The Rise of Aetius

[Dachs]

Well that is interesting. I'm not sure what I'd expect - they weren't a large tribe relative to the settled population, but they were a tribe and Arian christians for awhile. I don't think they destroyed much, or built much when they settled in France and Spain. Is there no difference in population centers, weapon or burial finds, coins etc. between 425-525 ? I don't know a lot about their subsequent activities in Spain, other than they had most of Iberia under their rule for awhile.

It's funny how credulous you are when he's saying things.

 

[History_Buff]

In the end, the empire was just was overwhelmed by a stronger force.

^^ Did not read the thread.

 

[vogtmurr]

It's funny how credulous you are when he's saying things.

I wasn't entirely incredulous at all the things you said. Many of your subsequent arguments aren't at direct odds or differ that much from my own impressions, which haven't been static throughout this. At the outset it seemed like we were approaching this subject from diammetrically opposed views, like you were incredulous that I had adopted such an outdated, stereotyped depiction of late antiquity (and probably still think so). I think most differences are on the degree of emphasis of certain factors. I spent quite a few words formulating my opinion because I am trying to rationalize it with what I have read. Some of the assumptions, like who was serving who or where a specific branch was at a specific point in time, seem inconsequential when the point was establishing they periodically coalesced as an ethno-political entity that had some continuity with previous appearances of a 'Gothic' nation. Suffice to say if there are reasons to doubt that I could point out that there are also reasons to doubt the alternative.

I don't assume a purely Gothic nation of several hundreds of thousands followed Alaric around. But there had to be a tribe, large enough to raise armies of 30,000 on multiple occasions, which recognized him as their leader. That isn't much when virtually every able body was at least a part time warrior. I don't believe the migration of the Goths and their subsequent history is representative of simply a wayward army, that maybe picked up some loose foederati and bacaudae. They were also sustained by some group of people they called their own. We hear about these peoples on the fringe of empires so often, yet know so little about them. But clearly they are more than vague nonentities - they and others like them were numerous enough and cohesive enough to exert considerable pressure on the frontiers throughout history, even if apparently they left little physical evidence. And if said peoples existed outside the empire, they could surely exist inside an empire that was ripe for plundering, driven by their need or other agencies. I don't want to hazard a guess right now, but I would assess they were large enough to dominate the immediate vicinity as they moved through temporary areas of settlement.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't assume a purely Gothic nation of several hundreds of thousands followed Alaric around. But there had to be a tribe, large enough to raise armies of 30,000 on multiple occasions, which recognized him as their leader.

"Had to be"? That's a strong choice of words. Would you be able to expand on this, preferablly with reference to the criticisms which Dachs has already raised? It doesn't immediately follow from an observation that the Goths didn't behave lack a gaggle of homeless bandits that they must have represented an ethnically homogenous "tribe", whatever that means in this context.

 

[Murky]

^^ Did not read the thread.

Sorry, no I didn't read it all. The thread seems to have veered away from the OP anyways.

 

[vogtmurr]

"Had to be"? That's a strong choice of words. Would you be able to expand on this, preferablly with reference to the criticisms which Dachs has already raised? It doesn't immediately follow from an observation that the Goths didn't behave lack a gaggle of homeless bandits that they must have represented an ethnically homogenous "tribe", whatever that means in this context.

The same tribe that produced an army at Adrianople in 378 BC and Frigidus River 394 BC, was not a random collection of homeless bandits. It's only another 16 years to the fall of Rome. Is that how we refer to all the peoples on the empire's fringe throughout history - that they never had any tribal identity ? I think there was pretty strong circumstantial evidence in this thread and historical accounts for a Gothic identity. I don't know how anyone can seriously challenge that without having the burden of proof upon themselves. And I've already amply expanded on Dach's criticisms, the word homogeneous doesn't have any place in this context. I think continuity of peoples and their traditions does. Is that more speculative then dismissing all the nomadic people who migrated through Europe in the 5th century as 'homeless bandits', that somehow transplanted their rule on the empire ?

 

[Traitorfish]

The same tribe that produced an army at Adrianople in 378 BC and Frigidus River 394 BC, was not a random collection of homeless bandits. It's only another 16 years to the fall of Rome. Is that how we refer to all the peoples on the empire's fringe throughout history - that they never had any tribal identity ?

I'm sorry, I don't think you understood me: I said that the Goths were not a "gaggle of homeless bandits". That much is fairly self-evident.

I think there was pretty strong circumstantial evidence in this thread and historical accounts for a Gothic identity. I don't know how anyone can seriously challenge that without having the burden of proof upon themselves.

Why is it assumed that a "Gothic identity" implies ethnic continuity? Is that the only way in which cultural or subcultural identities can be maintained? To take a modern example, you get "Highlander identities" in certain regiments in many Commonwealth countries, which maintain an identity and a body of traditions derived from Scottish Highland culture, even when a minority of the membership are actually of Scottish ancestry.

