Visigoths and Romans during the fourth century AD. Assimilation,
resistance and cultural interferences,
in Analele Universitatii Bucuresti, istorie, XLV, 1996,
pp. 31-36.
Cristian Olariu
-31-
In the third century, in the conditions of the military
anarchy, there appeared a new danger on the Roman imperial frontieres.
In AD 238, there is registered the first massive attack of the Gothic populations
over the Roman Empire. Several authors had spoken about this new "plague"
occured over the Empire. Indeed, during more than two centuries, the Gothic
populations threatened the security of the Roman frontier, especially in
the Danube area. On the other hand, these Germanic populations were by
far the most influenced barbarians in contact with the Roman Empire. Their
area of settlement was mainly Bessarabia, Muntenia, Moldavia and the Eastern
and Central parts of Transylvania [1].
But, in the Visigothic area of settlement, there also existed Taifali,
Sarmati, former Roman provincial inhabitants, Carpi and even Iranian populations [2]
; also, as a consequence of the barbarian raids of the third century, there
were in this area even groups of Roman prisoners from Asia Minor (see for
example the case of Ulfilas' forefathers, captured by plundering Goths
in "the village of Sadagolthina in the city district of Parnassus, Cappadocia,
and were carried off to Transdanubia" [3].
The Visigothic social structure was one of an "heroic"
or "barbarian" organisation, and the contact with the Romans helped to
strengthen the power of the aristocracy. The barbarian aristocracy was
directly interested in raising it's social status, by achieving prestige
goods by all means: plundering raids, commerce, or negotiations. It's position
in the Visigothic society was threatened
-32-
by the great social mobility, through which every able warrior could
raise it's status and became a new member of the aristocracy. On the other
hand, the aristocratic status was not very well defined, due to the period
of migrations. There were several tribal chiefs, who saw themselves as
the leaders of the community, but their position could be threatened at
any moment by some able newly-raised leaders. During the fourth century,
we are witnesses of a sedentarization of the Visigoths, in the areas quoted
above. One of the main problems in the Romanian archaeology is that it
could not be found any material traces of this aristocracy (i. e. hillforts,
palaces, etc.) except some treasures (i. e. the well-known treasure from
Pietroasa, Botosani, Tauteni-Bihor, Someseni-Cluj, Simleul Silvaniei [4],
and some finds in the fourth century cemeteries. On this base, it could
only be suggested some ideas about the Visigothic social structures.
Also, the literary sources could provide us with
some information; unfortunately, these sources are extremely few, and they
are not very reliable, partly because they are biased by their authors'
Roman origin. We have only accidental information from the Roman side,
which concerns events in direct relation with the Roman history, and the
Gothic authors (such as Iordanes) are extremely late for the period in
discussion. On the other side, there are the Germanic legends preserved
thorugh Scandinavian tradition, and these legends could tell us something
about the Germanic social structures [5].
Beginning from these points, we shall try to reconstruct
the Visigothic society of the fourth century. On the top of the social
hierarchy there were the members of the aristocracy. They are in some way
archaeologically registered in the cemeteries; for example, there are rich
burials which could reflect a social stratification- M 501, M 507 from
Barlad-Valea Seaca [6],
M 37, M 65, M 67 from Spantov [7],
M 143, M 179, M 195 from Targsor [8],
etc. Also, there are registered some "clans" which acquired during the
migrations high social prestige, as a consequence of their leading role:
for example, H. Wolfram recorded the clans of the Amali, the Balthi and
the Rosomoni [9].
A characteristic of the Gothic aristocracy was it's
multiethnic character. There was not simply a Visigothic aristocracy, formed
on ethnic bases, but rather a "barbarian aristocracy", which comprised
more or less some non-German elements. There is for example recorded the
invasion of Rausimodus, in 323 [10]
; in Zosimos' account, Rausimodus was a Sarmathian,
-33-
not a Goth; another example is suggested by V. Palade at M 501 from Barlad-Valea
Seaca, where there were discovered a gold medallion, a glass from Roman
import, and a glass pitcher, all these seeming to belong to "an individual
of a superior social condition" [11],
but especially M 507, "the wealthiest Santana de Mures burial"[12]
, and which was suggested to belong "surely to a local native chieftain"[13]
.
