The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History

by Peter Heather

  43 On provincial development in Noricum, see Alföldi (1974), passim.

  44 Not. Dig. Occ. 39: river police at Boiodurum (Passau Instadt), Asturis (Zeiselmauer) and Cannabiaca; normal cavalry units at Comagena (Tulln), Augustiana (Tralsmauer), Arelape (Pochlarn) and AD Mauros (Eferding); mounted archers at Lentia and Lacufelix.

  45 For a survey of the evidence: Alföldi (1974), Ch. 12.

  46 This quotation and the next are from the Life of Severinus 30. 1 and 20. 1–2.

  47 Walls and militias: Comagenis Life of Severinus 2. 1; Faviana 22. 4; Lauriacum 30. 2; Batavis 22. 1; Quintanis 15. 1; barbarians 2. 1.

  48 Not. Dig. Occ. 7. 40–62. The evolution of the Illyrican field army can be followed because we can compare the listing for it from AD 395, or just before, in the eastern Notitia, with the western listing from c.420 in the distributio numerorum. These lanciarii had clearly been drafted into the field army sometime between 395 and 420.

  49 Life of Severinus 4. 1–4.

  50 Advance warning: Life of Severinus 30; defeating assaults: 25, 27; rescuing prisoners: 4, 31.

  51 Capture by slavers: Life of Severinus 10; Tiburnia: 17; Herules’ destruction: 24, 27; Rugi and attempted transplants: 8, 31.

  52 If increasingly manned by barbarians fleeing the fall-out from Hunnic collapse, the Roman army of Italy continued to exist under Ricimer; so too to some extent the army of Gaul, parts of which had gone into revolt under Aegidius in 462 (MacGeorge (2002), Ch. 6).

  53 Hydatius Chronicle 238–40.

  54 Getica 45: 237.

  55 For further details and full refs, see Wolfram (1988), 181ff.

  56 Burgundians: Favrod (1997). Franks: James (1988), 72ff.; Wood (1994), 38ff.

  57 Harries (1994), 222ff.; cf. Sidonius, Letters 3. 3, on Ecdicius.

  58 The next five quotations are from Sidonius Letters 1. 7. 5; 5. 5; 8. 3; 8. 9.

  59 Arvandus: Sidonius Letters 1.7. Vincentius: Chron. Gall. 511, s.a. 473; cf. PLRE 2, 1168; Sidonius’ description of the trial of Arvandus was also penned for a Vincentius, but it is unknown whether it was the same man. Victorius: PLRE 2, 1162–3; Seronatus: Sidonius Letters 2.1; 4. 13; 7. 2. Unlike Arvandus, Seronatus was not Sidonius’ friend, so he was unmoved by the former’s fate. As early as the 410s, some Gallo-Roman landowners had been attracted to Athaulf’s standard as the best path to peace.

  60 Solon was the legendary law-giver of Athens, who gave them their first written code. Written law had an important cultural significance for Romans.

  61 But Sidonius was ever the Nimby.

  62 Eucherius: Sidonius Letters 3. 8. Calminius: Letters 5. 12 (claiming that Calminius hadn’t wanted to be there). On Sidonius’ son, see PLRE 2, 114.

  63 For an introduction to the Visigothic kingdom: Heather (1996), Ch. 7, with refs.

  64 A common poetic designation for the Franks.

  65 On Sidonius’ imprisonment and release, see most recently Harries (1994), 238ff.

  66 Book of Constitutions 54. 1.

  67 Goffart (1980), supported esp. by Durliat (1988); (1990). For counter-argument specifically with regard to the Burgundian kingdom: Heather (forthcoming a); Innes (forthcoming). See more generally Wickham (1993); Liebeschuetz (1997), Barnish (1986) and n. 75 to Ch. 6 above on the Vandal kingdom. The Burgundian freemen had their own dependants – freedmen and slaves – which was why they received a smaller fraction of the labour force. Subsequent Burgundian legislation dealt with matters that changed the value of one of the partners’ share in the joint estate (assarting by forest clearance, or the planting of vineyards – more valuable per hectare than arable fields), and with the pre-emption rights of the original Roman owner should his Burgundian partner decide to sell up. All of these regulations, like the original order, make much more sense in relation to actual landed property than to taxation deriving from it (BC 31, 55. 1–2, 67, 84).

