Barbarians in Gaul, Usurpers in Britain

Abstract

By MICHAEL KULIKOWSKI I n the first decade of the fifth century Gaul and Britain, Spain and Italy all suffered from a succession of barbarian invasions and Roman civil wars. We possess not just one but several literary accounts of the crisis, along with chronicles, poetry, and imperial laws that all help to illuminate its course, but the sequence of events bristles with technical difficulties. These have not been satisfactorily resolved in the countless modern narratives of the period, which regularly depend on one another rather than the ancient sources. 1 The most recent treatment of the topic, by John Drinkwater, appeared in the pages of this journal, and represents a tremendous advance on our understanding of the crisis. Drinkwater's analysis clarifies any number of crucial interpretative points, and should be the first port of call for any one interested in the study of the period. 2 Problems nevertheless remain. Drinkwater's episodic treatment of the period encourages a certain obscurity that a more systematic narrative might dispel, and he relies heavily upon badly understood ancient slanders against the regent Stilicho to underpin important parts of his narrative. What follows is in no sense an attack on Drinkwater's magisterial interpretation of usurpation and crisis, which warrants wholehearted endorsement. Instead, I would like to suggest that the welter of modern literature on the crisis has blinded us to how little we actually know about it, and that only by maintaining a rigorous awareness of what actually appears in the primary sources can we hope to enjoy the fruits of more nuanced interpretation. 3 There are two basic problems. We know that a series of three short-lived usurpations in Britain, culminating in that of Constantine III in 407, was a response to an invasion of Vandals, Alans, and Sueves from across the Rhine. We know that the usurpation of Constantine's predecessor Marcus began some time in the course of 406. On the other hand, the only precise date assigned to the Rhine crossing in our sources appears to be 31 December 406. Obviously, a crossing on that day could not have provoked a usurpation already under way. The problem is impossible to circumvent, and a wide variety of solutions have been attempted, none of which is wholly satisfactory. All require the discarding of one or another part of the evidence, and many require unfounded speculation about the policies of the general Stilicho. In point of fact, a good deal more of our evidence can be accommodated than is traditionally allowed, and we do not need to accept variations on the ancient 'Stilicho-the-traitor' theme to explain the crisis of the early fifth century. THE DATE OF THE RHINE CROSSING The key to the problem is the barbarian invasion from across the Rhine, since all of our other ' The period is treated in the standard accounts of

Procopius of Caesarea, the lex tricennalis, and the ‘time of the Vandals’: historiography, law, and political debate in mid‐sixth‐century Constantinople

“…97 The precise chronology of these events is notoriously difficult to establish. 98 Hydatius describes in some detail how the Barbarian groups that had entered Spain took possession of certain areas around 411, but he does not refer to their settlement as authorized by the imperial government. 99 We can assume that the Vandals became partners in treaties on the division of land by 411.…”

Ammianus, Magnus Maximus and the Gothic Uprising

“…The archaeological record for the two decades following the departure of emperors from Trier shows signs of visible stress in northern and eastern Gaul. On the breakdown of the Rhine frontier in the early fifth century, see Drinkwater 1998;Kulikowski 2000;Modéran 2014, 43-68;Wijnendaele 2016, 276-8. In this regard, it is rather astonishing that his two letters have survived in the Collectio Avellana. but one melancholy and unheard-of act shall be mentioned, of which, even if they were their own judges of their own case, they could not be acquitted by any excuse.…”

The Manufacture of Heraclianus' Usurpation (413 C.E.)

“…20 Oost 1966; followed by Gaggero (1991: 214) and Shaw (2011: 50). 21 For these events, see Matthews 1975: 307-315;Burns 1994: 246-256;Drinkwater 1998;Kulikowski 2000. blow to Heraclianus in that it probably removed his major source of support at the imperial court. When Honorius issued a decree in 412 giving Constantius a free hand to interfere in the African diocese against men hunting down deserters and ravaging the provinces (CTh.…”