by Ian Hughes
A second factor is that financially the city was of huge importance to the empire, as it was the main commercial centre of Gaul through which the majority of trade passed to the Mediterranean. Its loss would be a serious blow to the financial affairs of Ravenna, which were already in a perilous condition.22 Furthermore, Arles was now the capital of Gaul and was of inestimable political importance to Rome. Given the fact that the north of Gaul was beginning its slow slide away from the empire, the loss of Arles would result in the imperial hold on Gaul becoming extremely tenuous. If he could take the city, whichever of the two sides won the civil war would be forced to make concessions to Theoderic for the return of the city, and if the Theodosian claim was victorious they may also have felt obliged to reward him for his loyalty.
On the other hand, taking Theoderic’s attempt to capture Arles as evidence of a Gothic attempt to expand their influence to the Mediterranean is unrealistic. Arles was an extremely important city and the chance of the Goths taking Arles and of being allowed simply to keep it were extremely remote. Theoderic would have known this. If the city was taken and held, it was far more likely that a major Roman expedition would be sent to recapture Arles at the first opportunity, and the past twenty years of conflict had shown that the Goths simply could not win. Therefore, it is unlikely that Theoderic seriously contemplated annexing the city on a permanent basis.23
Additionally, political treaties were usually seen as being signed between individuals such as Theoderic and Constantius, not between political entities such as Rome and the Goths. The death of Honorius almost certainly meant that there would need to be a new treaty signed with whoever won the civil war. It is more likely that the move to lay Arles under siege was a declaration of loyalty to the Theodosian government in the hope that they would change the terms of the treaty of 418.
It is probable that Theoderic wanted two amendments to the original treaty. The first would have been concerned with extending the land personally held by him. An increase in his personal landholdings would result in an increase in revenue for Theoderic. This in turn would finance an enlarged personal comitatus (personal following). As a result, he would be able to begin the process of firmly establishing himself as undisputed leader of the Visigothic kingdom, since his increased military power would allow him to bring the aristocracy under ever-tighter control.
The second was related to the past. In order to be compared favourably with Alaric – the Visigoth who had, after all, sacked Rome itself – Theoderic needed a military post high in the hierarchy of the Roman army. In this way, he would gain the financial benefits from his new position, as well as holding an official rank to use in his dealings with the local aristocracy in Aquitania. He would also gain prestige from being the first of Alaric’s successors to gain an official post in the imperial infrastructure.
As a result of these deliberations, when civil war again broke out within the empire Theoderic acted without hesitation and laid siege to Arles.
AETIUS’ FIRST CAMPAIGN
Once Aetius had learned of events in Gaul he would have known what to do. He left Italy with his bodyguard and advanced into Gaul with the intention of gathering his forces for a campaign against the Goths. This doubtless took some time, as only a short time previously he had been part of John’s regime and had only recently accepted service under Valentinian. Initially the troops stationed in Gaul would have been wary of Aetius’ motives and strategies and of following his orders unquestioningly. Having gained the trust of most of the Gallic army, and learning of the composition of the enemy, Aetius collected his forces before advancing towards the Visigothic siege lines.
It is unclear exactly what happened at Arles when Aetius reached the city. The two sources that tell of the siege give only very brief notices of events:
Arles, noble city of Gaul, was assailed by the Goths with great violence, until, threatened by Aetius they withdrew not without losses.
Prosper Tiro. s.a. 425
Arles was freed from the Goths by Aetius.
Chron Gall 452 102 s.a. 427
Prosper’s statement that the Goths withdrew ‘not without losses’ is ambiguous. It could mean either that Aetius’ forces attacked and forced the Goths to withdraw after taking casualties, or more likely, if the statement that Arles had been ‘assailed by the Goths with great violence’ is accurate, that the Goths had taken losses whilst attempting to storm the city. The Gallic Chronicler’s statement is completely uninformative on the point. The only thing that is certain is that Theoderic was unwilling to face Aetius in a pitched battle.