  68 This is an extremely unlikely omission if the collection and distribution of taxation played the key political role in the structure of the kingdom that Goffart’s argument would suggest.

  69 CE frr. 276, 277; cf. Liebeschuetz (1997).

  70 Best narrative account: Stein (1959), 393ff. Gundobad’s ‘sudden’ departure from Italy: Malalas 375.

  71 Details: Courtois (1955), 209.

  72 Count of the Domestics: Procopius Wars 5. 1. 6. Patrician: Malchus fr. 14 (not noted in PLRE 2, 791–3).

  73 Life 7. 1.

  74 Wars 5. 1. 8.

  75 This was the distribution of forces used by Theoderic the Ostrogoth, who next ruled Italy after Odovacar (Heather (1996), Ch. 7 with refs). Goffart (1980), Ch. 3, again argued that, in both cases, rewards took the form of tax rather than land, but this doesn’t make sense. The whole point of the revolt was that Italy wasn’t generating enough tax revenue. After defeating Odovacar, Theoderic certainly allocated land, while maintaining part of the tax system (Barnish (1986)).

  76 Malchus fr. 2.

  10. THE FALL OF ROME

  1 Tax reductions: Hendy (1985), 613–69; cf. more generally on seventh-century transformation, Whittow (1996), Haldon (1990).

  2 The most extravagant of recent attempts to minimize the importance of group identities is Amory (1997); cf. Amory (1993). But see, for instance, the responses of Heather (2003) or Innes (forthcoming). Romani are mentioned in law codes from the Visigothic, Burgundian and Frankish kingdoms and, in Cassiodorus’ Variae, from the Ostrogothic.

  3 In that year, the Huns launched a huge attack on the Roman Empire, but to the east rather than the west of the Black Sea (p. 154).

  4 Roman army of c. 420: p. 247. Tax crisis and loss of Africa: p. 296.

  5 Goffart (1980), 35.

  6 Carolingian collapse: Reuter (1985), (1990); cf. various essays in Gibson and Nelson (1981). For a more general overview, see Dunbabin (1985), and regional surveys in Hallam (1980). Goffart started life as a Carolingianist and I have often wondered if the processes of Carolingian collapse have not too much influenced his vision of Rome’s fall. The one exception to the ‘internalist’ rule was the Duchy of Normandy, founded by the Viking Rollo, but here the key grant of territory was not made until 911, after the main process of Carolingian collapse had already worked itself out.

  7 The arrival of the Christian mission sent to Canterbury by Pope Gregory I in 597 pretty much defines the lower chronological limit of Bede’s detailed knowledge of the Anglo-Saxon past.

  8 General surveys: Campbell (1982), Ch. 2; Esmonde Cleary (2002); Higham (1992). The kingdom of Kent perhaps preserved the boundaries of the old Roman civitas of the Cantii, and the same may be true of Lincoln and Anglo-Saxon Lindsey. But most early Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were much smaller than the old Roman civitates and were clearly carved out from them piecemeal: cf. the essays in Bassett (1989).

  9 Historians have sometimes fought over whether the end of the Empire should be thought of as destruction or evolution. As so often, the answer to this seeming question-cum-contradiction is to be clear as to what exactly one is talking about in any particular case.

  10 Typical of the traditional approach was the title of Frank Walbank’s study of 1969: The Awful Revolution. The wind of change shows up nicely in the title given to the European Science Foundation project on the same subject, The Transformation of the Roman World.