Also, at Viespesti, south-east of Muntenia, in 1926
there was discovered a monetary treasure dated AD 352- 366, in a Sarmathian
context [14]
. All these facts seem to strengthen the idea of a mixed aristocracy, from
the ethnic point of view, and this conducts to the idea that north of the
Danube there existed mixed communities living together, instead of a clear
separation on ethnic bases. There are some proves which help to reinforce
the idea of mixed communities: for example, Gheraseni-Cremenea, in the
Buzau county, Sirna (Prahova county), Barlad-Valea Seaca, already mentioned,
Falciu-Bogdanesti, Banca-Gara, Zorleni-Fantanele, and so on. In all these
settlements and cemeteries it was archaeologically proved that there existed
mixed communities, because of the presence of mixed cemeteries, dated in
the same period. The mixed living can also be proved by the presence of
the pottery of different types: the pottery of Dacian tradition, combined
with the typically Roman red ware, and the grey pottery, typical to the
Santana de Mures culture. Also, the burial ritual, both inhumation and
cremation, together with the burial inventory, help to strengthen the dea
that there are mixed communities, natives and alogenous populations [15].
From the religious point of view, the introduction
of the Arian Christianism proved to be another major factor of dissonance
within the barbarian society [16].
It was suggested that the Christianism was deliberately introduced by the
Romans (the emperor Valens) in order to divide the barbarian society .
As a reaction, there are registered in the literary sources the persecutions
carried on by Athanaric, the "judge" of the Thervingi, against the Christians [17],
and, as a consequence, the Visigothic aristocracy was divided into two
main factions: the pagans, grouped around Athanaric, and the Christians,
under the leadership of Fritigern. Between Fritigern and Athanaric there
was a conflict for the
-34-
supreme leadership of the Thervingi, conflict also mentioned by the literary
sources [18]
; more vagueness is in Eunapios' record, because in fr. 60, in the context
of the Gothic revolt after the crossing of the Danube in the Empire (after
376), he registered the existence of two main factions, one pro-Roman,
the other against the Romans.
What is interesting is the fact that the Visigothic
society was developed as an intermediary society, between the sedentary
civilization of the Romans, and the nomadic cultures of former Scythia.
Accordin to this idea, there could be observed some gradual transformations
in the Gothic society. Whilst the Ostrogoths developed a strong military
monarchy, copying the model of "nomadic" monarchies, where the king is
an absolute monarch (for the case of king Ermanarich, see the legend of
Hamdir and Sorli [19],
as Attila of the Huns had been some decades later, the Visigoths never
succeeded in creating a strong military kingship. They rather created the
"judgeship", a supreme military command during the war [20].
In any case, the judge was seen rather as a primus inter pares than an
incontestable leader during the war This was an essential feature of the
Germanic way of carrying the war. The Germanic army could be better seen
as a coalition of warbands, than a regular army, under a supreme leader.
The chiefs were extremely independent in their actions, for example, during
the times of official peace, the Gothic raiders (latrunculi) who attacked
the Roman provinces [21]
. Speaking about raiders, it must be stressed the fact that raids were
an essential part of the barbarian economy; to be more explicit, the raid
was a fundamental mean of strengthening the links between the chief and
his warriors. The chief was in a way obliged to raid the neighbouring territories,
in order to achieve and maintain high status by providing his warriors
with supplies and prestige goods (such as jewellery, gold pieces, fine
weapons, etc.).
There has already been mentioned that there were
conflicts between Athanaric and Fritigern, conflicts assumed to be on religious
bases; but, as well as religious bases, the conflict could have on it's
origins prestige or status motives, because Socrates informs us that Fritigern
became Arian only after he defeated Athanaric with Roman help [22].
