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

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.

The Late Antique Podcast #1: Introduction and The Historicity of Jordanes’ Getica

I have just started a podcast and have uploaded it to Podbean. As part of this endeavour, I shall also share my podcasts here, so I can provide a complete script and bibliography which I cannot on some other sites.

Script:

Introduction

Hello there, my name is Liam and this is The Early Medieval Podcast. Today, I’m going to be talking about Jordanes Getica or Gothic History, but as this is the first episode I want to start off with an introduction to myself and the podcast. So let’s begin.  I am currently a Masters student in Medieval Studies at the University of York and my interests include philosophy (medieval, modern and postmodern), network analysis and sixth-century Italy. I also run a blog called ‘Philosophical Ostrogoth’ where I post my thoughts on these topics, especially and unsurprisingly, because of its name, the main focus is on philosophy.

Why have I chosen to start a podcast? Well firstly I want to share my passion for Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages with the public. Secondly, I feel there is a gap in the podcast market for the Early Middle Ages. Finally, because I just want to try something new and exciting as a hobby.

Now another thing I want to mention is that I am a complete amateur at podcasting. I don’t have an expensive microphone and so expect hitches. Writing scripts for the public is also new for me, therefore I will likely change my style as I go on. First and foremost the podcast is meant to be fun, for me and the listeners. I will also not keep to a strict schedule at first, but if I gain enough followers I might.  Furthermore, the podcasts may be short at first, but I expect them to still be informative about the subject I am discussing.

Before I start, I also want to highlight that I am working with limited resources and texts at the minute. Due to coronavirus, I can’t access physical books from my  university library, so I will be working with what I can get.

With that short introduction other, let’s begin talking about the Getica. The central debate that I shall be focusing on today is whether Jordanes’ work can be used to accurately talk about early Gothic history. In particular, I will talk about whether it contains genuine Gothic folk memories or whether it is a literary work far removed from that context.

Who was Jordanes? He was a Goth, but he was also thoroughly Roman. He grew up as part of a Gothic people who had been settled in the Eastern Roman Empire for a long time. Furthermore, as informs us himself, he was a convert into Catholicism, he was not an Arian like the Ostrogoths. The Getica or Gothic History was written in Constantinople, so he wrote under conditions that may have made him biased towards the Eastern Roman Empire. The Getica was complete sometime after March 551.

One important point, which we will return to throughout this episode, is that the Getica was supposedly an abridgement of an earlier work by the Roman statesmen Cassiodorus, who served at the Ostrogothic court in Italy. Jordanes writes ‘you urge me to leave the little work I have in hand, that is the abbreviation of the Chronicles, and to condense in my own style in this small book the twelve volumes of the Senator on the origin and deeds of the Getae from olden time the present day’. Keeping in mind this fact will serves well to remind us the complex nature of the Getica.

I will now give an overview of the history, so you have a general sense of the structure of the text. The History starts off with a geographic section, which introdunces Scandza or Scandinavia as the supposed original home of the Goths. It then describes the entry of the Goths into Scythia and their activities in the areas surrounding there- Scythia in this instance is the Eastern Balkans and Asia Minor. The narrative then goes on discuss how the Goths were now split into the Ostrogoths and Visigoths, though at the same they are still effectively one people. It, at this point, describes their interactions with the Roman Empire. That is until the Huns arrive and force the Ostrogoths and Visigoths to move apart. Following on from this the two peoples have fairly distinct histories and the Getica follows these. Firstly, by looking at the Visigoths and then by examining the history of the Ostrogoths. The Getica’s narrative terminates with the conquest of Ostrogothic Italy by the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian.

Is the Getica accurate?

Hopefully, you now have a general sense of what the Getica says and the narrative it tells. However, is it accurate or is it a mere literary project with specific aims in mind? Most scholars don’t fall into two easy camps about the work. Liebeschuetz, for example, argues the Goths, like mentioned in the Getica, were already a people or gens before entering the Roman Empire. He comments on the fact that as an illiterate society they likely transmitted their histories orally. Therefore, the Getica might contain ‘folk memories’ which were passed down from Goth to Goth. Liebeschuetz writes ‘it is therefore practically certain that stories about the migration were passed from generation to generation in heroic song; and as these stories have no links with any events in Greco-Roman history, they are extremely unlikely to have been derived from any Greco-Roman source. Moreover, because the kings reported to have led the migration are assigned to neither the Amals nor the Balthi, they are not likely to have been invented to glorify the families of either Alaric or Theoderic.’ However, Liebeschuetz also points out that these stories about the Gothic migrations were likely distorted over time. Therefore, accordingly, the Getica likely contains memories with partial truths. The story about their migration may be accurate to a certain extent.