  11 In the high Empire, this form of education was geared to producing expert public speakers who would excel on the town council. In the late Empire, classical Latin (and to some extent Greek) became the language of the imperial bureaucracy, the new career structure that replaced the town councils.

  12 General pattern: Heather (1994). On Venantius, see George (1992). The relevant evidence from across former Roman Europe is surveyed in Riché (1976).

  13 Brown (1996) explores many of the changes.

  14 The eastern Church: Hussey (1990); cf. revealing particular studies such as Alexander (1958).

  15 Gibbon (1897), 160ff. (quotation from p. 161).

  16 Baynes (1943); Jones (1964), Ch. 25.


  17 Overtaxation, in Jones’s view, was largely attributable to the need to support a large enough army to confront the barbarians and Persia; so even this, if indirectly, was due to the barbarians – although he did also identify ‘idle mouths’ in the new imperial bureaucracy (rather than, as Gibbon, in the Church) as a further source of trouble (Jones, 1964, Ch. 25).

  18 Tervingi and Greuthungi: p. 145. Radagaisus: p. 198. Alaric: p. 224.

  19 Rhine invaders: p. 198. Burgundians: p. 198.

  20 I have not included anything for Anglo-Saxon immigrants into Britain because they did not directly cause the British provinces to drop out of the imperial system.

  21 Ammianus 27. 8.

  22 The cases of some later nomads, such as the sixth-century Avars, are better documented; they were on the run from the western Turks (see e.g. Pohl (1988)). For an introduction to the Eurasian Steppe nomads, see Sinor (1977); Khazanov (1984).

  23 Written and archaeological evidence both suggest that the Germanic-dominated groups affected, such as the Bastarnae, were conquered or fragmented (Shchukin (1989), pt 1, Chs 7–9; pt 2, Chs 7–8).

  24 The figures, as we have seen, are little better than guesses, but the Tervingi and Greuthungi may have numbered c. 10,000 warriors apiece, and Radagaisus’ force perhaps double that. The new group weighed in at more like 30,000 combatants. For detail see Heather (1991), pt 2.

  25 Roman policy towards the Alamanni (p. 83–4) looks similar to the kind of preemptive action recorded against Frankish groups at Gregory of Tours Histories 2. 9. Subsequent unification under Clovis is recounted by Gregory of Tours at 2. 40–2. He dates it by implication after 507, but there is good reason to think that processes of conquest and unification had gone hand in hand between 482 and 507.

  26 See, in more detail, Heather (1991), pt 3. The only new kingdom which we don’t know to have been the product of a major political realignment is that of the Burgundians. This was a second-rank power, which preserved its independence only when it could play off the Franks against the Ostrogoths, and fell to the Franks when Justinian’s conquest of Italy eliminated the latter. Two possibilities present themselves (both feasible, given the sparseness of information available). Either there was no significant fifth-century political realignment behind the creation of Burgundy, which might explain its relative lack of military power; or any alignment was not on the same scale as that which produced the other kingdoms.

  27 On the freeman class, see p. 94. Many of the individuals who are known to have separated themselves from the uniting groups were defeated candidates for leadership, such as the Visigoths Modares, Fravittas and Sarus. Some Thracian Goths who stayed in the east rather than follow Theoderic the Ostrogoth to Italy were Bessas and Godisdiclus (Procopius Wars 1. 8. 3).

  28 Radagaisus followers: Orosius 7. 37. 13ff. (slavery); Zosimus 5. 35. 5–6 (pogrom). Vandals and Alans: Hydatius Chronicle 67–8. Ostrogoths: Malchus frr. 15 and 18. 1–4 with Heather (1991), Ch. 8.

  29 Julian’s treaties: Ammianus 17. 1. 12–13; 17. 10. 3–4, 8–9; 18. 2. 5–6, 19. The evidence for economic contact is collected and analysed by e.g. Hedeager (1978). On the Tervingi, see p. 72ff.

