Course: The Fall and Decline of Rome
Lecture 2
The Beginning of the
End: A Tale of Two
Traumas
Two Catostrophic events in the Period
Before the Fall of Rome
by:
Dr. M. (Martijn) Icks
Spoiler Alerts: Main contents of today’s lecture
Primary sources on the two big events we will discuss today:
Battle of Adrianople (378). During this battle the roman armies suffered the biggest
defeat in 400 years. Scholars say that loosing this battle was the first sign of the decline
of the Roman Empire.
Sack of Rome by the Visigoths (410). Then, around 40 years later, under the reign of
Honorius, the Romans suffer another big defeat: the famous sack of Rome by the
Visigoths in 410. It is not the end of the Roman Empire, but it is a big defeat, and the
beginning of the end.
HC2
, What are the
Primary Sources on Late Antiquity
Historiography = written history
Primary Sources = Martijn Ick also uses the term ‘primary sources’ during
this course maybe slightly more loosely than some other scholars. Martijn
means with primary sources both sources written by eyewitnesses AND
sources written by people that maybe weren’t direct eyewitnesses BUT did
live in the same time-period of the discussed event/object/person/etc.
Main Primary Historiographic Sources :
• Pagan historiography. e.g. Ammianus Marcellinus, was a pagan, Zosimus
• Christian historiography = comes up in late antiquity. e.g. Orosius, Jordanes
Question: in what way is Christian historiography different from pagan?
Answer: For Christians, events of history are Gods plans unfolding.
• Ecclesiastical history = Church history (e.g. Eusebius and Sozomen)
• Chronicles = chronicles is a way of telling history with bulletpoints, year by year. (e.g. Jerome, Hydatius)
Other Types Primary Sources:
• Panegyric sources (= praising texts, praising someone, speech of praise about some emperor,
about a general or other powerful person) (e.g. by Themistius, Claudian)
• Hagiography (e.g. Vita Melaniae): the lives of saints, such as, ‘the life of Saint Melaniae.’
• Correspondence (e.g. Symmachus, Agustine)
• Sermons (e.g. John Chrysostom)
• Law texts (e.g. codex Theodosianus) (e.g: trousers were forbidden, because trousers were
worn by barbarians, so proper Romans should wear toga’s, but that laws like this existed tells us
that apparently people wore trousers. So this also tells us about history)
Useful tool to find good primary sources: Loeb Classical Library (available through UvA library Catalogue)
HC2
, The Goths Settling +- 376
Modern Ideas about ‘Goth’
The word “Barbarian” means someone who is not part of the Greco-Roman world.
Goths were also a Barbarian people.
Johann Joachim Winckelmann, one of the “fathers of art history” –famous for claiming
Greek art/culture was the highpoint of civilisation– made this etch of the 410 Sack of
Rome. (See PowerPoint). We see wild rough barbarians destroying Greek and Roman
art (aka everything that was great and awesome). This was the main idea people had in
the 18th to 20th century of the Goths.
Why do we call gothic cathedrals gothic? Well, in short: back in the Renaissance, when classical Greek and Roman
culture was rediscovered and seen as greatness, art/architecture that people created the Middle Ages, such as
gothic churches, were considered Barbaric in the renaissance (they were not classical). Thus: “gothic.”
‘Vandals’ were a tribe in late antiquity, infamous for ‘smashing pretty things’ -according to Winckelmann of course.
Goths: Origin: Scandinavia
The 6th-Century gothic historian JORDANES wrote about Gothic History.
Jordanes says in his ‘History of the Goths’ (1(9):)
“The same mighty sea has also in its arctic region, that is in the north, a great island named Scandza, from which
my tale (by God’s grace) shall take its beginning. For the race whose origin you ask to know burst forth like a
swarm of bees from the midst of this island and came into the land of Europe. But how or in what wise we shall
explain hereafter, if it be the Lord’s will”
(He misconceived Scandinavia (‘Scandza’) as being an island)
Jordanes is a primary source, but we have to very sceptical. Although his writings
are partially true, they’re often exaggerations, glorifications and/or complete fiction
–e.g., J. said the Goths (not Greeks) sacked Troy, and that the Goths killed Caesar.