And I've already amply expanded on Dach's criticisms, the word homogeneous doesn't have any place in this context. I think continuity of peoples and their traditions does. Is that more speculative then dismissing all the nomadic people who migrated through Europe in the 5th century as 'homeless bandits', that somehow transplanted their rule on the empire ?

I don't follow; if these people were not ethnically homogeneous, then in what sense did they represent a "tribe"? Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean by that, because it isn't entirely clear.

 

[innonimatu]

Well that is interesting. I'm not sure what I'd expect - they weren't a large tribe relative to the settled population, but they were a tribe and Arian christians for awhile. I don't think they destroyed much, or built much when they settled in France and Spain. Is there no difference in population centers, weapon or burial finds, coins etc. between 425-525 ? I don't know a lot about their subsequent activities in Spain, other than they had most of Iberia under their rule for awhile.

I'm not near my little library, so I can't give you any references right now. The role of the bishops is well known (the church on the peninsula held several synods, and arguably the eventual victory of the anti-Arian field was proof of that continued influence), and the continued preeminence of the bishops of Merida, Cordoba and Hispalis (Seville) is also well known. Toledo rose in importance as a new political center, but it was not a sudden thing. Bracara in the northwest may have also gained importance as the center of the suebi kingdom, but it's hard to say whether that was cause or consequence. The southern cities lost political influence for awhile as a result of being conquered by the byzantines and thus separated from the polity that ruled the rest of the peninsula, but they continued to be important, priority targets that were eventually re-annexed by the visigothic kingdom.

The visighothic kingdom had its fair share of civil wars, several between kings and their sons (in that it was already showing a typical medieval pattern), including Hermenegildo's rebellion (well known because he ended up proclaimed a saint), but the most destructive warfare for civic life seems to have happened around the early to mid-5th century and is related to the anarchy during the last years of Roman imperial power. Namely, those punitive expeditions sent by Aetius in 453 and already discussed here, the repression against the bagaudae which themselves had targeted cities and apparently even sacked several important ones. The building of city walls was probably due to the threat posed by that disorder, not to the "barbarians" who were actually being used by what remained of imperial power to suppress it. I've also seen mentions of "mauritanian" (north african, where we now place Morocco) raids across the straits of Gibraltar before the Vandals even arrived (don't recall where, sorry: history is just a hobby for me). Imperial power, apparently, was also breaking in the westernmost portion of its african provinces before the arrival of "german" barbarians.

What exactly caused the final breakdown of imperial power in Hispania is unclear, but I won't be surprised to see someone argued that the source of the anarchy was in armed bands who resulted from the decades of warfare there since Constantine III's ineffectual invasion of the peninsula. No emperor ever again managed to reassert imperial power over the whole of it. Why, I don't know, but it seems obvious that what they lacked was a loyal and large enough army to sent there.

On the burials thing I'll try to get some from a colleague of mine who's an archeologist and has been looking into that era lately. She was my sole source for that, actually.

Also, as was commented in another thread, it is useful to remember that ancient states were in essence military machines dedicated to the extraction of the taxes with which to pay them so as to be able to collect further taxes! Thus military failures meant a smaller tax base, which in turn meant a smaller army and reduced ability to collect taxes. I'm not so radical about this as, say Finer in his "History of Government" (the man was a typical liberal obsessed with denouncing any other type of state...), and I can see also instances of what we might now call "nationalism" in many ancient wars, but for empires it seems to have been true. Too many years of civil war, lack of decisive battles where the victor takes all the loot, and an empire ends up collapsing into an anarchy of small lordlings... I don't know how many years of uninterrupted civil war the Empire had survived in previous crisis, but by the mid-5th century it had had too many.

 

[vogtmurr]

I'm sorry, I don't think you understood me: I said that the Goths were not a "gaggle of homeless bandits". That much is fairly self-evident.

yes this threw me. my bad.

It doesn't immediately follow from an observation that the Goths didn't behave lack a gaggle of homeless bandits that they must have represented an ethnically homogenous "tribe",

They don't have to be homogeneous - there could be a dominant culture, creed, or ruling elite that defines who they are to history. In effect - others were 'subverted' to the dominant tribe. The extent and duration of that influence is probably dependent on the pervasiveness of the ruling culture - and disparity of numbers with the ruled. I see where you might be coming from - I have trouble considering 12th century English as 'Normans'. Is Ptolemaic Egypt Greek ? Let us say before the Goths became a ruling elite in Spain - the people in their immediate following were recognizably Gothic.

Why is it assumed that a "Gothic identity" implies ethnic continuity? Is that the only way in which cultural or subcultural identities can be maintained? To take a modern example, you get "Highlander identities" in certain regiments in many Commonwealth countries, which maintain an identity and a body of traditions derived from Scottish Highland culture, even when a minority of the membership are actually of Scottish ancestry.