It is most likely that Theoderic withdrew without battle, having taken losses only during the course of the siege. As the Roman forces approached, Theoderic’s forces were probably dispersed around the city in order to enforce the siege. Needing time to collect and order his forces, Theoderic would have had little choice but to withdraw.
Yet there is another factor. Aetius was the legitimate representative of the new Theodosian government, and his previous role as a hostage with the Goths attested to his political importance. As the son-in-law of Alaric, it is certain that Theoderic was already acquainted with Aetius due to Aetius’ tenure as a hostage between 405 and 408. Theoderic could not maintain his stance of supporting the House of Theodosius if he continued the siege in opposition to Aetius.
After the Visigothic departure, Aetius and Theoderic conducted negotiations, during the course of which an exchange of hostages appears to have been arranged and peace terms agreed, possibly with increased benefits in return for continued loyalty to the Theodosian dynasty, although the details are unknown.24
The raising of the siege of Arles was of inestimable value to the regime in Ravenna. A military success would have helped to secure Valentinian on the throne, a position that was still precarious. The fact that Aetius had won a victory over the Goths was a sign that after the confusion of the civil war the new regime was asserting itself and the opponents were now working together.
It should be noted that the actual dating of Aetius’ campaign is open to question. Prosper dates it to 425, whilst the Gallic Chronicle of 452 dates it to 427.25 Although certainty is impossible, given the nature of events it is possible to reconstruct a viable timeline.
In 425 Aetius was made magister militum per Gallias and travelled to Gaul. However, he was unable to act instantly as he needed time to re-establish control there. He would need to convince all of the local commanders that he was now the loyal servant of Valentinian and that he had no intention of leading the Gallic army in another civil war. He would also need to demonstrate that he was not going to take reprisals for the death of his father. After this he would need to collect his forces, during which time, and claiming to be unaware of the change in circumstances, the Goths launched their attacks upon the besieged city.26
It will have been at the earliest in 426 when Aetius led the Gallic army to relieve the siege of Arles and forced Theoderic to retire. The necessary negotiations needed to conclude the war will most likely have continued into 427, especially as at this early stage in his rehabilitation Aetius would not have had the power to sign the treaty on his own. A lot of time will have been spent waiting for Valentinian and his ministers to ratify the new treaty. Therefore it was only in 427 that a treaty was agreed between Aetius and Theoderic and hostages were exchanged.
Although only a theory, the timeline does allow a reasonable passage of time for all of the events to take place, as well as explaining the confusion in the different chronicles.27 Following the conclusion of the campaign, and possibly accompanied by an embassy from Theoderic to ratify the treaty, in 427 Aetius returned to Ravenna to report in person on the Gallic campaign.
THE DISGRACE OF BONIFACE
When Aetius returned to the court in 427 it was to find himself embroiled in a political tangle. Felix appears to have been taking steps to ensure that he remained the sole military power in the West. According to Prosper, either during or shortly after Aetius’ campaign agai
nst the Goths, a tribune by the name of Barbatus had attacked and killed Patroclus, Bishop of Arles, for which Felix was held responsible. It is possible that Aetius was recalled in part to explain the circumstances surrounding Patroclus’ death. Furthermore, a deacon in Rome was also attacked, again allegedly upon the orders of Felix.28 It would appear that Felix was reacting to religious dissent against his rule, and this may reflect a broader sense of unrest.
However, the crisis came when Boniface, Placidia’s supporter for several years, was accused of wanting to set up his own empire in Africa.29 The accusation was made by either Aetius or Felix – unfortunately, our sources differ. Procopius, John of Antioch and Theophanes all claim that Aetius was responsible for the accusations.30 However, as a note of caution, it should be remembered that Procopius was writing in the sixth century, John of Antioch in the seventh and Theophanes in the eighth. Unfortunately, we do not know what their sources were for these allegations, so it is uncertain how accurate they are likely to be.