The Roman policy towards the barbarians seemed clear in this case: to help
the weaker part in the conflict, in order to weaken the barbarian threat
over the frontiers of the Empire. But the entire foreign policy of the
Roman state was centred around this point: to divide the barbarian tribes,
in order to secure the Roman frontiers.
-35-
Besides the introduction of Christianism as a state
policy, there were some other cultural fields where the Roman influence
was significant. For example, it was suggested that the wearing of the
so-called "Gothic" brooch was inspired by the late Roman ceremonial [23].
On the other hand, some German kings and chiefs increased their social
status by acquiring Roman military commands, and in this sense there are
recorded for the late fourth century the case of Alaric, both magister
militum per Illyricum and rex of the Goths, or the case of Vadomarius,
both dux Phoenices and king of the Alamanni in 361/366 [24],
or the best-known case of Gainas, who acted as magister militum and as
a Gothic chief during the events of 399/400 at Constantinople [25].
As Roman commanders, they were integrated in the Roman social system, which
prestige among the barbarians was huge in the fourth century. According
to this fact, the barbarian chiefs could receive high military honours
and even payments for their peoples. Also, the Roman gifts helped to increase
the barbarian chiefs' status among their equals.
In the field of the material culture, there has
been discovered plenty of Roman imports, especially Roman pottery: at Copuzu [26],
Ulmeni-Buzau [27],
Izvoare-Piatra Neamt [28],
Sirna-Prahova [29],
Barlad-Valea Seaca [30]
and so on.
What is interesting to observe is the fact that
it can also be found Santana de Mures pottery in the frontier Roman provinces
(for example at Dinogetia, Ulmetum, Runcu, Tropaeum Traiani [31],
so there existed along the Danube frontier a space of mixed populations,
both Romans and barbarians. The Roman tendency was to close as much as
possible the frontier, fact proved to be impossible. The Romans also tried
to control the contacts with the barbarians; it is suggestive in this sense
the imperial decreee promulgated by Valentinian, Valens and Gratian, in
which the emperors forbade the transport in the barbarian territories of
wine, oil and alcoholic drinks, dated c. a. 370-375 [32],
and the war between Valens and Athanaric in 367-369, when the Romans closed
the frontier to the barbarian commerce, and thus they were forced to ask
for peace [33].
-36-
So, the Lower Danube zone could be defined as a frontier
zone, where both Romans and barbarians lived together. It's geographical
character also helped rather to unite than to separate the two banks of
the river, and the Roman limes was those which generated a separation between
the two banks of the river. North of the Danube there were mixed populations,
"barbarian" in character, but looking towards the river to the Roman model,
and trying in some way to imitate it. The prestige of the Roman Empire
was also an important factor in the influence over the barbarians. On the
other hand, the Roman society was "barbarised" at certain levels, especially
on the military one. There are registered several Gothic military units
who served in the Roman army [34],
and some of the Gothic chiefs raised their status even to the privilege
of consulship (i. e. Fravitta, consul in 401 with Fl. Vincentius [35].
The events of 376 and after, well-konwn by the historiography,
marked a new stage in Romano-Gothic relations' evolution, especially the
foedus of 382. The foedus marked the recognition, for the first time by
the Romans, of a barbarian political unit inside the Roman frontiers. From
this time on, the Goths appear as foederates of the Roman Empire, but a
special kind of foederates. If in the previous period the Romans never
dealt with barbarians inside the Roman frontiers, from this time on, a
new relationship had to be developed, marking de facto the weakness of
the Roman state; the Roman authorities were faced with the first German
"state" on Roman soil.
Footnotes:
1. See Iordanes, Getica,
74.
Return to text
2. H.
Wolfram, History of the Goths, Berkeley, 1990, p. 8
Return to text
3. Philostorgius, HE,
II. 5.
Return to text
4.
See for bibliography R. Harhoiu, SCIVA, tom 43, 1992, 4, pp. 425-
431.