Now, as mentioned, the evidence for Liebeschuetz’s point comes from when the Getica mentions Gothic songs about great ancestors. When describing their entry into Scythia and their defeat of the Spali, Jordanes writes that ‘the story is generally told in their early songs, in almost historic fashion.’ Therefore, we know from this that the Goths had traditions which they passed down through songs. However, were they accurate? Note how Jordanes writes ‘in almost historic fashion’. It seems even Jordanes had doubts about the veracity of these traditions. Straight after this he also mentions the Gothic History of Ablabius, whom he consulted while writing the Getica¸ which he contrastingly calls a ‘most trustworthy account’. It seems to be me, and I don’t think this point has been made before to my knowledge, that Jordanes himself seems to have doubts about the oral histories of the early Gothic migrations. This point is reinforced later when Jordanes makes reference to stories about the Goths being subjected to slavery in Britain, which he calls ‘old wives tales’, while also stating ‘I prefer to believe what I have read’. On this basis then we can doubt certain parts of the Gothic migration story told in the Getica.

I will now mention some other scholarly approaches to the Getica. Herwig Wolfram, like Liebeschuetz, takes a moderate approach to the accuracy of the early parts of the Getica. He criticises Walter Goffart, whom we shall come to, for taking an overly literary approach to Early Medieval source in The Narrators of Barbarian History. Nevertheless, he also suggests the Amal pedigree in the Getica – the Amals being the Ostrogothic ruling family- was likely forged by Cassiodorus. There are also two defenders who believe in the historicity of the Gothic migration stories- Walter Pohl and Richard Wenskus. They offer quite subtle arguments, even if I don’t necessarily agree with them. Wenskus argues that there was no reason for Jordnaes to invent a Scandinavian origin, he writes ‘it was considerably more obvious for a historian of this age to devise a connection to the famous peoples of antiquity, as many examples show.’ And then he states ‘Jordanes’s claim is wholly atypical for his time and therefore proceeds with a high degree of certainty from traditions that have a high degree of probability.’ To summarise, the Scandinavian origin of the Goths is not fictional, because there was no obivious reason to chose it as a literary trope.

Walter Pohl offers another defence of the treasured Scandinavian origin. He suggests that the Scandinavian origin story does not fit in and subverts ‘the orderly narrative based on the written sources’. The story of the Goths- the Scythian, Getic and Dacian past- meanwhile are fictional because they employ other works in a literary style.  Therefore, the Scandinavian origin can be true, while other parts of the narrative are false. Nevertheless, I do not think these arguments overturn the previous points about Jordanes’ own doubt about the oral history of the Goths. And so now I turn to Walter Goffart and his more literary approach to the Getica, which shall reinforce my argument.

Walter Goffart and Jordanes

First, a disclaimer, although I think Goffart’s arguments are the most persuasive out of the texts I read while preparing for this podcast. I do not wholly agree with him. In fact, I am not actually sure how much I subscribe to his views. For example, his ideas about Jordanes’ ‘plot’ for the Getica has some problems. Nevertheless, I think the biggest thing one can take from Goffart is his understanding of how complex the Getica is as a text- with its borrowings from other sources and its relation (or lackt thereof) to Cassiodorus’ work. I will now proceed and give an introduction to Goffart’s ideas.

A key point raised by Goffart is that the Getica deserves to be studied in his own right, it should not be simply seen as a mere abridgement of Cassiodorus’ earlier work. For example, Jordanes cites other sources like Ablabius and geographers like Ptolemaeus . For me, Goffart’s focus on the uniqueness of the Getica allows us to approach the work, fairly and on its terms, which I think is pivotal.

However, Goffart’s main argument is that the Getica is a literary text with specific aims in mind- its was not intended to provide a completely accurate history. What was its purpose? Well, for Goffart, it was to integrate the Goths into Justinian’s Eastern Roman Empire. According to Goffart the Getica ‘centres on the love between two peoples, Romans and Goths’. Justinian had recently conquered Italy, so there was a need to integrate the Goths into the Eastern Roman Empire. However, according to Goffart, the love story may overall be happy, but it also involves a tumultuous relationship. Goffart writes the Goths and Romans union ‘is impeded by the absurd institution of Gothic kingship, by the resultant impostors, by bad Roman Emperors, and by Gothic lapses into atavistic behaviour; and is fostered by such kindly helpers as Constantine, Theodosius, Athanaric, Wallia, Justinian and Belisarius.’