Prosper, however, implies that it was Felix who was responsible for the accusations.31 Given that Prosper was a contemporary who was also antagonistic towards Aetius, it seems possible that he is more accurate in his allegations. Yet, as usual, certainty is impossible. The claim would tie in to the ‘aggressive’ stance apparently being taken by Felix with regard to any opposition, as shown by the deaths of the clergymen. Furthermore, it is unlikely that Placidia would listen to any accusations made by Aetius, a man who had until recently been the supporter of a usurper. Aetius was not yet in a position where his word would be accepted against Placidia’s staunchest ally.
As a consequence, it seems highly probable that it was Felix who made the accusations against Boniface.32 Coming from the patricius and the leader of the army that was supporting her in power, Placidia had to take the accusations seriously. Since Aetius had just returned to report on his actions in Gaul, it would make sense for Placidia to request that Boniface should report on affairs in Africa in person. It would also be a chance to all three of the most important men in the West together to formulate plans for the West’s restoration.
Consequently, Placidia was persuaded to summon Boniface to Ravenna, but she was also told that he would not come as he was turning against her. In the meantime, word was sent to Boniface warning him of a plot and advising him not to return to Italy.33 When Boniface refused to return, Placidia declared him a rebel and ordered Felix to send an army to take control of Africa.34
According to his (no doubt welcome) instructions, Felix sent Mavortius and Gallio, both of whom may have been comes rei militaris, and Sanoeces, who may also have been a comes rei militaris but who could instead have been the leader of a contingent of Huns, to Africa.35 It would appear that the army was besieging Boniface when Mavortius and Gallio were killed, being betrayed by Sanoeces, although the precise details are unknown. Shortly afterwards Sanoeces himself was killed. When the news reached Italy, the comes rei militaris Sigisvult was sent to Africa to conduct the war, which he proceeded to do for the next two years.36 It is almost certain that Sigisvult was a Goth and that when he was ordered to go to Africa he took a contingent of Gothic troops with him, possibly in accordance with the new treaty signed between Aetius and Theoderic, although the context is extremely insecure.37 What is more certain is that Sigisvult was an Arian and that he took with him the Arian bishop Maximinus. Shortly after landing, Maximinus was sent to dispute with Augustine in Hippo.38
PANNONIA
In the meantime, either late in 426 or early in 427, Felix set out to fight the Huns, who had allegedly held Pannonia for fifty years.39 Interestingly, Jordanes also notes the attack on the Huns, claiming that the Roman army was accompanied by Goths.40 Although the entry in Jordanes is suspect, and doubtless there were many groups of Goths who were unattached to the settlement in Aquitaine seeking employment, it is intriguing to note that this tallies with the possibility of the employment of Goths by Sigisvult mentioned above. Consequently, it is almost certain that immediately after the treaty with Theoderic there is evidence for the Goths supporting Rome. It is also evident that the Huns did not have any large settlements in Pannonia, their presence being restricted to smaller settlements and the pasturing of flocks across the River Save. As a result, the campaign was a success, and the Huns, who had probably only lightly held areas in Pannonia, were forced out.
Politically and militarily the successful campaign would be important to Felix. He had led the Italian comitatensis against the enemy in his first military operation as the senior magister. The ‘victory’ over the barbarians established his credentials and helped to cement his grasp on power. Felix would be able to broadcast a large amount of positive propaganda about his leadership qualities, if only to act as a counterbalance to the victories Aetius was winning in Gaul.
THE CAMPAIGN ON THE RHINE
It is unlikely that Aetius was involved in this campaign, since his presence was needed in Gaul, where a lot of work was still needed in order to restore the whole of Gaul to the empire. He is likely to have spent the remainder of the year of 427 returning to Gaul and preparing for the campaign of the following year.
When the campaign season of 428 began Aetius gathered his forces and advanced towards the Rhine.41 The Franks had used the opportunity given by the Roman civil war to extend their territories along the river. It is likely that the Franks had not conducted a military campaign, but that there had been a peaceful settlement on abandoned farmland along the frontier, in a similar manner to the Huns in Pannonia. Surviving farmers may also have employed cheap illegal immigrants rather than Romans, helping the Franks to recognize where Roman lands were becoming deserted.42 Advancing with his army, Aetius forcibly evicted the trespassing Franks, making them retire from Roman territory and probably taking the opportunity to re-negotiate agreements with the recognized leaders of the Franks which had been annulled by the death of Honorius.43 At the same time, Aetius reinforced the concept that the empire was now strong and reunited once more, and that the Franks were again subject to Roman commands.
