by Ian Hughes
As well as being useful in outlining what the Roman bureaucracy believed should have been the case, it is also possible to analyze the document in the hope of gleaning material concerning the condition and deployment of the army. This is covered in more depth in Chapter 6.
What is often forgotten, or at least ignored, is the fact that the Notita was not updated after some time around 420. Due to the complicated nature of events from 423 onwards it is quite possible that by the time Aetius achieved sole dominance in the mid 430s events had rendered the Notitia completely obsolete. As a result, it must be used with extreme caution when discussing the later army in existence during the dominance of Aetius.
Codex Theodosianus The Codex Theodosianus is a collection made during the reign of Theodosius II in the east of all of the laws issued since the reign of Constantine I (306–337). Added to this body of laws were the new laws (novellae) passed by Theodosius II (Nov. Th.) and Valentinian (Nov. Val.) after 439. These were also collected and kept with the Codex and now form part of the main text.
The ‘Code’ and the ‘Novels’ are a valuable source of material for the period. It is possible to analyze the laws to establish their context and so determine the reasons for their passing. Furthermore, the laws are accompanied by the name(s) of the emperor(s) that passed them, in most cases by the precise date on which they were passed, and by the name of the city in which the emperor passed the law. This allows us to trace some of the movements of the emperor, and also enables us to link specific laws with specific events in the lifetime of Aetius. One example is the law allowing citizens to bear arms (Nov. Val. 9.1, dated 24 June 440) being related to the conquest of Africa by the Vandals in October 439. Therefore close analysis of the Codex can open a window into aspects of Aetius’ life and policies that would otherwise be blank.
It is also interesting to note that one of the laws dismisses laws that were destined to be ‘valid for the cases of their own time only’.23 This highlights the fact that, like modern law, some laws passed by emperors were meant to deal with specific emergencies and events. After these had passed, the laws were naturally allowed to lapse. Modern examples include the laws passed to deal with the emergency that was the Second World War. Once this war was over, these laws were repealed and ‘normality’ resumed.
CONCLUSION
The information that is available in the sources should not detract us from the knowledge that they were all written with a purpose. Even when this bias is openly declared it can easily be overlooked or forgotten. If this is the case with the major sources as listed above, it is even more the case with the multitude of minor sources not listed. The less-important sources that are used are of varying accuracy and utility and where necessary an analysis of these will be dealt with in the body of the text. However, if the source only gives us one or two snippets of information, then it is possible that it will not be analyzed.
One problem with all of the sources needs to be highlighted. This is where they inform the reader of political intrigue. The difficulty lies with the fact that the sources claim to know details of the kind that are always most suspicious: ‘tales of secret intrigues and treasons which could not be known to the world at large’.24 Whenever this kind of information is encountered a full analysis will be attempted to decide whether there is the possibility of the author knowing the full details of events.
SPELLING AND TERMINOLOGY
Wherever possible, the simplest definitions and spellings have been used throughout the book. There are many examples in the ancient sources of variations in the spelling of individuals’ names, such as Gaiseric being spelt ‘Zinzirich’.25 Also, in most modern works Roman spellings are usually ‘modernized’ by removing the common ‘us’ endings and substituting a modern variant, for example ‘Bonifatius’ becoming ‘Boniface’. Wherever possible the most widely used variant has been employed in the hope of avoiding confusion.
When describing both the tribes along the Rhine and those who successfully invaded the Empire, at times ‘barbarian’ rather than ‘German’ has been used. Although the word ‘barbarian’ is now out of fashion, largely due to its negative aspects regarding comparative civilization levels with the Romans, it has been used, as it is an otherwise neutral term, whereas the use of the word ‘German’ often implies ‘community and ethnicity on the basis of shared language’, which is actually misleading.26
In most cases ‘Goth(s)’ has been used rather than ‘Visigoth(s)’. Contemporary sources describe both the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths simply as Goths.27 During Aetius’ lifetime there was only one Gothic threat, and that was the Goths in the west. The Ostrogoths were peripheral, living in the faraway regions of eastern Europe. It was only after their invasion of Italy under Theoderic in 493 that the west was forced to divide the terminology. Only where there may be confusion between the two ‘tribes’, such as Attila’s invasion of Gaul in 451, will the terms Visigoth and Ostrogoth be used.
