Month: October 2020

Review: The Fall of Rome and The End of Civilisation

~ Liam Greenacre ~ Leave a comment

This post reviews the 2005 book ‘The Fall of Rome and The End of Civilisation’ by Bryan Ward-Perkins.

The title of the book reviewed in this post is no doubt meant to stir controversy. To call the end of the Western Roman Empire ‘the end of civilisation’ is a very bold claim indeed. It seems at odds with the concept of Late Antiquity and the idea of a non-catastrophic transformation into the medieval. Therefore, I picked this book to try and challenge my views about the era. Based on the title, I was expecting a polemical account of the end of the Empire. However, this did not prove to be the case, Ward-Perkins left more room for nuance than I expected. At the same time, after reading the book, I still do not subscribe to his views. The end of the Western Roman Empire was far too complex to be named ‘the end of civilisation.’

The first notable about Ward-Perkins’ approach is that he argues that the barbarian migrations were violent and mainly (though not completely) down to conquest. He also suggests they were the main reason for the fall of the Empire in the west. The author writes ‘the relatively benign conditions of the fourth-century West rapidly disappeared in the first decade of the fifth century, as a consequence of invasion.’ Italy, Gaul and the Iberian peninsular all faced conflict within this decade. Consequentially, Ward-Perkins argues, the Empire was deprived of its tax base just when it needed it the most. Civil wars and the uprising of the so-called Bacaudae also played a part in these apparently tumultuous times.

The idea that the migrations were violent seems at odd with theories that suggest the barbarians were accommodated within the Empire through treaties. Ward-Perkins does not deny the existence of such agreements. For example, the Visigoths were given part of Aquitaine, centred on the Garonne Valley, in 419. However, he suggests that these grants were insignificant compared to the land gained by conquest. In fact, he states that the role of treaties of accommodation has been massively overplayed. I do not agree with this point. Conquest and violence undoubtedly took place, but accommodation within the Empire was certainly a major factor. References to settlement are found within The Burgundian Code and The Code of Euric. If accommodation was not a pivotal mechanism for settlement, it would not be found in major law codes such as these. Admittedly, Ward-Perkins concedes some ground, suggesting land was shared throughout Italy following Odoacer’s usurpation, so he cannot be seen completely as anti-accommodation. Furthermore, it is worth noting that he states land was shared. This it at odds with Goffart, who argues that barbarians were granted 1/3 of a share of tax revenue instead of physical land. In my opinion, it is easy to fall into a rule-based trap with the so-called Hospitalitas debate. I envisage the Romans likely adapted to different situations and granted land or tax revenue based on individual circumstances. As Goffart suggests, Cassiodorus’ Variae can be interpreted as offering a tax-based solution, whereas it is much harder to deny the granting of physical land for the Visigoths in The Code of Euric, which makes direct references to land disputes between Romans and barbarians. We need to view the settlements in a non-mechanistic fashion instead of presuming there was only one way of reaching agreement.

Ward-Perkins’ claim that the fall of the Western Empire resulted in ‘the end of civilisation’ is mainly based on a range of material evidence. Notably, evidence such as pottery, coinage, tiles and buildings. The quality of these, according to him, declined substantially towards and after the end of empire. This, apparently, proves that the Roman economy lost its sophistication, which is sign in the decline of quality of life. I take a degree of issue with Ward-Perkins presumptions here. Again, admittedly, he raises some of the points his opponents may state. However, can quality of life really be determined by the types of evidence he cites? I am not sure myself. Furthermore, as Ward-Perkins himself notes, decline if present was not universally felt across the former empire. The situation in Britain was much more dire to the prosperous Italy (in part) and North Africa, which both had long periods of peace.

A further point worth highlighting is Ward-Perkins’ treatment of ethnicity. He writes ‘there is no reason to believe, as people once did, that ethnic behaviour and identity are genetically transmitted, and therefore immutable.’ He therefore thankfully takes a view that ethnicity is not biological. However, he also argues there are significant barriers to changing one’s identity, both in a person’s mind and in the group one wishes to join. Ward-Perkins therefore suggests changing ethnicity is a complicated process and takes a long time. He states ‘the fusion of peoples that emerged out of the Germanic settlements took centuries to develop.’ I again, do not fully subscribe to this point. In my opinion, ethnicity is often overstated as a factor in social relations, perhaps due to its prominence in modern discourse. Nevertheless, ethnicity certainly existed in Late Antiquity, the question is more about its fluidity.

