The Byzantine Empire survived the turmoil that had wrecked the western Roman Empire despite having some pretty unimpressive leadership. Leo was the first emperor to use Greek for his legislation, but had little notable impact on the big picture. His successor was Zeno who was newly in post when the western Empire was ended. He consolidated the situation in the East but there was still instability at the top with other candidates for the throne creating problems. Zeno’s reign was briefly interrupted by the reign of Basiliscus. He was finally succeed by Anastasius, who owed his elevation to the favour of Zeno’s widow. This was hardly the most legitimate of grounds for rule, and to add to the problem he contrived to approach death childless and with no obvious heir. Continue reading →
The empire in the West was over. Italy was now a barbarian kingdom run by Odoacer, an Ostrogothic chieftain. But we’ll get back to him – first lets look at the early career of a young upwardly mobile barbarian called Theoderic. He had been born into the royal family of the Ostrogoths shortly after the death of Attila. The Ostrogoths had been vassals of the Huns and had joined him in is attempt to overthrow the Western Roman Empire. When he had been unexpectedly driven back, and then unexpectedly died the Ostrogoths took their chance and grabbed their independence.
They were located in Pannonia at this stage – nominally still a Roman province but actually beyond any actual imperial authority. It is very roughly the area south of the Danube just downstream from Vienna. The Ostrogoths had solved their political problems by breaking away from the Huns but still had economic problems. They were in fact on the point of starvation. So they set off south towards Constantinople with the intention of converting their military skills and ferocity into hard cash.
The path was a well worn one. The barbarians made sure that they caused enough trouble to make sure that the empire saw the wisdom of hiring them. As part of the deal Theoderic – as a child of the royal family – was handed over to be held hostage in the imperial household. This gave him the benefit of a civilised education. He certainly learnt a lot about the way Roman society worked which he was to put to good use in his later career. This didn’t however extend to actually learning to write.
But literacy was no longer a key skill in the Roman army and as he grew older his abilities as a commander were recognised and he was given the title of magister miletum and was even appointed as a consul. At the age of 31 he returned to his tribe to take up its leadership – this was quite likely to have been an elected role – so he wouldn’t have been a shoe in. He needed to merit the role. So he was now both an official of the Roman Empire and a traditional tribal leader Just how this worked is a bit hard to determine, and my guess is that it was probably a bit ambiguous at the time.
What we can say for sure is that the job of keeping Theoderic and his Ostrogoths loyal to the authority of the empire was not an easy one. For example he was ordered to deal with a rebellion by another group of Ostrogoths led by another Theoderic. He carried out the order in his own way and ended up in charge of both groups, and thus now even more powerful. The Byzantine Emperor was no doubt right to feel uncomfortable.
The empire had faced the same situation some hundred years before. Faced with a similar powerful Gothic leader in the form of Alaric, the two halves of the empire had done their best to get him into the other half. There was no longer an emperor in the west of course – Italy was being run as an effectively independent state by the German tribal leader Odoacer, and he could easily become more ambitious still. But the same logic applied. By directing Theoderic against Odoacer the two threats would be neutralised. Ideally they would fight each other to a stalemate and leave the Byzantines alone. Theoderic was invited to invade Italy and to rule it until the emperor came.
That actually wasn’t too far off the actual text of the deal between the two men. It is hard to say whether the idea was that Theoderic was to simply hold onto Italy on behalf of the emperor, or if it was to be his. I imagine that nobody at the time was sure either.
In any event, Theoderic triumphed relatively quickly over Odoacer. He had the support of the local population, at least at first, as Odoacer was not at all popular. Getting the backing of the Senate needed a bit more work, but they came round when the campaign was clearly swinging in his direction and support for Theoderic began to coincide with self interest. He was able to trap Odoacer in Ravenna. He finally finished him off by a simple ruse. He agreed to a peace deal, but then simply murdered him – personally – at a feast held to celebrate the agreement.
This is hardly the most noble of starting point for a reign. But these were savage times, and Theoderic was a long way from the worst ruler Italy could have ended up with. His policy was one that we would describe as apartheid. The Goths were assigned a third of the Senate’s lands. This was a continuation of Odoacer’ s policy and indeed was a memory of the late empire’s policy of billeting allied barbarian troops. There were some 200,000 Goths following Theoderic, so this was some imposition.
Two legal systems were run. One for the Goths, and one for the Romans. Needless to say, the Goths had the more privileged one. But the Romans did at least still have the rule of law to protect them to some extent and so by the standards of the time it wasn’t too bad a deal. Compared to the rapacious exactions of the Huns and the Vandals Theoderic was a pretty good option. He also used his military resources for the benefit of the inhabitants of Italy as well by putting a stop to raids by the Vandals.
While it is important never to forget that Theoderic was an illiterate barbarian who owed his position to an aptitude for violence, his court was a surprisingly civilised one utilising the talents of Roman administrators. One of these in particular shines very brightly on the pages of history. His name was Boethius, and he was in many ways the last serious figure of the western Roman tradition. He was descended from a Roman family of influence, who had in the past produced emperors. He entered public service at an early age and held a number of posts culminating in Magister Officiorum – which can probably be translated as boss of the offices. He was a sort of fixer able to conjure up the kind of thing that only cultured and well connected people can. He sorted out a water clock as a present to Gundobad, the King of the Burgundians. He arranged the services of a top notch lute player to impress Clovis, the Frankish king. And as a Greek speaker he could handle diplomacy with the Byzantine Empire.
