Book Notes: Barbarians Within the Gates of Roman: A Study of Roman Military Policy and the Barbarians, 375-425 AD (by Thomas S. Burns)

 

This is another book I read because it was recommended (or the author was recommended) in the bibliography presented in Guy Hasall's Worlds of Arthur.  

Burns examines in considerable depth and detail Roman military policy after the defeat at Adrianople in 378 CE.  As with Goffart, there is considerable discussion of the nature of the Empire's frontier, and this is the first work where I began to really think of the "invading barbarian armies" as more like refugees seeking to enter the Empire, wherein while the short-term intent of crossing the frontier and "invading" might be simply to scoop up undefended food stores, the long term hope was probably to be "settled" into the Empire either by being absorbed into the military (a choice assignment - army forts and camps are still supplied regular grain from Egypt and Africa) or the accommodation process described by Goffart.

In the post-Adrianople context, Burns shows how quickly the Empire was able to contain the Gothic army despite the destruction of a large Roman empire and death of the Emperor Valentinian.  The surviving emperor Valens and then Theodosius resolved the Gothic crisis by accommodation means. Burns then moves on to the situation thereafter, where "armies" of Goths have been brought into the Empire and are part of its military apparatus, but in a very secondary status as auxiliaries. There is an examination of the internal threat powerful Roman generals have come to assume in the empire - Stilicho, named guardian of Emperor Honorius by the dying Theodosius, leans heavily into recruitment of "barbarian" troops from the frontier zone. 

The Goth Alaric, dismissed from Roman auxiliary service, essentially becomes an outlaw general and an army of similar barbarian discontents rally around him. The Empire fails to confront this army, both because multiple competing internal usurper and rebel generals, and because Alaric's army is a useful counter to these threats.  Alaric jockeys for a "true" generalship and incorporation of his troops into the official Roman military system (and its regular meals), sacking Rome and creating a puppet usurper Emperor of his own. The Emperor Honorius freezes grain shipments from Africa to Italy and starves Rome and its occupier.  The Western Empire remains in flux with multiple usurpers and outlaw generals in competition and cooperation.  Finally, the Goth general Wallia and his people/army is settled in Aquitaine in 418 by the Emperor Constantius, to act as a buffer against the Vandals in Spain and as a reserve force in Gaul.  Most notably, however, for the first time ever, the Emperor acknowledge Wallia as King of the Goths inside the Empire.

Burns' point is that the process from Adrianople to Wallia was still process and one where Roman leadership was making the choices, so that "as long as Roman generals possessed forces to balance the barbarian auxiliaries, they called the tune."  That balancing involved the use of other barbarian auxiliaries, alliances with usurpers, or the arrival of eastern Imperial troops.  However, as seen in Goffart, the skeletal structure of the early medieval/feudal period has been put in place - where once there were Roman provinces, there are now "kingdoms" which will ultimately outlive the Empire of which they are supposed to be a piece of.

Book Notes: Barbarians and Romans: A.D. 418-584: The Techniques of Accommodation (by Walter Goffart)

I read this book because it was recommended in the bibliography presented in Guy Hasall's Worlds of Arthur.  

Goffart had studied Late Roman and Early Medieval tax law and the basic query of this book is that despite the "fall" of the Western Empire and its division into the "barbarian" kingdoms of the Lombards, Visigoths, Franks etc., a clear continuity in taxation runs through this transition, and the Roman origins remain evident and in place. 

Goffart almost exhaustively breaks down the idea of massive, multiple waves of coordinated and organized invasions of "Germanic" peoples overrunning and carving up the Western Empire.  Rather, these invasions are uncoordinated and quite separate from each other. Many of these people had previously existed, often for a long time, adjacent to the Empire on its frontier - they interacted with and knew who Romans were and, perhaps more importantly, what life in the Empire had to offer.  Due to pressures from other tribes or other factors, occasionally "large enough to matter" masses of barbarians would successfully cross the (fortified) frontier penetrate into the mainly civilian lands beyond. Maybe there would be some fighting, but in many occasions the Empire deemed it easier to take in the invaders as military auxiliaries.  

To this Goffart is focused on the process of how the empire legalistically handled this "accommodation."  The answer was to basically assign a portion of a given landowner's tax liability to a given barbarian or barbarians.  Because that tax income would usually be used for defense of the empire, and because the accommodated barbarians provide military service, one can see how this somewhat cleverly does very little to upset the status quo for the Empire.  Tax liability is not increased but the same level of defense is still provided.  One can see how early medieval feudal structures might grow out of this.

I do not recommend this book for casual reading. Goffart is very much doing the academic historian's labor of assembling and presenting his probative evidence.  The first, second, sixth (discussion of the granting of hospitalitas) , and final chapters are probably most instructive, with the middle five focusing on specific case studies for 5th century Italy, the Visigoths, the Burgundians, and the Lombards, respectively. 