Aside from this, I also believe Ward-Perkins makes some potentially dangerous points. He writes ‘for better or worse (and often it is for the worse) some cultures are more sophisticated than others’. I am not arguing for a completely relativistic view, but judging cultures based on their apparent sophistication is risky territory and open to abuse. Furthermore, the author argues ‘it is a mistake to treat all empires of the past as universally bad in an undifferentiated way.’ Again, this seems dangerous, but thankfully he also writes ‘I am no advocated of twenty–first century Imperialism.’ He therefore closely avoids advocating empire as a a form of government.

To conclude, after reading Ward-Perkins’ book, I have not completely changed my mind. I still think Late Antiquity is a better concept than the rather extravagant claim that the end of the Western empire was ‘the end of civilisation.’ At the same time, I have no doubt that Ward-Perkins does leave room for some nuance, he does not paint a completely negative picture. Therefore, to summarise, I mainly disagree with ‘The Fall of Rome and The End of Civilisation’ and its arguments, but I do not think it deserves to be treat as a mere polemic.

Review: The Gothic War, Rome’s Final Conflict in The West

~ Liam Greenacre ~ Leave a comment

This post shall review Torsten Cumberland Jacobsen’s 2009 book, which is titled ‘The Gothic War: Rome’s Final Conflict in the West.’

I must admit a certain deficiency in knowledge with regards to the Gothic War. Mostly, I know about the Ostrogothic Kingdom during the reign of Theoderic the Great, but not after his death. Therefore, it made sense to me to try and find a secondary text that discussed the conflict. Jacobsen’s popular and mainly narrative account is such a suitable introduction.

The book starts by providing the context of the Gothic War. It covers events such as Justinian’s conquest of Africa and the Nika Uprisings. It therefore describes the beginning of Justinian’s so-called ‘reconquests’ of the Western Roman Empire. According to Jacobsen, the stabilisation of the Imperial borders after the chaotic events of the fifth and fourth centuries allowed this focus on reclaiming lost territories. It is notable that the author presents the wars with a ‘reconquest’ viewpoint. This is at odds with Arnold who effectively claims that Theoderic’s Ostrogothic Kingdom was essentially the Roman Empire restored. The introductory chapter also introduces Procopius, who was secretary to Belisarius, one of the main generals during the wars in Italy. Procopius’ History of the Wars is the main source for Jacobsen’s book and it is heavily quoted throughout. The next chapter provides the Ostrogothic context, after the chapter on the Eastern Roman Empire. It discusses early Gothic history and their earlier wars with the Romans. Furthermore, it describes their conversion to Arianism, as well as making other introductory points. The third chapter looks at Theoderic in Italy, including events such as his conquest of Italy from Odoacer, alongside giving a small glimpse into his reign. Interestingly, Jacobsen also writes ‘Theoderic was perhaps the most civilised barbarian the former Western Roman Empire would ever see.’ This would align with the view that Theoderic’s reign was not a period of darkness for Italy and the other possessions of the Ostrogoths. Although, Jacobsen still falls short of calling the kingdom ‘Roman’.

After discussing the early chapters of the text, it is worth highlighting how Jacobsen treats Gothic ‘ethnicity’. Firstly, he does not see it as static, biological and unchanging. In fact, he states ‘ethnicity in a tribe was fluid’ and ‘to be a Goth or to be part of the Gothic confederation was more a question of attitude than a question of race and ethnicity’. The author certainly does not fall into the trap of approaching ethnicity in a outdated manner. A second point to be considered is how Jacobsen describes the early Gothic migrations as ‘a gradual aggregation’ under the name ‘Goth’. There were apparently no great wars or single large migrations. A further noteworthy point regarding ethnicity is also raised later in the text, when the author describes how Goths and Romans often switched sides due to low morale. ‘Gothic’ or ‘Roman’ identities were not pivotal in the theatre of war, with loyalty to particular generals being more important.

After looking at the Gothic and Eastern Roman context, the book switches to a narrative of mainly military events. This is no surprise given the title of the book and its aims to provide a detailed account of the sixth-century Gothic War. Jacobsen initially writes about the early stages of the war, such as the Sicilian campaign and the Siege of Neapolis. He then discusses the deposition of Theodahad as King of the Ostrogoths and his replacement by Vitigis. After this, the first Siege of Rome is described in-depth. The treatment of this siege is particularly notable for how the author covers every minuscule particular of it. The Gothic attempt to retake Rome from Justinian’s armies was however disastrous with Vitigis only setting a full blockade of the city late during the course of the siege. The Goths, a recurring theme throughout the war, were not adept with regards to sieges and they preferred pitched battles instead. The next chapters describe the campaign for Ravenna and its eventual fall to the Romans. The attempts to siege or take certain settlements in Italy, such as Mediolanum and Ancona, are also covered in these chapters. The Roman campaign for Italy and its initial successes are therefore adequately described.