Aetius now had two successful campaigns to his credit against two of the dominant barbarian groups of Gaul. It was fitting that the newly appointed magister militum per Gallias was responsible for restoring Roman authority by defeating the Goths and the Franks. Furthermore, the speed at which he was intimidating barbarians and recovering Gaul was no doubt appreciated in Ravenna. He was quickly gaining credibility. Furthermore, the involvement of the Gallic aristocracy in the usurpations of 411 and 413 had damaged their influence at court. In response they changed to taking religious careers, during which they could rise to the point where they could wield a great deal of religious and political power.44 However, those who were still hoping that they could regain their political influence saw Aetius as the ideal man to support. His success in Gaul and his political power in Ravenna resulted in him being seen by the Gallic aristocracy as the man to follow. However, political events in Africa and Ravenna were to have far-reaching consequences, both for Aetius and for the empire.
BRITAIN
Aetius’ successes in Gaul may have had an impression on the peoples of Britain. The resurgence of the empire on the continent appears to have resulted in an increase in contact between Britain and Gaul. The attempt by the empire to reassert its control of northern Gaul may have resulted in an expectation that the empire would soon be restoring its government in Britain.45 Accordingly, the Catholic leaders of the island sent messengers to Rome asking for a mission to be sent to combat the rise of Pelagianism on the island.46 There was a synod held in Gaul and ‘on the recommendation of the deacon Palladius, Pope Celestine sent Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, as his representative’.47 By restoring the links between Gaul and Britain via the church the government was able to declare that the British provinces were once more part of the empire.
THE VANDALS
As was mentioned earlier, whilst all of this activity was occurring in Gaul and Italy, in Spain the Vandals had not bee
n idle. They and their allies moved into the south of Spain and in 425 and 426 captured Carthago Spartaria (early Roman Carthago Nova, now Cartagena) and sacked Hispalis (Seville), following which Gunderic, king of the Vandals, died. His successor was his brother, Gaiseric.48 It is likely that with their capture of Carthage the Vandals captured a large number of sea-going vessels in the harbour. Using these, in 425 they ravaged the Balearic Islands and also raided Mauretania.49 It is likely that they faced little opposition in Mauretania, a fact that Gaiseric would remember.
Normally, the Romans would have gathered a fleet together to oppose the Vandals’ use of ships, but at this time the fleet from the western Mediterranean was either in Gaiseric’s own hands after the fall of Cartagena, or was being used to transport, guard and supply the forces being used by Sigisvult for the war against Boniface. However, the capture of a Roman fleet and the lack of Roman opposition gave Gaiseric the chance to implement a move that would prove fateful for both the Vandals and for the Romans. Access to the sea gave him the opportunity to cross the Straits of Gibraltar and land in Africa.
Map 5. Spain c.429
Realizing that an alliance with the now Mediterranean-based Vandals could help to defeat the enemy, either Felix or Sigisvult made a complete U-turn and attempted to recruit at least some of the Vandals to their cause. At the same time, and possibly with more hope of success, Boniface may also have attempted to gain the alliance of at least some of the Vandals:
Thereafter access to the sea was gained by peoples who were unacquainted with ships until they were called in by the rival sides to give assistance.
Prosper Tiro s.a. 427
It was unlikely that the Vandals would agree to fight alongside the Goths, who had only the decade before so ravaged the Vandals themselves. However, in the case of Boniface, the recruiting of Vandals was an obvious measure to offset the opposition’s use of Goths. Furthermore, following the attack of the Goths in 416–418, it is likely that the opportunity to fight the Goths would be taken by at least some of the Vandals. It would appear that at least some agreed to join the Roman army and fight for Boniface against Sigisvult and his Goths. They would have represented those individuals who were unhappy at the total dominance of Gaiseric in Spain.