ABBREVIATIONS
In order to make the references more manageable, the following abbreviations have been used for ancient sources:
Additamenta Ad Chronicon Prosperi Hauniensis Addit. Ad Prosp. Haun.
Agathias Agath.
Ammianus Marcellinus Amm. Marc.
Annales Ravennae Ann. Rav.
Augustine Aug.
Aurelius Victor Aur. Vict.
Cambridge Ancient History CAH
Callisthenes Call.
Cassiodorus, Chronicle Cass. Chron.
Chronica Gallica of 452 Chron. Gall. 452
Chronica Gallica of 511 Chron. Gall. 511
Chronica Minora (Mommsen) Chron. Min.
Chronicon Paschale Chron. Pasch.
Claudian Claudianus (Claudian) Claud.
Codex Justinianus Cod. Just.
Codex Theodosianus Cod. Th.
Collectio Avellana Collect. Avell.
Constantius of Lyon Const.
Eunapius of Sardis Eun.
Eutropius Eut.
Evagrius Evag.
Fasti vindobonenses posteriores Fast. Vind. Post.
Fasti vindobonenses priores Fast. Vind. Prior
Gaudentius Gaud.
Gildas Gild.
Gregory of Tours Greg. Tur.
Hydatius Hyd.
John of Antioch Joh. Ant.
John Malalas Joh. Mal.
Jordanes Jord.
Libanius Lib.
Marcellinus Comes Marc. com.
Merobaudes Merob.
Minutes of the Senate Min. Sen.
Nicephorus Callistus Nic. Call
Nestorius Nest.
Notitia Dignitatum Not. Dig.
Novellae Theodosianae Nov. Theod.
Novellae Valentinianae Nov. Val.
Olympiodorus of Thebes Olymp.
Orosius Oros.
Paulinus of Nola Paul.
Paulinus of Pella Paul. Pell.
Paulus Diaconus Paul. Diac.
Philostorgius Philost.
Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire PLRE
Possidius Poss.
Priscus, Chronica Prisc. Chron
Priscus, Romana Prisc. Rom.
Procopius Proc.
Prosper Tiro Prosp.
Pseudo-Augustine Pseudo-Aug.
Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus Ren. Prof.
Saint Jerome Jer.
Salvian Salv.
Scriptores Historiae Augustae Scrip. His.
Sidonius Apollinaris Sid. Ap.
Sirmondian Constitutions Sirm.
Socrates Scholasticus Soc.
Sozomen Soz.
Suidas Suid.
Theoderet Theod.
Theophanes Theoph.
Vegetius Veg.
Victor of Vita Vict. Vit.
Zosimus Zos.
Chapter 1
Historical Background and Early Years
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
At the time of the birth of Aetius, some time around the year AD 391,* the Roman Empire had been in existence for many ce
nturies.1 During that time the empire had constantly evolved and although most changes had been slow and complex only about 100 years before Aetius’ birth there had been dramatic upheavals in its nature. In 284 Diocletian became emperor. His reign began at the end of a long period of instability and confusion caused by revolt and invasion. Although his predecessors had done much to help stabilize the empire, it was Diocletian’s reign that saw the return of a more stable government under a long-lived emperor. There were still periods of instability, but his longevity allowed the empire a period in which to recover.
It is Diocletian and his (eventual) successor Constantine who are credited with overseeing a period of major political and military reform, although it should be acknowledged that in many cases they simply accepted and regularized the changes that had been ongoing throughout the third century, and that slow change would continue to occur after their deaths.
One of the most important changes had been the inauguration of the Tetrarchy. The Tetrarchy had divided the empire in half, each half being ruled by an Augustus (emperor). Each Augustus had his own Caesar (deputy and successor) to help run his half of the empire. As part of the bureaucratic system, each of the four co-rulers had a Praefectus Praetorio (Praetorian Prefect) to help with the administration of his ‘quarter’ of the empire. Each Praefectus wielded great power and could readily influence military affairs, as he retained control of the main logistical system of the empire. Although abandoned on the death of Diocletian, the system of using four Praefecti was revived under Constantine. As time passed the position of prefect became more influential, especially that of the two prefects in charge of the two imperial capitals.