  30 Annals 12. 25.

  31 Northern Amber Route: Urbanczyk (1997).

  32 E.g. Ammianus 16. 12. 17; cf. generally Klöse (1934) on gifts.

  33 Ørsnes (1968).

  34 Ammianus 30. 3. 7.

  35 What I’m offering very briefly here and will develop further in another study (Heather (forthcoming b)) is a centre/periphery model for developments around the fringes of the Roman world. For an introduction to this kind of vision, see Rowlands et al. (1987); Chamption (1989). To my mind, it is crucial to add to such analyses a powerful element of agency: (cf. e.g. Prakash et al. (1994)). Rome’s neighbours were not passive recipients of Roman action and stimuli, but responded dynamically according to their own agendas.

  *1 Italics = usurpers (emperors unrecognized in the other half of the Empire). Some minor western usurpers who never extended their power beyond one immediate locality are not included.

  INDEX

  Acco, Gallic leader, 12

  Achaemenid dynasty, 58, 59, 71

  Ad Salices, battle, 174

  Addax, king of the Alans, 264

  Adiuvense, legionary base, 409

  Aedui, 56

  Aegidius, general, 391

  Aelia Marcia Euphemia, daughter of Marcian, 393

  Aetius, general: achievements, 283, 285, 288, 339, 381; appearance and character, 282; British appeal to, 347–8; campaigns: against Franks, 285; against Huns, 338–9, 341, 344; against Iuthungi, 285; against Visigoths, 285, 286, 287–8, 289, 299; career, 259, 260–2, 281–2, 347, 378, 434, 448; confidants of, 427; death, 372–3, 383, 390, 397; defeat of Boniface, 261–2, 268; fall of, 369–75; Merobaudes on, 284–5, 286–8, 291–3; relationship with Goths, 259; relationship with Huns, 259, 261, 262, 281, 286–8, 303, 327, 330, 343, 374, 378, 435; relationship with Placidia, 261, 335; relationship with Suevi, 288; response to Geiseric’s attacks, 289–91, 292–3; son, 289, 372, 379; strategy against Burgundians, 287, 299, 374; support of Aspar, 285–6; treaty with Geiseric (442), 292–3, 345, 429

  Africa, North: climate, 273–4; grain supply, 15, 273, 275, 276, 277, 292, 296; Justinian’s campaigns, 431; landowners, 294–5, 438; loss of, 300–4, 344; nomads, 275–6; revolt (397–8), 218; Roman forces, 271, 275–6; Roman settlement, 274–7; treaty (435), 286, 289; treaty (442), 292, 395; Vandal- Alan attack (439), 288–90; Vandal-Alan invasion (429), 267–72, 434; Vandal lands, 293–4; Vandals in, 269 (map)

  Aga, Hassan, archer, 157

  Agathias, historian, 63

  Agintheus, general, 315

  agri deserti (deserted lands), 112, 114–15

  Agricola, son of Avitus, 380

  agriculture: in Africa, 277–9; in eastern empire, 385; Germanic, 86–7; productivity, 110–15, 447

  Aguntum, town defences, 410

  Akatziri, 325, 360–1, 363

  Alamanni: kings, 85, 90, 95, 458–9; leadership, 394; raids, 281, 302–3, 413; relationship with Burgundians, 459; relationship with Romans, 165, 177, 178, 195, 394, 451, 452; relationship with Visigoths, 416; reparations, 83; social structure, 90–1, 94; Strasbourg battle (357), ix, 82, 83, 90; territories, 81, 84, 86, 206, 283, 288; treaty with Constantine III, 211; unrest, 263

