismiss that of Zosimus. (Cameron, 1970, 169f; Mazzarino’s, ‘La politica religiosa di Stilicone’, Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo (Cl. di Lettere) lxxi (1938), 235f, esp. 262, and Grumel, V. ‘L’Illyricum de la mort de Valentinien Ier (375) a la mort de Stilicon (408)’, Rev. et. Byz. ix (1952) 5046, esp. 36) as discussed by Cameron, 1970, 175.

  43 Claud., de Bello Get. 516f.

  44 Cameron sees the declaration as caused by a suspicion in Constantinople that Stilicho was in league with Alaric and so let him escape (Cameron, 1970, 86). This is not attested in our sources and, as the chronology is insecure, doubt remains as to the exact dating of events. On the insecure dating of the hostis publicus, see CAH, 2004, 115.

  45 Claudian later attempted to annul the declaration by claiming that Stilicho had gone to Greece on the orders of Honorius: IV Cons. Hon., 459f. See also, Cameron, 1990, 96f.

  46 Claud., Cons. Stil. I, 297–8.

  47 Williams and Friell, 1994, 149; Liebeschuetz, 1997, 397.

  48 Claud., de Bello Get. 87–8, plausibly dated by Cameron to 397 rather than 395: Cameron, 1970, 170–71.

  49 Zos., 5.7.2, as quoted above.

  50 John of Antioch, fr. 190 quoting Eunapius 64. 1.10–15; Zos., 5.7.2–3.

  51 Claud., Stil. I. 277–8.

  52 For the declaration being interpreted as an attempt to subvert the loyalty of the troops, Cameron, 1970, 113.

  53 Zos., 5.7.3.

  54 Claud., IV Cons Hon 479–83. On escape to Epirus, Claud In Eut. II. 214–5. On keeping the booty from Greece, In Eut. II. 199f. This is reaffirmed by Claudian when he states that the booty was recaptured by Stilicho after the victory at Pollentia in 402, de Bello Get. 611f.

  55 cf. Cameron, 1970, 172 for a full discussion, where he notes that Stilicho had little to offer Alaric as a return for a treaty of alliance. In favour of an agreement, e.g. Norwich, 1988, 128–9.

  56 Lifted the blockade and returned to Italy as heard of Gildo’s rebellion, e.g. Stein, E, Histoire du Bas-Empire i, 1959, 231 as referenced by Cameron, 1970, 173.

  57 Zos., 5.6.4.

  58 Liebeschuetz, 1998, 59.

  59 Heather, 1994, 205, although the lack of detailed information concerning the agreement reached between Eutropius and Alaric leaves the matter open to doubt. Liebeschuetz has stated, probably rightly, that throughout his career Alaric was not interested in obtaining farmland for his men; he wanted a senior post for himself – including command over Roman regular troops – and pay and billets for his men as foederati (1998, 57).

  60 Liebeschuetz, 1998, 95.

  Chapter 8

  1 Amm. Marc., 29.5.2.6: PLRE I, 633–4.

  2 Matthews, 1990, 179.

  3 He was certainly a ‘prince’, due to his father being a ‘king’, yet it is unclear which of Nubel’s sons – if any – inherited their father’s position.

  4 St Jerome, Ep, 79 (to Salvina).

  5 The exact dating is problematical.

  6 Millar, 1982, 7.

  7 For discussion on the speed of information, Millar, 1982, passim; Elton, 2004, 177–8.

  8 Millar, 1982, 10.
<
br />   9 Josephus, BF 2.10.5 (203); Josephus, Ant. 8.9 (305), quoted in Millar, 1982, 10. Caligula died in January, 41.

  10 Pliny, NH, 19.3, quoted in Millar, 1982, 10.

  11 Millar, 1982, 10.

  12 Millar, 1982, 10, and referencing Starr, C G, The Roman Imperial Navy, 1941, 177–8.

  13 Compare with the revolt of Firmus already mentioned.

  14 There are two possible interpretations at this point. The difficulty lies with Claudian. In his early poems he states that Gildo approached Eutropius (e.g. de Bello Gild. 276f), whereas in his later poems he states that Eutropius approached Gildo (e.g. Stil. I. 269f.). However, even in this later poem he early states that ‘Gildo had transferred the nominal rule of Libya to the Eastern empire’, only then alleging that ‘From Byzantium came edicts to subvert the loyalty of governors’ (271–7). Accordingly, it is more plausible that the initiative came from Gildo, with Claudian later changing the blame to Eutropius only as a means of further damaging Eutropius’ reputation. Although support for Eutropius’ guilt can also be found in Zosimus, this is likely to be a result of Eutropius’ equally poor reputation in the East after his fall from power; he was the first eunuch to assume the consulship, which resulted in both his downfall and his low standing (Zos., 5.11.2). For an alternative version, see Cameron, 1970, 92f, and especially 110.

  15 For the dating, Claud., de Bello Gild. 16.

  16 Earlier in the empire, Egypt had supplied Rome with grain. Later, both Egypt and Africa supplied the capital, but when Constantine founded Constantinople he decreed that Egypt would supply his new city, whilst Africa would continue to supply the city of Rome.

  17 Cameron suggests that Eutropius would have had a similar motive in attempting to limit Stilicho’s responses (1970, 93–4).

  18 E.g. Matthews, 1998, 272–3 and Cameron, 1970, 92f. Matthews approves of Gildo’s ‘choice’ and claims that he was ‘constitutionally quite correct in supporting Arcadius’ whilst Cameron suggests that Gildo’s ‘rebellion’ was because allegiance to ‘distant’ Constantinople was preferable to being under the constant scrutiny of nearby Rome (Cameron, 1970, 93).

  19 Zos., 4.59.

  20 For the opposite view, see Cameron, 1970, 93.

  21 The claim that Stilicho retired from Greece due to reports that Gildo had rebelled, e.g. Burrell, 2004, 254f., relies upon a clear chronology, which is inferred, and an extremely efficient series of communications between Africa, Constantinople and Italy, which is unlikely.