That the Getica was intended to support Gothic integration into the Eastern Roman Empire is backed by several pieces of evidence. I will now mention some of them. Firstly, the Goths aided Emperor Maximian against the Parthians. Secondly, when the Goth Athanaric enters the city of Constantinople and sees the Imperial army, he exclaims ‘Truly the Emperor is a god on earth, and who raises a hand against him is guilty of his own blood’. However, the most important piece of evidence, as covered by Goffart, is the fact that Vitiges consort Mathesuentha, a Goth, and the Roman Patrician Germanus, Justinian’s cousin, are married and bear a child who is of mixed Gothic and Roman blood. Therefore, uniting the two races together.

Nevertheless, we must also raise the possibility that the love story between Goths and Romans might actually emerge from Cassiodorus in part. Cassiodorus in his Variae or letters, actively promotes an ideology of civilitas which aimed to unite Goths and Romans in Ostrogothic Italy. Therefore, has Goffart mistook the reason behind the love story in the Getica? The answer is not clear. We must not discount the possibility that Cassiodorus’ influence still finds its way in the text. But on the other hand, the fact that the story terminates with the union of Italy with the Eastern Roman Empire might suggest Goffart’s thesis is more true. My opinion on this matter is likely that the relationship between the Goths and Romans in the  Getica is likely a mixture of Cassiodorus and Jordanes. The Getica, as I keep remphasising, is a complex text, it is original, but at the same time combines material from several authors. This results in a degree of ambiguity that needs unscrambling.

Now, we must also point out another nuance. Goffart argues that the Getica can only be understood along Jordanes’ other work, the Romana. This includes a universal Christian history, followed by a Roman history up to Justinian. Combined the works aim to place the Goths history with that of the Classical and Christian worlds. This placing of the Goths into the past is shown throughout the Getica. One example includes Philip, the father of Alexander the Great, making an alliance with the Goths and taking to wife Medopda, the daughter of the Gothic King Gudila. Goffart’s understanding  about the Romana and Getica being placed together is therefore key. Again, the Getica must be seen as being caught in an intertextual web.

What I think?

You will likely now have an idea about my general ideas about the Getica’s historicity. However, to conclude, let me clarify it. Firstly, I believe we should approach the Getica as a literary text, despite Wolfram’s protestations.  However, I do not want to completely dismiss the possibility of it containing genuine Gothic memories passed down from generation to generation. I just think we simply can’t prove them to be true. Even Jordanes had doubts about his sources for the Gothic migrations.

So is Goffart right? I have doubts about his ‘love story’, he needs to account, which he does, for the aspects of the Getica that contradict his theory. On the other hand, the evidence he cites for it is pretty strong and there are certainly aspects of the Getica that supports his thesis. But, I think, his biggest contribution is to treat the Getica as a literary text. Throughout this podcast, I have kept on mentioning the fact that the Getica is a complex source and I believe Goffart has this appreciation for the text.

So to finish off, the biggest thing I have took from my research on the Getica is its complexity. It is an amalgamation of several sources combined with original ideas. It therefore likely contains several discourses, which either help or contradict Jordanes. So let us be clear we must understand the Getica through its intertextuality, while also not concluding this prevents it from being original. The Getica therefore must be viewed as a literary work primarily.

That’s it, this is the end of my first podcast. I hope you have enjoyed it and found it informative. If you have any questions, please feel free to make a comment. Goodbye and see you soon.  

Bibliography:

Goffart, Walter. “Jordanes’s “Getica” and the Disputed Authenticity of Gothic Origins from Scandinavia.” Speculum 80, no. 2 (2005): 379-98.

Goffart, Walter. The Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D 550-800Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede and Paul the Deacon. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988.

Jordanes, Getica translated by Charles C. Mierow at https://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html. Accessed 26/06/2020.

Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. “Making a Gothic History: Does the Getica of Jordanes Preserve Genuinely Gothic Traditions?” Journal of Late Antiquity 4, no. 2 (2011): 185-216. 

Wolfram, Herwig. “Origo et Religio: Ethnic Traditions and Literature in Early Medieval Texts”. Early Medieval Europe, 3, no.1 (1994): 19-38.