  Alans: in Africa, 267–82, 283, 445; alliances, 175, 242, 264–5, 287, 329, 452, 453–4; forces, 198, 445, 446; in Gaul, 208, 221, 287, 434; language, 265; losses, 241–2, 244; migrations, 197–8; origins, 147, 195–6, 204, 263; relationship with Huns, 151, 155, 190, 195–6, 330; relationship with Julian, 455–6; Rhine crossing (406), 194, 201, 206, 221, 242, 433; in Roman army, 367; Roman war against, 286; social structure, 263–4; in Spain, 209, 241–2, 264, 265–6, 288, 344, 434; support for Jovinus, 237; territory, 147

  Alaric, Gothic king: African invasion plans (410), 267; alliance with Stilicho, 216, 219–22, 223; death, 238; in Epirus, 220–1; forces, 221, 445; hostages, 281; invasion of Italy (408–10), 224–9, 243; in Italy (401), 215; leadership of Goths, 211, 213, 221, 265, 418, 451, 454; in Noricum, 221–2; Noricum plans, 407; payment by Rome, 221; peace negotiations (409), 225–6, 229, 248; peace settlement (397), 214; political strategy, 216, 219, 225–6, 229, 248; relationship with Priscus Attalus, 226–7, 255, 384; relationship with western empire, 378, 379; revolt (395), 213–14; sack of Rome (410), 227–9, 232, 388; Sarus’ attack on, 227; sieges of Rome, 224–5, 226, 227, 248

  Alaric II, son of Euric, Visigothic king, 424

  Alatheus, Gothic leader, 151, 152, 179, 183, 185, 213

  Alavivus, leader of Tervingi, 145, 152, 154, 164–5

  Alesia, siege, 7–8

  Alexander the Great, 18, 23

  Alexandria, city, 109

  Alexandrovka, fortified centre, 91

  Allobichus, general, 256

  Almus, fortress, 360

  Altava, inscription, 270

  Alypia, daughter of Anthemius, wife of Ricimer, 393


  Amal dynasty, 330, 352, 353, 357

  Amber Route, 456–7

  Ambiorix, king of Eburones, 3–4, 5, 7, 13

  Ambrose, bishop of Milan, 76, 133, 190

  Amida: capture, 65; sack, 121

  Ammianus Marcellinus, historian: on Ad Salices battle, 174; on Alans, 263; assassination mission, 215; on barbarians, 82; on Constantius II, 23; on Germani, 455, 459; on Goths, 145, 151, 172, 173, 175; on Hadrianople battle, 167, 178–80; history, 192, 458; on Huns, 146, 148, 149–51, 154–5, 158; on Julian, 252; on Petronius Probus, 254–5; on Roman kidnaps, 165; on Sarmatians, 160; on Saxons, 67–8; on Valens, 166

  Ampsivarii, 54, 85

  Anagastes, general, 359

  Anastasius, emperor, 400

  Anatolius, ambassador to Attila, 333–4

  Anchialus, city, 171

  Angles, 414

  Anglo-Saxons, 94, 95

  annona militaris (tax), 65

  Ansilas, general, 290

  Anthemiolus, son of Anthemius, 416, 425

  Anthemius, emperor: accession, 392–3; African policy, 399, 400–1; armada, 400–1, 415, 416; background, 392–3; death, 425, 427; defeats, 415, 416, 425; finances, 399–400; in Italy, 392–4, 433; reception by Gallo-Roman landowners, 394–5, 397, 419; territories, 406; victory over Huns, 368; war with Ricimer, 425–6, 428

  Anthemius, praetorian prefect, 392

  Antioch: city, 25, 29; Gothic embassy, 153; imperial headquarters, 28; late Roman villages, 112, 444; regional headquarters, 161; sack, 386; suburbs, 118; tax riot, 120; Theophanes’ journey, 105

  Apahida, burial, 364, 365

  Aphrodias, city, 133

  Apollinaris, son of Sidonius, 420

  Aquileia: city, 202; council (381), 86; port, 260; siege, 339–40; trade with Noricum, 407

  Aquitaine, Gothic settlement, 242, 263, 265, 408, 451

  Arab forces, 175