Next, the book switches to contextual events outside of Italy. It especially looks at events in Africa, such as the uprisings there as well as conflicts with the Moors, while also examining affairs on the eastern frontier with Persia as well. Jacobsen is keen to show here, as he does throughout the text, that Italy and the Gothic War cannot be viewed in isolation. The Late Antique world was heavily connected, especially throughout the Mediterranean. No part of it can be understood in isolation. This important point is reinforced by the author’s continuous description of events involving the Franks, who periodically intervened in the conflict between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Ostrogoths.

It is clear from Jacobsen’s work, that the accession of Totila to the throne in 541, following the death of Eraric, marked a transition point in the war for Italy. Totila, unlike Theodahad, Vitigis and Eraric, managed to recover large portions of Italy for the Ostrogoths. Therefore, revitalising a cause that at one point had appeared lost. Following on this, the book details the second and third Sieges of Rome, as the Goths and Romans kept on exchanging blows. The accounts of these engagements are not as in-depth as the first one, but they nevertheless provide an insight into how siege warfare was conducted during the Gothic War. Subsequent to these chapters, another change of fortunes in the war is described, with the Romans on the advance again. Their march forward, as covered by Jacobsen, culminated in a battle at Taginae which was a disastrous defeat for the Goths. This battle effectively marked the end of the war for the Goths and so a full account of it is given. Gothic resistance did not collapse after Taginae, for example Teia succeeded the slain Totila to the throne, but it did end any hopes of a Gothic victory. Therefore, the history of the Ostrogothic Kingdom came to a crushing end.

One thing I believe worth noting in this review is how Jacobsen approaches certain historical figures. Belisarius, the Roman general, is shown to be a pivotal figure in Justinian’s attempts to conquer the Western Empire. Jacobsen writes ‘there would have been no wars of Justinian if Belisarius had not been available.’ and he compares the Roman general to figures such as Caesar and Hannibal. Totila is also highly praised, not surprising given his successful military campaigns. ‘He won almost all his battles’ and was ‘a wise politician’ according to the author. However, what is particularly interesting is Jacobsen’s treatment of the Emperor Justinian and his project in the West. His empire may have been enlarged by his wars, but ‘the provinces of the West may have been a liability rather than an asset’ due to the fact that they required soldiers from the East to guard them and also because they yielded insufficient revenue for their own defence. Furthermore, Justinian’s victories were only temporary. Roman Spain was attacked by the Visigoths, Africa by the Moors, and Italy by the Lombards. The portrait given of Justinian is therefore not completely favourable, unlike the accounts of Belisarius and Totila.

‘The Gothic War, Rome’s Final Conflict in the West’ also contains a number of appendices describing the structure of the opposing armies. One source used to do this is the Notitia Dignitatum, which contained a list of all military units in the empire. It therefore highlights the changes in Roman military set-up between the third and sixth centuries. Furthermore, Jacobsen writes about the different types of troops available, as well as logistics, recruitment and other practical factors. The appendix also looks at the Goths, it covers matters such their infantry and cavalry, while also reinstating the polyethnic nature of their army. It combined people, following the defeat of Odoacer, who were part of the Western Roman army as well Rugians, Sueves and Scirians, among others. Jacobsen therefore repeatedly shows that the war was not simply between Goths and Romans surrounding Italy, but rather that there were deserters on both sides, as well as allies from other ‘barbarian’ peoples in the two armies. Overall, the appendices are a welcome addition to the book, as Jacobsen somewhat forfeits analysis of military tactics, throughout the main narrative. The appendices successfully fill in this gap. Finally, a chronology of events is provided towards the end, it offers a helpful reminder of some of the important dates in the war.

To conclude, Jacobsen’s ‘The Gothic War, Rome’s Final Conflict in The West’ offers a good account of the series of military events it describes. Narrative is often used in favour of analysis, but the appendices help to counterbalance this. The author also makes some nuanced points regarding Gothic ethnicity and its relation to the war. Meanwhile, its approach to certain personas, like Belisarius and Justinian, is interesting and thought-provoking. The reminder to place the Gothic War in the context of the world of Late Antiquity is also well made. Therefore, to summarise, if one is looking for a text that describes the war in-depth then Jacobsen’s book is a good option.