The Historians of Late Antiquity (40 page)

Rufinus’ work was prompted by concerns over Gothic invaders, and contains a preface which refers to Goths as a “pestiferous disease.” The historian nevertheless provides other paradigms of Roman and barbarian relations beyond that of invader and victim. While the Greek ecclesiastical successors of Rufinus reproduce his conversion accounts, they continue to maintain a more traditional view of barbarians as peoples to be subdued by the Roman emperor. Orosius, however, providing a western view later than that of Rufinus, takes his idea to its logical conclusion. Not only does Orosius believe that the conversion of barbarians in other nations is praiseworthy, but he even praises the arrival of barbarians on the territory of the empire, insofar as this leads to their conversion and, perhaps, pacification. At the end of his work, Orosius claims that the churches are packed with Huns and Vandals, and that the mercy of God has resulted in the entrance of so many barbarians into the empire, for “even with our own weakening, so many peoples are receiving a knowledge of the truth which they would certainly not have been able to find except with this opportunity” (7.41.8).

Barbarians and Romans

The Roman empire had always faced non-Roman neighbors and had always had to face non-Romans as allies, subjects, adversaries, or even models to be emulated. In the fourth and fifth centuries Romans often found themselves dealing with non-Romans, whether Persian, German, or Hun, on more equal terms than they had in the past. Traditional Greco-Roman thought, which tended to hold other cultures in contempt, was challenged by the power of Sasanian Persia and by the increasing presence and prominence of non-Romans in the empire itself. The writing of history was one way in which late antique intellectuals sought to answer some of the new questions which the change in Romano-barbarian relations had posed. Why had Roman armies begun to lose to non-Romans? What could restore Roman military preeminence? What sort of relationship should or could Romans have with barbarians?

It is useful to begin with Aurelius Victor, who expresses fairly standard and traditional ideas about the proper relationship between Romans and barbarians at a time when Roman preeminence was relatively unquestioned. Victor, a provincial, several times praises the contribution made to the Roman state by non-Romans (11.12, 39.16). On the other hand, his conventional views are clear when he explains that the German Magnentius revolted from the empire because of the “fierce and savage mind of the barbarian” (41.25). To Victor, the real tragedy of the civil wars which erupted after the death of Severus Alexander was that the energy of the emperors was diverted away from the subjugation of barbarians abroad (24.9). On the other hand, when Victor decries the surrender by the senate of its prerogatives, which resulted in rule by “soldiers and even barbarians,” his criticism is directed more toward soldiers than barbarians (37.7). The barbarian threat remained an abstract idea in comparison with Victor’s concern over the overthrow of traditional republican governance.

When reading Eutropius and Festus, it is important to remember that they speak not on their own behalf but as the official voice of the imperial government. Their works can therefore be read as expressions of the opinions toward the barbarians which the emperors would find acceptable for the average Roman official in the period immediately before Adrianople. Both works are straightforward celebrations of military conquest. The desirability of defeating barbarians in war is taken as self-evident, and the focus remains entirely on the Roman state. The need for aggressive warfare is not expressed but rather implied by the prominent and detailed descriptions of past warfare.

Ammianus has a more complicated conception of the barbarian (Wiedemann 1986; Bonanni 1981; Chauvot 1998: 383–406). His descriptions of the barbarians living across the Rhine or the Danube, on the one hand, are monotonously similar and negative. These barbarians typically display a combination of madness and rage, acting more like wild animals than like men. For example, when the once-arrogant Chnodomar is defeated by Julian, he behaves like a beaten puppy: “like all barbarians, he was humble in defeat and haughty in success” (16.12.61). Similarly bestial are the Sarmatians, “since with barbarians might makes right” (17.12.18). While Ammianus’ contempt for barbarians is manifest, he does not simply put forth a dichotomy of virtuous Romans and animalistic barbarians, for he quite often directs imputations of madness and animality at Romans of all sorts as well (Barnes 1998: 107–11).