Rome was now only the nominal capital of the Roman Empire. Two new cities had emerged as the major political centres of the empire: Milan in the west and Constantinople in the east. In both cases this was in large part due to their strategic locations. Milan, at the head of the Italian peninsula, was strategically placed to allow western emperors to defend Italy and campaign along the Rhine, whilst Constantinople, at the crossing point between Europe and Asia Minor, allowed eastern emperors to command personally Roman armies either in the east or in the Balkans.
The End of the Fourth Century
The sons of Constantine divided the empire between them, after which there was a series of costly civil wars. The eventual victor, Constantius II (d. 361), came to the conclusion that as the empire was being threatened in both east and west it was too big for one man to control. Emulating Diocletian, he enrolled his cousin Julian as Caesar (vice-emperor) with control in the west. When the two men disagreed, another civil war was triggered, but Constantius died in 361, before the two rivals could meet. Julian (360–363), known as ‘the Apostate’ because of his support for paganism, gathered his troops and led an ill-fated invasion of Persia, during which he died. The death of Julian in 363 effectively ended the Constantinian dynasty.
Jovian (363–364) was proclaimed emperor but soon afterwards died on the way to Constantinople. His successor was Valentinian (364–375), who, after being acclaimed by the army and close officials, quickly acclaimed his brother Valens (364–378) as joint-Augustus, with Valentinian taking the West and Valens the East. Diocletian’s decision to divide the empire was now taken as the norm. Valentinian spent his reign repairing and reinforcing the defences of the west and attempting to enforce his will on the turbulent tribes across the Rhine and upper Danube. Valens, meanwhile, was given the task of minimizing the damage to the east from the unfavourable treaty with the Persians signed by Jovian.
In an attempt to secure the new dynasty, in 367 Valentinian declared his son Gratian as Caesar and successor. When Valentinian died in 375 Gratian prepared to take control of the west. However, the troops in Pannonia declared Gratian’s half-brother, Valentinian II, as emperor and Gratian was forced to accept only Gaul, Spain and Britain, while Valentinian II ruled in Italy, Illyricum and Africa. Valens retained sole control of the east.
In 376 a large band of Goths under Fritigern appeared on the banks of the Danube seeking sanctuary from the Huns. Valens allowed them entry to the empire, but they were badly treated and broke into open revolt. In 378 Valens gathered an army together and led them to face the Goths in battle. Contrary to expectations, Valens was defeated and killed by the Goths at the Battle of Adrianople. Gratian was now the senior emperor. To rule the east, Gratian chose Theodosius, the son of a man also called Theodosius who had displayed military ability in the west before being arrested and executed in 376.
With Theodosius in the East and Gratian and Valentinian II in the West, the empire was slowly able to recover. After being defeated in a second battle against the Goths Theodosius led his forces in a campaign aimed at restricting the Goths’ access to supplies and, in 382, his strategy was proved to be effective: the Goths capitulated. Although the Goths were beaten and forced to accept a treaty, they had not been crushed and remained united under their own leaders: an unprecedented move.
The Battle of Adrianople
Although the significance of the Battle of Adrianople is debated, one major factor had changed: after the battle, the Goths were a permanent political and military force within the empire. Their presence changed the way in which the Roman government dealt with barbarians. At first, this change was only visible when the Romans dealt with the Goths, but this quickly changed until it became the manner in which the court dealt with all barbarian leaders.2
For the barbarians outside the empire the treaty was a revelation. The Goths had been allowed to settle under their own leaders. Prior to this, invading barbarians had been defeated and their leaders either executed or deployed on the far edges of the empire, away from their own men. The earlier attitude of barbarian leaders – that the empire was too large to defeat but was a tempting target for raids – changed. Now it appeared possible for barbarian leaders to enter the empire and coerce it into giving them lands and military positions at the head of their own troops. The emphasis of barbarian attacks slowly changed from being attempts to gain plunder, to attempting to force the empire to grant them lands and military posts within it. This change of emphasis was to have dire consequences for the west.
