• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

ANCIENT ROME AND THE BARBARIANS

EMPEROR VALERIAN

ROME, A.D. 300

E. J. Neiburger

In the second, third and fourth centuries, Rome was the greatest power in the world. This far-flung empire included Europe, the British Isles, North Africa, the Middle East and even parts of Asia. Such a massive empire, with thousands of miles of frontier borders, required efficient organizational bureaucracies, immense armies and enormous tax revenues to maintain stability. Opposing Rome (inside and out) were millions of people in small disorganized tribes and petty kingdoms who generally were no match for the Roman military, its gold and silver and its sophisticated diplomats.

Around A.D. 100, European “barbarians” (as the Roman’s called them) began to increase in population, forming large villages. These groups often merged into confederacies and, though often quarreling, cooperated in joint military actions against their neighbors, including Rome. Often one group would displace another tribe, which would force a weaker neighbor into the territory of another in a falling domino–type effect. When directed against Roman territory, these attacks were often easily repulsed by the Roman military, especially during good economic times. But when economic and environmental hardships or internal politics weakened the Roman tax base or political resolve, Rome lost territory to the barbarians.

To halt these losses, Rome often hired barbarian armies to act as buffers from these attacks. This policy, though occasionally used in the past, was begun in earnest by Rome’s worst military leader, the ill-fated emperor Valerian (who was captured by the Pesians in A.D. 260). The theory behind this policy was logical. Let the barbarians kill off each other. The more that die, the weaker they get and the fewer individuals that must be paid, be it enemy or friend. In many cases, if the barbarian mercenaries were victorious but weakened, Roman soldiers could kill them after the battle and thus save all that money. The logic was good though perhaps more than a tad unethical. Unfortunately the barbarians thought the same way about the Romans. Such a time occurred in the middle of the third century when a Roman army was defeated by Persia and Rome lost Dacia (modern day Romania) to invaders.

In A.D. 260, Roman soldiers, retreating from military disasters with Persia, allowed the Alamanni tribe to occupy the Upper Danube and Rhine territories as a paid buffer state. With more territory than its 400,000 soldiers could effectively patrol, Rome decided to use barbarians to insulate it from its enemies. The Alamanni soon quarreled among themselves, splitting into two separate tribes, the Visigoths and Ostrogoths.

By A.D. 330, Rome had divided into two separate empires, centered in Rome (West) and Constantinople (East). The Roman armies and their allies were thinly strung along the frontiers with large mobile field armies held in reserve to plug “holes” by periodic attackers. This operated efficiently for point attacks but failed to stem the tide of large, broadscale attacks over wide areas of their borders. Such broad attacks effected by confederacies of barbarian tribes were increasing. To fill the gaps, barbarian armies from the Franks, Alamanni, Goths, Vandals, Quadi, Marcomanni, Heruli, Alans, Lombards, Jutes, Angles, Saxons and Huns were hired and paid with money and land. They protected Rome at times, but attacked it at others. Rome had no other choice. They needed more soldiers and their citizens were willing to pay (sometimes not) but would not serve.

The use of barbarian troops caused a deep suspicion and distrust among the Romans, who needed the protection of barbarian armies but didn’t like them and strongly objected to the high taxes imposed upon them by their emperors to pay these unruly, smelly soldiers. Barbarians were neither trustworthy nor loyal, especially when their pay was overdue (not to mention frequent Roman lies, double-crosses and assassinations).

Occasionally this