So where did the Goths come from?
In the Poland-area archaeologists found structures and objects (houses, objects, art)
have a lot in common with the material culture of South Scandinavia. This shows
that these People calling themselves ‘Goths’ seemed to be people originally from
south Scandinavia who migrated southwards, and mixed with the people and
cultures in this region of Poland. This immigration and mixing with local polish
cultures was a gradual process that happened between 0 and 200. After, the Goths
moved further southwards, until they arrived at the Eastern Roman borders.
(The south of Sweden is now still called ‘Götaland’ and ‘the island of Gotland,’ probably because of this heritage.)
HC2
, Oldest Accounts of Goths
From 200 onwards Gothic tribes dwelled southwards to Eastern Europe from
where small Gothic groups occasionally would attack the Eastern Roman Empire.
The oldest written accounts of the Goths are in fact sources written by Roman writers in
the 3rd century, and they are accounts thus from a from a Roman perspective.
Sarcophagus (left image): Romans Winning from Goths?
This battle sarcophagus depicts Romans defeating bearded barbarians. We cannot
say for certain that these are Goths being run over by Romans on horses, but it’s likely.
HOWEVER the mid-3rd century, when this sarcophagus was made, was, actually NOT
a good/victorious time for the Roman Empire. There were both civil wars raging
WITHIN the empire (emperors fighting emperors) AS WELL AS external wars being
fought (and not always won) OUTSIDE the Roman Empire, e.g. Persians in the east,
and Barbarian tribes in the North. So, why then do we see many Roman artworks pop
up in this time depicting dramatic battle scenes of Romans defeating barbarians?
Well, (says Martijn), if your superiority as a leader/group/nation is very evident and
obvious and not doubted by anyone, your superiority doesn’t have to be screamed of
the rooftops. However, in times where the superiority of a group/nation/person is
being doubted, art is made that screams their superiority of the rooftops.
Goths and Christianity
Were Goths wild plundering pagans? Well, Goths were at least not pagan, but Christian.
Wulfila (= ‘little wolf’) was a 6th-century Gothic bishop famous for, after
having lived in Rome, converting the Goths. Wulfila also translated
Christian texts to Gothic. The ‘Codex Argenteus’ is a text based on
these translation by Wolfila. We don’t have Wulfila’s original teksts
anymore, but we do still have copies or texts based on them. The
Codex Argenteusis oldest Germanic literary text that still exists.
(Gothic was an eastern Germanic language (not a western or northern!). Now eastern Germanic
languages are completely extinct in the world)
Wulfila was Arian Christian and therefore the Goths were Arian.
The difference between mainstream Christianity and Arianism?
Mainstream Christians believe that the 3 aspects of the holy trinity –The father,
the son and the holy spirit– are no separate things but all manifestations of the
same thing: God. Arianism however is a branch of Christianity that believes
that the 3 aspects of the holy trinity are in fact different/seperate things
– God the father is a distinct figure from God the Son, etc. This idea was seen
as heretic by mainstream Christians.
HC2
, …Leading to Battle of Adrianople
Goths settle in 376 as ‘Foederati’ ! Get mistreated
In 376, the Gothic ‘THERVINGI’ TRIBE asks permission to settle within Roman borders, on
the southern bank of Danube River (in province of Moesia), to live as farmers and soldiers.
(And to probably be safe from Hunnic war bands coming from the east). Eastern Emperor
Valens (364-378) allows it, so the Goths get accepted as foederati (allies).
FOEDERATI = This term was used to describe foreign states, client kingdoms or barbarian
tribes to which the Roman Empire provided benefits in exchange for military assistance.