It was probably some faux pas connected to the relationship with Constantinople that led to his untimely death. He was accused of plotting against Theoderic in an obviously trumped up charge – but given that the two men worked closely with each other who knows what the real reasons for their estrangement were. But while Boethius had the brilliance, Theodoric had the power and the Roman ended up in prison under sentence of death.
He spent quite a while on death row which might well mean that Theoderic had half a mind to spare him. This was a good thing for the later reputation of Boethius, because it gave him the time to write what was to become his great legacy – The Consolations of Philosophy. This was a hugely popular and influential work in the Middle Ages. King Alfred of England even did an English translation. It’s main contribution to human thought is to explain how free will can be reconciled with an all powerful God. Later civilisation can thank Theoderic foe giving his minister a rest from day to day business and time to work on something of more long term value. Of course Boethius did end up either decapitated or garrotted – sources vary – so I suppose it was sort of swings and roundabouts from his point of view. Let’s hope he was able to be philosophical about it.
Ravenna was to be Theodoric’s capital for the next 33 years. As Odoacer had demonstrated, Italy was quite capable of being run completely independently of the emperor’s wishes and Theoderic had a free hand to do exactly as he chose. But he chose not to openly flaunt his independence and his reign continued to nominally respect the authority of Constantinople. But nominal is the word. Respecting Roman law for his non-Gothic subjects avoided one source of conflict, but was no doubt a sensible policy anyway. He certainly pursued his own foreign policy. He was opposed to the Vandal kingdom in Africa and forged alliances with other barbarian kingdoms against it. The aim appeared to be to establish himself as a de facto ruler in the west to try to fill the power vacuum left by the fall of the empire. His successes in this arena were only modest, but he was playing on a tough pitch.
But while there is no doubt that Theoderic was like all politicians motivated largely by self interest, he very much played the ideal role from the point of view of the Byzantine Empire. He provided a very useful buffer against further barbarian aggression from the West, particularly from the Vandals. At the same time he wasn’t strong enough to create a state big and powerful enough to threaten Byzantium himself. It is also worth pondering how much damage such a strong piece on the chessboard could have done deployed further to the east. As such, the biggest effect of his long reign was to create the preconditions to enable some able ruler to realise the potential power of the Byzantine Empire.
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is permeated from beginning to end with the atmosphere of the Enlightenment. But at the end of the third volume, he comes out and says directly what he believes in.
Gibbon wonders whether some unknown threat could arise that would once again destroy the civilisation of the western world of his time. After all the Arabs had appeared out of nowhere in the eighth century. Could the same thing happen again? Luckily the existence of gunpowder had changed the rules of the game. Mounted bow wielding horsemen no longer needed to be feared – Attila’s Huns would be no match for a column of men with muskets. And it is not just gadgets. The whole of Europe has progressed and moved forward to a brighter age. Continue reading →
Although Roman influence in Britain ended before it did in Gaul, Gibbon chooses to place it in the narrative afterwards. You can see why. The situation in Gaul steadily evolved and are developed. It’s very much part of the story of the fall of the Western Empire. What happened in Britain seems to be a very different story indeed, it does feel very much like a footnote to the rest of the book. Continue reading →
At the end of Volume 3 of Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and Gibbon is in a reflective mood. It feels very much like he is intending on finishing his story here with the end of the Roman Empire in the West as a legal entity. In fact I think that is exactly what his intentions were. This is how he puts it. Continue reading →
Hi, this is the History Books Review and I am Colin Sanders, currently engaged on mopping up operations. We have seen that the last Roman emperor had been removed by Odoacer in Italy, and in this episode we follow the ramifications to Roman Gaul in Chapter 38 Part 1 of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Continue reading →
It isn’t too hard to explain why Christianity became the predominant religion in the Roman Empire. It was well organised. It provided social security at a time of great insecurity. It also had all the coercive power of the state behind it. But how did the conversion of the barbarians make such inroads into the German tribes? Continue reading →
There are many reasons for reading the Decline and Fall of the Roman empire. For a start you get to know a lot about Roman history. You also learn a lot about 18th Century Britain. I hope, or at least aspire, to get these across to people who haven’t read the book itself. But one thing my paraphrasing can never get across is just how good a book it is simply from the point of view of style. Nobody writes like that anymore. I have already done quite a few quotes that hopefully give a flavour. But here is a passage that demonstrates Gibbon’s writing style extremely well and which stands alone as a piece of writing. Continue reading →
Hi, I’m Colin Sanders, this is the History Books Review and this episode covers the rise of monasticism as described by Edward Gibbon in Chapter 37 of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Continue reading →
Leo was an unlikely man to end up being called ‘the Great’. Emperors had become mere figureheads. Military strongmen of barbarian origin actually called the shots and decided who sat on the throne in Constantinople. Leo looked very much like a figurehead. He had no particular credentials for joining the imperial ranks, and only got the job as the frontman for the army chief Aspar. Continue reading →
You are very welcome to follow this blog or to follow me on
You can also become a Roman Republic style client. This involves you turning up at my house early in the morning when I will feed you and give you sums of money. In return you will have to vote for who I tell you and occasionally serve as part of a violent mob to intimidate my enemies.