The granting of hospitalitas in chapter 6 and indeed the whole book is at the heart of the "accommodation."  Older Roman military law required hospitalitas in a billeting of troops sense.  Goffart argues that earlier historians have mistaken the granting of hospitalitas to barbarians as either the outright reallocation of land from Roman owners to new barbarian owners, or the creation of a sort of early feudal lord-serf relationship. This interpretation of course fits very neatly into a "conquering invaders" narrative.  Goffart's more nuanced view is that above tax reallocation in exchange for service, which is considerably less dramatic, and, more importantly, does much to keep the source of authority with the Empire (the tax allocation is given in exchange for service - the implication is that it can be taken away), albeit over time these tax allotments will devolve and reconsolidate into the early medieval states.

Book Notes: Worlds of Arthur: Facts & Fictions of the Dark Ages (by Guy Halsall)

Halsall's prose is very easy to read and this book seems aimed slightly more at the general public than the academic market. There are no footnotes or citations, and some of the drier probative text required in most academic books where the author has to show their work is mostly absent. In the latter instance there is little need to show probative work, because Halsall isn't really doing original research here - this is more a bibliographic overview and critique of the historical basis for a historical King Arthur.

Worlds of Arthur starts with an overview of how written and archeological sources have previously been strung together to create what is understood as the historical Arthur. Wargamers who have dabbled in Arthurian (or Subroman or Romano-British or Late Roman - choose your label) wargaming will no doubt be familiar with this version of Arthur.  

Halsall then moves to a closer examination of those same sources. The written sources are rather quickly exposed as suspect, either because (1) the "sources" almost immediate start having problems with being written years after the events they describe, even centuries, (2) the author's intent is sometimes contrary to recording things factual, and (3) Arthurian-believers have basically cherry-picked the best supporting evidence and ignore what doesn't fit.

Now, many "Arthurian" wargame rulesets will actually state that a historical Arthur did not likely exist, but what's more problematic is the manner in which the imagined historical setting of a "historical Arthur" is doubtful.  This is the stuff of the ignored "pleas of the Britons" and the building of forts along the "Saxon Shore" that builds up an image of a Roman Britain in crisis falling before a invasion/migration of Saxons, Angles, and Jutes. This storyline is is the prerequisite for a Briton warlord, like Arthur, to fight at Mount Badon.

Halsall notes the D-Day inferences of images like this. 

Accordingly, the balance of the book is an assessment of the historical setting of 5th and 6th century Britain and northern Europe.  Was there a massive violent invasion of entire peoples into Britain? No, not really. Were professional Roman troops drained out of Britain to Gaul (and beyond) in the service of usurper generals-turned-emperors? Yes.  Were these drained garrisons re-manned with "barbarian" troops (refugees, really, to use a modern context) who would gladly take the stability of regular meals and shelter in a government-supplied fort?  Certainly seems so. 

There is also a somewhat deep dive into what it means to find "grave goods" in a "Saxon" grave.  What does it really mean that some graves have swords and jewelry etc. in them and others do not? The older, traditional interpretation is that graves with treasure are pagan Saxons/Angles/Jutes, and the graves without are Christian Romano-Britons.  Halsall, convincingly, I think, breaks down this interpretation based on grave locations and dating. What made more of an impression on me was the idea that grave goods represent a society/locality that is unstable/destabilized.  In a stable community, leadership will be stable, because life is good.  When a community is in crisis and unstable, leadership and status will also be unstable, because the community will question its leadership.  Accordingly, in a community in crisis, when a community leader dies, his or her heirs will include grave goods as a way of showing and asserting through display of symbols of wealth and power that leadership should continue in them.  This may not seem like a particularly earth-shattering conclusion, but the idea of unstable or destabilized communities needing to make conspicuous displays of power has really stuck with me and I've found it a useful way to look to at early and pre-modern history outside of late roman Britain.

The ending sections of the book work to frame "Arthurian" Britain in the wider context of the Western Empire at the time (usurper emperors and the steady influx of "barbarian" troops, for example).  This fits more with Halsall's specialty which is the Western Empire.

If I taught a 'Intro to History' class, I would probably assign this book, mainly for the excellent analysis of the written sources, and secondly for the analysis of archeological sources.  Halsall's analysis of the written material is the practice of history at work: not only a critical reading of the source as a whole (no cherry picking) but also contextualizing the writer and their aims as much as possible.  The archeological material was illuminating because I am not familiar with how archeology can support or undermine written sources.  In the context of the late Roman period, where written sources are few and usually incomplete, archeological evidence can be critical determining veracity of written sources.

Finally, there is an excellent bibliography, from which I chose several books which I purchase and read.  Because they (mostly) deal with the same specific subject matter, I sometimes have trouble remembering which book said what, and hence the reason for these notes.

This book is easily found for sale online and at low cost. Recommended.