The Goths, being foederati, could now live in the Roman Empire if in return they’d
(A) Pay taxes, and (B) Serve in the Roman army. This is what the Goths did.
However, as the Goths settled, they got mistreated by local Roman governors.
(For example: getting no help with food-shortages; children being taken as slaves).
This mistreatment leads to revolt. Angry Goths start to rebel (pillage and plunder).
Rebel group grows, not only with Goths but also with other tribes and local rebels.
(Largely consisted out of Thervingi as well as Greutungs, non-Gothic Alans, and various local rebels)
378: BATTLE OF ADRIANOPLE !
Western co-emperor Gratian sets out in 378 with an army towards Constantinople to
support his Eastern co-emperor Valens to deal with these rebels in the east.
However, Valens does not wait for his collegue, thinking he can handle the Gothic rebels.
But Valens had grossly underestimated them. The BATTLE OF ADRIANOPLE IN 378
concluded with an overwhelming victory for the Goths and defeat of the Romans.
These rebels in the east killed 2/3rd of the Roman army and killed emperor Valens!
A detailed contemporary account of the lead-up to the battle from a Roman perspective
was written by contemporary historian Ammianus Marcellinus in the Res Gestae (+- 390):
“And so the barbarians, their eyes blazing with frenzy, were pursuing our men, in whose veins
the blood was chilled with numb horror: some fell without knowing who struck them down,
others were buried beneath the mere weight of their assailants; some were slain by the sword
of a comrade; for though they often rallied, there was no ground given, nor did anyone spare
those who retreated. Besides all this, the roads were blocked by many who lay mortally
wounded, lamenting the torment of their wounds; and with them also mounds of fallen horses
filled the plains with corpses. To these ever irreparable losses, so costly to the Roman state, a
night without the bright light of the moon put an end.” (31.13.10-11):
In short: The battle sarcophagus we saw earlier upside down.
This quote was written almost at end of Marcellinus’ oevre and life #notahappyending.
HC2
Lecture 2
The Beginning of the
End: A Tale of Two
Traumas
Two Catostrophic events in the Period
Before the Fall of Rome
by:
Dr. M. (Martijn) Icks
Spoiler Alerts: Main contents of today’s lecture
Primary sources on the two big events we will discuss today:
Battle of Adrianople (378). During this battle the roman armies suffered the biggest
defeat in 400 years. Scholars say that loosing this battle was the first sign of the decline
of the Roman Empire.
Sack of Rome by the Visigoths (410). Then, around 40 years later, under the reign of
Honorius, the Romans suffer another big defeat: the famous sack of Rome by the
Visigoths in 410. It is not the end of the Roman Empire, but it is a big defeat, and the
beginning of the end.
HC2
, What are the
Primary Sources on Late Antiquity
Historiography = written history
Primary Sources = Martijn Ick also uses the term ‘primary sources’ during
this course maybe slightly more loosely than some other scholars. Martijn
means with primary sources both sources written by eyewitnesses AND
sources written by people that maybe weren’t direct eyewitnesses BUT did
live in the same time-period of the discussed event/object/person/etc.
Main Primary Historiographic Sources :
• Pagan historiography. e.g. Ammianus Marcellinus, was a pagan, Zosimus
• Christian historiography = comes up in late antiquity. e.g. Orosius, Jordanes
Question: in what way is Christian historiography different from pagan?
Answer: For Christians, events of history are Gods plans unfolding.
• Ecclesiastical history = Church history (e.g. Eusebius and Sozomen)
• Chronicles = chronicles is a way of telling history with bulletpoints, year by year. (e.g. Jerome, Hydatius)
Other Types Primary Sources:
• Panegyric sources (= praising texts, praising someone, speech of praise about some emperor,
about a general or other powerful person) (e.g. by Themistius, Claudian)
• Hagiography (e.g. Vita Melaniae): the lives of saints, such as, ‘the life of Saint Melaniae.’