Theodosius and Civil Wars
Imperial neglect of Britain resulted in a man named Magnus Maximus being proclaimed as emperor by the British troops. When he crossed to Gaul, Gratian’s troops deserted and Gratian was captured and executed. After a brief hiatus, Maximus invaded Italy against Valentinian II. This was unacceptable to Theodosius, who declared war and defeated Maximus, inflicting heavy casualties on the western army. Theodosius installed a Frankish general named Arbogast to support Valentinian, but instead Valentinian died in mysterious circumstances. Arbogast proclaimed a man named Eugenius as emperor of the West, and in a repeat of earlier events Theodosius invaded, heavily defeating the western army at the Battle of the Frigidus in 394 and removing Eugenius and Arbogast from power. He then proclaimed his son, Honorius, as western ruler, with Stilicho, the husband of Theodosius’ adopted daughter Serena, as regent. When Theodosius died in 395 Aetius would have been about four years old.
Conclusion
Despite the fact that the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine are credited with halting the calamities of the ‘third-century crisis’, the establishment of the Constantinian dynasty hides the fact that civil wars continued to be fought. Further, the advent of succeeding ‘dynasties’ gives a misleading impression regarding a continuity of peace and a return to the quieter times of the second century.
In reality, change had been enormous. The empire now had two permanent courts, one in the east and one in the west. Although the emperors were quick to maintain the appearance of unity, the courtiers were intent upon maintaining the division and so preserving their positions and lifestyles. Furthermore, the losses suffered during the wars of the fourth century left the empire significantly weaker militarily, especially in the west. Yet at the time these weaknesses were hidden. The empire was now reunited under the
dynamic leadership of an emperor who had been successful in war.
THE EMPIRE AT THE TIME OF AETIUS
Early Life
Unfortunately, the date of the birth of Flavius Aetius is unknown, but was around the year 391, as he is described as a ‘young adolescent’ in the year 405.3 More accuracy is impossible. He was born in Durostorum, in Moesia Secunda (Lower Moesia – see Map 1).4 His father was Gaudentius, a ‘member of one of the leading families of the province of Scythia’.5 Little is known of Gaudentius. Born in the east, he was most likely a high-ranking eastern soldier who adopted the imperial family name – Flavius – as a sign of his loyalty to Theodosius and his heirs. After the death of Honorius in 395 Gaudentius accepted service in the west with Stilicho.6 His political status in the west was such that early in Honorius’ reign he was able to marry the daughter of a prominent Italian family. Unfortunately, the fact that Aetius’ mother was a rich Italian noblewoman is the only information we have.7 That Gaudentius married her is probably an indication that he was following Stilicho’s policies of fusing eastern military command with western political influence, although it should be noted that romance may have had a very large part to play in the arrangement.8
Stilicho controlled the army in the west between 395 and 408 and was commander during several military campaigns against the Goths under Alaric. Gaudentius probably began his service in the west as a protector domesticus (household guard), but in 399, shortly after the defeat of the revolt in Africa led by Gildo, he was given the post of comes Africae (Count of Africa) by Stilicho.9 This promotion was both a reward for his continuing loyalty and a sign that he was trusted by Stilicho to keep the grain shipments to Italy moving.
Having a father who was serving in the army, according to the law Aetius would spend his early years in the Roman military service. In his early life he would also be a witness to the political and military policies of Stilicho.
Like Stilicho (and possibly Constantius III) before him, Aetius appears to have begun his career in the elite corps of the protectores.10 The protectores began in the third century and over time became a bodyguard unit, reserved for individuals who were earmarked for rapid promotion. At an unknown time, and again like his older contemporary Stilicho, Aetius was transferred to the Tribunus Praetorianus (Partis Militaris) (‘Military Praetorian Tribune’, a tribune and notary on the imperial general staff).11 It is difficult to be exact about the nature of this post, mainly because very little information has survived in the sources. Unfortunately, the little we know of the Tribunus Praetorianus suggests that this may have been an honorary title, ‘the significance of which is not clear’, but which is known to have come with several privileges.12