In sharp contrast to Ammianus’ refusal to grant humanity to the barbarians he describes on the battlefield is his description of barbarians who served in the Roman army or administration. It is difficult to find a negative racial characterization applied to these Romanized barbarians (Chauvot 1998: 400–4). While he is critical of some German officials (14.10.8, 21.10.8), he praises others (17.10.5, 26.8.5, 31.9.2). He frequently praises the courage of the German troops fighting for the empire. Several passages reveal more clearly Ammianus’ favorable attitude toward barbarians in official positions. When courtiers attacked Silvanus in Gaul, Malarichus, his fellow Frank, complained to other Franks “who were prominent at court at that time” (15.5.11), that this was an outrage to Franks who were so “devoted to the empire” (15.5.6). Ammianus places the claim of loyalty in Malarichus’ mouth without comment, and he seems unconcerned by the prominence of Franks at court. When Julian sought the support of the Roman senate for his usurpation, he wrote letters attacking the reputation of Constantine, and he “openly reproached him for being the first to promote barbarians” to the consulship (21.10.8). Ammianus considered this “tasteless and thoughtless,” pointing out that Julian himself would soon name Nevitta consul, a barbarian far inferior in reputation and experience to any that Constantine had appointed.

Ammianus describes the barbarians across the frontier as bestial while judging barbarians in Roman service, with whom he had lived and worked for many years, by the full range of criteria which he applies to Romans. Ammianus’ support of very harsh policies toward barbarians, therefore, even including extermination, cannot be considered racially motivated. Rather, it reveals the historian’s soldierly belief in the legitimacy of the use of any means to accomplish a given end. When the Romans ambushed and massacred the Saxons in Gaul, Ammianus recognizes that some might find the measure too strong, but states that it was nevertheless necessary (28.5.7). The massacre of Goths after Adrianople is considered by Ammianus a “wise” plan and the general Julius is praised for his “swift and beneficial” action (31.16.8).

Eunapius, unlike Ammianus, can fairly be charged with a general dislike of all barbarians, Romanized or otherwise. Goths are both arrogant and ugly (
fr
. 37). Eunapius particularly faults the barbarians’ lack of Greco-Roman literary culture, as his depiction of the causes of the Battle of the Frigidus reveals. The barbarity of the Frank Arbogast is emphasized. He obtained his imperial position by murder, and
when Valentinian III attempted to dismiss him from his office with a rescript, Arbogast howled and ripped the order to pieces (
fr
. 58). Eunapius further states that Arbogast loved war and slaughter, and upon his defeat “showed his native barbarian madness” by falling upon his sword (
fr
. 60). It was therefore Arbogast who compelled Eugenius, a professor “with a high reputation for eloquence,” into a failed revolt, which was destined to end in his conquest at the Frigidus river (
fr
. 58). In Eunapius’ account, barbarian madness has forced a peaceful scholar to a suicidal war (
fr
. 60).

Eunapius saw the Goths in particular as eternally hostile to the Roman state. Even before their entrance onto Roman territory the Goths had sworn an oath which he describes as “an unholy one that went beyond the normal savagery of barbarians” (
fr
. 59). The historian implausibly claims that the Goths pledged that even if the Romans were unceasingly benevolent toward them, they would nevertheless plot against them with the aim of conquering the entire empire. Eunapius’ fragments do provide one honorable and heroic Goth, the Roman general Fravitta. One reason Eunapius supported Fravitta was presumably his successful campaign against the Goth Gainas, who attempted a coup in Constantinople in 400. More important for Eunapius, however, was undoubtedly the fact that Fravitta shared his traditional religious beliefs. The Goth is described as a “Hellene” (
fr
. 69.2) and an “initiate” of pagan mystery cults (
fr
. 69.4), who demanded from the emperor in return for his service the right “to worship God in the ancestral manner” (
fr
. 69.4).

Eunapius thus deplored the very existence of barbarians both on the frontiers and in Roman service, and he was not especially averse to extreme measures, such as massacres, if necessary (Zos. 4.26). In Eunapius’ view, however, the empire’s religious and cultural crisis was to blame for its military difficulties. He says that the invasion of Greece by Alaric, for example, fulfilled a prophecy which indicated that destruction would result as a consequence of the closing of the ancient cult site at Eleusis, and in general he links the destruction of temples with the invasion of barbarians (
frs
. 64.2, 64.3). In Eunapius’ vision, the empire required a figure like Julian to fight both barbarism and Christianity on behalf of traditional Greek thought.