• Correspondence (e.g. Symmachus, Agustine)
• Sermons (e.g. John Chrysostom)
• Law texts (e.g. codex Theodosianus) (e.g: trousers were forbidden, because trousers were
worn by barbarians, so proper Romans should wear toga’s, but that laws like this existed tells us
that apparently people wore trousers. So this also tells us about history)
Useful tool to find good primary sources: Loeb Classical Library (available through UvA library Catalogue)
HC2
, The Goths Settling +- 376
Modern Ideas about ‘Goth’
The word “Barbarian” means someone who is not part of the Greco-Roman world.
Goths were also a Barbarian people.
Johann Joachim Winckelmann, one of the “fathers of art history” –famous for claiming
Greek art/culture was the highpoint of civilisation– made this etch of the 410 Sack of
Rome. (See PowerPoint). We see wild rough barbarians destroying Greek and Roman
art (aka everything that was great and awesome). This was the main idea people had in
the 18th to 20th century of the Goths.
Why do we call gothic cathedrals gothic? Well, in short: back in the Renaissance, when classical Greek and Roman
culture was rediscovered and seen as greatness, art/architecture that people created the Middle Ages, such as
gothic churches, were considered Barbaric in the renaissance (they were not classical). Thus: “gothic.”
‘Vandals’ were a tribe in late antiquity, infamous for ‘smashing pretty things’ -according to Winckelmann of course.
Goths: Origin: Scandinavia
The 6th-Century gothic historian JORDANES wrote about Gothic History.
Jordanes says in his ‘History of the Goths’ (1(9):)
“The same mighty sea has also in its arctic region, that is in the north, a great island named Scandza, from which
my tale (by God’s grace) shall take its beginning. For the race whose origin you ask to know burst forth like a
swarm of bees from the midst of this island and came into the land of Europe. But how or in what wise we shall
explain hereafter, if it be the Lord’s will”
(He misconceived Scandinavia (‘Scandza’) as being an island)
Jordanes is a primary source, but we have to very sceptical. Although his writings
are partially true, they’re often exaggerations, glorifications and/or complete fiction
–e.g., J. said the Goths (not Greeks) sacked Troy, and that the Goths killed Caesar.
So where did the Goths come from?
In the Poland-area archaeologists found structures and objects (houses, objects, art)
have a lot in common with the material culture of South Scandinavia. This shows
that these People calling themselves ‘Goths’ seemed to be people originally from
south Scandinavia who migrated southwards, and mixed with the people and
cultures in this region of Poland. This immigration and mixing with local polish
cultures was a gradual process that happened between 0 and 200. After, the Goths
moved further southwards, until they arrived at the Eastern Roman borders.
(The south of Sweden is now still called ‘Götaland’ and ‘the island of Gotland,’ probably because of this heritage.)
HC2
, Oldest Accounts of Goths
From 200 onwards Gothic tribes dwelled southwards to Eastern Europe from
where small Gothic groups occasionally would attack the Eastern Roman Empire.
The oldest written accounts of the Goths are in fact sources written by Roman writers in
the 3rd century, and they are accounts thus from a from a Roman perspective.
Sarcophagus (left image): Romans Winning from Goths?
This battle sarcophagus depicts Romans defeating bearded barbarians. We cannot
say for certain that these are Goths being run over by Romans on horses, but it’s likely.
HOWEVER the mid-3rd century, when this sarcophagus was made, was, actually NOT
a good/victorious time for the Roman Empire. There were both civil wars raging
WITHIN the empire (emperors fighting emperors) AS WELL AS external wars being
fought (and not always won) OUTSIDE the Roman Empire, e.g. Persians in the east,
and Barbarian tribes in the North. So, why then do we see many Roman artworks pop
up in this time depicting dramatic battle scenes of Romans defeating barbarians?