Return to text
5. See
for example the legend about Hamdir and Sorli, and their fight against
the king Ermanarich, or the Viking sagas, quoted by H. Wolfram, op.
cit., p. 34.
Return to text
6. V. Palade,
in Materiale si cercetari arheologice, 13, Oradea, 1979, pp. 255-256.
Return to text
7. B.
Mitrea, C. Preda, Necropole din secolul al IV-lea in Muntenia, Bucuresti,
1966.
Return to text
8. Gh.
Diaconu, Targsor. Necropola din secolele III-IV e. n., Bucuresti,
1965.
Return to text
9. Wolfram, op. cit.,
pp. 32-35.
Return to text
10.
Zosimus, II. 21. 1-3, 22. 1, Anon. Val. 5. 21.
Return to text
11. V. Palade, op.
cit. p. 269.
Return to text
12. Ibidem.
Return to text
13. V. Palade, op.
cit., p. 270.
Return to text
14.
M. Butoi, A. Minca, in Materiale si cercetari arheologice, 13, Oradea,
1979, p. 273.
Return to text
15.
See V. Palade, Carpica, XX, 1989; M. Alexianu, L. Ellis, Memoria
Antiquitatis, XV-XVII, 1987, p. 136.
Return to text
16. Paulus Orosius,
VII. 33. 19.
Return to text
17. Auxentius,
Epistula de fide, vita et obitu Ulfilae, in Fontes Historiae
Daco- Romanae, vol. II, Bucuresti, 1970; Augustinus, De civ. Dei,
XVIII. 52; Socrates, HE, IV. 33. 1-7; Passio s. Nicetae,
4.
Return to text
18.
Socrates, HE, IV. 33. 1-7; Passio s. Nicetae, 3.
Return to text
19. Quoted by
Wolfram, op. cit., p. 34.
Return to text
20. For
the description of the judgeship, see Wolfram, op. cit., p. 95.
Return to text
21. For
example, the inscription from Carcaliu, near Troesmis, in CIL, III,
12483= Dessau, 724, dated c. 337-340.
Return to text
22. Socrates, HE,
IV. 33. 1-7.
Return to text
23. See R.
Harhoiu, op. cit., pp. 427-428.
Return to text
24.
Amm. XVIII. 2. 16, XXI. 3. 5: "Ex duce et rege Alamannorum"; PLRE,
I, 1971, p. 928.
Return to text
25. For the
description of the events see Socrates, HE, VI. 6. 1 ff., Philost.
XI. 8, Theod. Cyr., HE, V. 32-3, Zosimus, V. 21. 9- 22. 2, Sozomenos,
HE, 4. 1 ff., Joh. Ant. Fr. 190, Eun. Fr. 82.
Return to text
26. C. Museteanu,
Cultura si civilizatie la Dunarea de Jos, II, 1986, pp. 209- 221.
Return to text
27.
M. Constantinescu, in Materiale si cercetari arheologice, 17, Bucuresti,
1993, pp. 315- 319.
Return to text
28. M. Alexianu,
L. Ellis, op. cit.
Return to text
29. St.
Olteanu, V. Teodorescu, M. Neagu, in Materiale si cercetari arheologice,
13, Oradea, 1979, pp. 277- 279.
Return to text
30.
V. Palade, Materiale si cercetari arheologice, 13, Oradea, 1979,
pp. 265- 270.
Return to text
31.
See M. Comsa, Pontica, 5, 1972, pp. 223- 234.
Return to text
32.
Corpus Iuris Civilis, Codex Iustinianus, IV. 41. 4.
Return to text
33. See Amm. XXVII. 5. 7.
Return to text
34.
See ND Or. V. 26. 31, VI. 26. 61, XXXIII. 15. 32, Occ. VI.
41. 59, VII. 166. 205.
Return to text
35. PLRE, I,
1971, s. v. Fravitta.
Return to text
recommended books
For further comments, please write to webmaster