Olympiodorus may also suggest that pagan revival would aid the state against invasion. The removal of sacred apotropaic statues from Thrace occurred just days before a Gothic invasion (
fr
. 27). The historian also suggested the potential efficacy of pagan rites in
defending Rome against Alaric, although Sozomen uses this section of Olympiodorus to argue for the opposite view (
fr
. 7.5; Soz. 9.6.3–4; Zos. 5.41.1–3). Nevertheless, Olympiodorus’ work is a pragmatic diplomat’s account of recent successes in restoring international order, not an expression of longing for cultural reaction. His work in its fragmentary form provides no evidence of antibarbarian polemic or stereotyping. In fact, his support of Stilicho and apparent support of the marriage of Ataulf and Galla Placidia suggest a Roman both comfortable with Goths and other barbarians (such as the African Blemmyes,
fr
. 35.2) and interested in incorporating them into the Roman world.

From the evidence of the surviving fragments, Priscus, like Olympiodorus, refrained from gratuitous anti-barbarian language and approached barbarian conflict in a pragmatic spirit. Priscus appears fair-minded in his description of Hunnic customs and culture, despite the difficulties he encountered on his journey, and his other comments on foreign people are antiquarian rather than critical in nature (
frs
. 41.3, 66). Although diplomacy is central to his work, Priscus favors a hard line, particularly toward the Huns, and he condemns the payments made by Theodosius II to Attila as nothing better than tribute (
frs
. 3, 9.3). It is unclear whether Priscus was critical of the Roman reliance upon foreign troops and generals in particular, if he simply criticized the cowardice he saw in many generals regardless of ethnicity (Blockley 1981: 64–7).

Rufinus introduced an innovative approach to thinking about barbarians in history. The old model of conquest in war by the emperor had been replaced by a form of conquest by conversion, with the emperor present only in the capacity of a suitably pious sovereign. In a work written to comfort those afflicted by barbarian invasion, Rufinus had completely inverted the concerns of the sufferers. The real danger for the state, he revealed, was not the threat of invasion from outside of the empire, but internal subversion in the form of Arianism and paganism, which Theodosius had triumphantly suppressed. The study of the world beyond the borders of the empire revealed that the apostolic project was continuing in the present day and held forth the prospect of an entirely Christian world in the future.

While Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret reproduce the accounts of foreign conversions found in Rufinus, they draw back from complete espousal of his interpretations. The Greek church historians continue to be influenced by the Eusebian model of the triumphant Christian king who will protect his state and flock from
foreign powers. Both Socrates and Theodoret preserve an anecdote, whose exact historicity is uncertain, set in the reign of Theodosius II (Soc. 7.43.1–4; Theod. 5.37.4). In the more full account of Socrates, careful and fervent prayer by the emperor caused a lightning bolt to strike the Hun leader, Ruga, and caused many of his followers to be killed by plague and by fire from heaven. The emperor’s traditional power to destroy barbarians remained more important to these historians than the church’s ability to convert them.

Orosius, on the other hand, carries even further Rufinus’ suggestion that the division of the world into Christian and pagan supersedes the old division of Roman and barbarian. Orosius’ account is often inconsistent, however, for he claims on different occasions that barbarian invasions were punishments for Roman sinfulness (e.g. 7.37), that good pious emperors will crush the barbarians (7.28, 7.34), and that the death of thousands of Goths in Theodosius’ army at the Battle of the Frigidus was cause for rejoicing (7.35). Yet Orosius’ optimistic vision is in the peroration of his work when he praises the felicity of the times, when “the most savage nations have been suppressed, restrained, incorporated, and destroyed with very little blood, with no struggle, and almost without any killing” (7.43.17).

Conclusion

Late antique historians reveal a wide spectrum of possible depictions of barbarians. More traditionalist historians such as Eutropius, Festus, Ammianus, and Eunapius all share a belief in the desirability of constant aggressive warfare against Persia and the northern barbarians. In the fifth century, historians like Olympiodorus and Priscus reproduce apparently accurate accounts of their own firsthand encounters with non-Romans. Olympiodorus boldly recommended Roman and Gothic cooperation, while Priscus, faced with the more intransigent Huns, favored a military solution over the payment of subsidies.