Well, (says Martijn), if your superiority as a leader/group/nation is very evident and
obvious and not doubted by anyone, your superiority doesn’t have to be screamed of
the rooftops. However, in times where the superiority of a group/nation/person is
being doubted, art is made that screams their superiority of the rooftops.
Goths and Christianity
Were Goths wild plundering pagans? Well, Goths were at least not pagan, but Christian.
Wulfila (= ‘little wolf’) was a 6th-century Gothic bishop famous for, after
having lived in Rome, converting the Goths. Wulfila also translated
Christian texts to Gothic. The ‘Codex Argenteus’ is a text based on
these translation by Wolfila. We don’t have Wulfila’s original teksts
anymore, but we do still have copies or texts based on them. The
Codex Argenteusis oldest Germanic literary text that still exists.
(Gothic was an eastern Germanic language (not a western or northern!). Now eastern Germanic
languages are completely extinct in the world)
Wulfila was Arian Christian and therefore the Goths were Arian.
The difference between mainstream Christianity and Arianism?
Mainstream Christians believe that the 3 aspects of the holy trinity –The father,
the son and the holy spirit– are no separate things but all manifestations of the
same thing: God. Arianism however is a branch of Christianity that believes
that the 3 aspects of the holy trinity are in fact different/seperate things
– God the father is a distinct figure from God the Son, etc. This idea was seen
as heretic by mainstream Christians.
HC2
, …Leading to Battle of Adrianople
Goths settle in 376 as ‘Foederati’ ! Get mistreated
In 376, the Gothic ‘THERVINGI’ TRIBE asks permission to settle within Roman borders, on
the southern bank of Danube River (in province of Moesia), to live as farmers and soldiers.
(And to probably be safe from Hunnic war bands coming from the east). Eastern Emperor
Valens (364-378) allows it, so the Goths get accepted as foederati (allies).
FOEDERATI = This term was used to describe foreign states, client kingdoms or barbarian
tribes to which the Roman Empire provided benefits in exchange for military assistance.
The Goths, being foederati, could now live in the Roman Empire if in return they’d
(A) Pay taxes, and (B) Serve in the Roman army. This is what the Goths did.
However, as the Goths settled, they got mistreated by local Roman governors.
(For example: getting no help with food-shortages; children being taken as slaves).
This mistreatment leads to revolt. Angry Goths start to rebel (pillage and plunder).
Rebel group grows, not only with Goths but also with other tribes and local rebels.
(Largely consisted out of Thervingi as well as Greutungs, non-Gothic Alans, and various local rebels)
378: BATTLE OF ADRIANOPLE !
Western co-emperor Gratian sets out in 378 with an army towards Constantinople to
support his Eastern co-emperor Valens to deal with these rebels in the east.
However, Valens does not wait for his collegue, thinking he can handle the Gothic rebels.
But Valens had grossly underestimated them. The BATTLE OF ADRIANOPLE IN 378
concluded with an overwhelming victory for the Goths and defeat of the Romans.
These rebels in the east killed 2/3rd of the Roman army and killed emperor Valens!
A detailed contemporary account of the lead-up to the battle from a Roman perspective
was written by contemporary historian Ammianus Marcellinus in the Res Gestae (+- 390):
“And so the barbarians, their eyes blazing with frenzy, were pursuing our men, in whose veins
the blood was chilled with numb horror: some fell without knowing who struck them down,
others were buried beneath the mere weight of their assailants; some were slain by the sword
of a comrade; for though they often rallied, there was no ground given, nor did anyone spare
those who retreated. Besides all this, the roads were blocked by many who lay mortally
wounded, lamenting the torment of their wounds; and with them also mounds of fallen horses
filled the plains with corpses. To these ever irreparable losses, so costly to the Roman state, a
night without the bright light of the moon put an end.” (31.13.10-11):
In short: The battle sarcophagus we saw earlier upside down.
This quote was written almost at end of Marcellinus’ oevre and life #notahappyending.
HC2