Not sure I can assume that. It is the short time frames in question, and other competing influences in the area, that suggest to me there had to be some continuity of the tribal origin. Your example is like what Dachs referred to when a non-related group of peoples decide to adopt a certain culture's trappings. We have several highlander regiments, and they are well regarded.

I don't follow; if these people were not ethnically homogeneous, then in what sense did they represent a "tribe"? Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean by that, because it isn't entirely clear.

It's a philosophical argument and I suppose you can choose your own definition. I have trouble when a particular group of peoples can make such an impact in their times - and we are ready to accept they simply disappear into oblivion - only to reappear in the same geographic area within 50 years and make a big splash again. But somehow they aren't the same 'people'. Immigration, occupation, culture shifts, technology can change a nation from one century to the next, but they are still that nation, for awhile at least. In this case, I think language at least might tie the 3rd century Tervingi and Greuthungi to the 4th century Goths, and 5th century Ostrogoths; but its probably not possible to prove. Looking at it another way - the Gothic elite and their partially 'Gothicized' subjects probably ceased to be an identifiable culture in the first few centuries of the Arab al-andalus. I'm not sure what emerged in the NW has a particular affinity with the Suebian kingdom that was there before.

I'm not near my little library, so I can't give you any references right now. The role of the bishops is well known (the church on the peninsula held several synods, and arguably the eventual victory of the anti-Arian field was proof of that continued influence), and the continued preeminence of the bishops of Merida, Cordoba and Hispalis (Seville) is also well known. Toledo rose in importance as a new political center, but it was not a sudden thing. Bracara in the northwest may have also gained importance as the center of the suebi kingdom, but it's hard to say whether that was cause or consequence. The southern cities lost political influence for awhile as a result of being conquered by the byzantines and thus separated from the polity that ruled the rest of the peninsula, but they continued to be important, priority targets that were eventually re-annexed by the visigothic kingdom.

The visighothic kingdom had its fair share of civil wars, several between kings and their sons (in that it was already showing a typical medieval pattern), including Hermenegildo's rebellion (well known because he ended up proclaimed a saint), but the most destructive warfare for civic life seems to have happened around the early to mid-5th century and is related to the anarchy during the last years of Roman imperial power. Namely, those punitive expeditions sent by Aetius in 453 and already discussed here, the repression against the bagaudae which themselves had targeted cities and apparently even sacked several important ones. The building of city walls was probably due to the threat posed by that disorder, not to the "barbarians" who were actually being used by what remained of imperial power to suppress it. I've also seen mentions of "mauritanian" (north african, where we now place Morocco) raids across the straits of Gibraltar before the Vandals even arrived (don't recall where, sorry: history is just a hobby for me). Imperial power, apparently, was also breaking in the westernmost portion of its african provinces before the arrival of "german" barbarians.

What exactly caused the final breakdown of imperial power in Hispania is unclear, but I won't be surprised to see someone argued that the source of the anarchy was in armed bands who resulted from the decades of warfare there since Constantine III's ineffectual invasion of the peninsula. No emperor ever again managed to reassert imperial power over the whole of it. Why, I don't know, but it seems obvious that what they lacked was a loyal and large enough army to sent there.

On the burials thing I'll try to get some from a colleague of mine who's an archeologist and has been looking into that era lately. She was my sole source for that, actually.

.
.
.
.

Thanks - that is interesting. It is easier to debate evidence (or lack of it), than conclusions. The bagaudae seem to have become a pretty pervasive threat to stability near the end. Maybe they were the sickness that fatally undermined the health of the empire, or were they just another symptom ?

 

[Traitorfish]

They don't have to be homogeneous - there could be a dominant culture, creed, or ruling elite that defines who they are to history. In effect - others were 'subverted' to the dominant tribe. The extent and duration of that influence is probably dependent on the pervasiveness of the ruling culture - and disparity of numbers with the ruled. I see where you might be coming from - I have trouble considering 12th century English as 'Normans'. Is Ptolemaic Egypt Greek ? Let us say before the Goths became a ruling elite in Spain - the people in their immediate following were recognizably Gothic.

But your previous claim was that the "Goths" had to constitute a discrete tribal entity to be able to raise the forces that they did. If you're revising that to say that only the elite were Gothic, then why do any of them have to be Goths?

Not sure I can assume that. It is the short time frames in question, and other competing influences in the area, that suggest to me there had to be some continuity of the tribal origin. Your example is like what Dachs referred to when a non-related group of peoples decide to adopt a certain culture's trappings. We have several highlander regiments, and they are well regarded.

Why does the time frame preclude any such adoption? To back to the example of Highland regiments, they were found outside of the British army, and heavily populated by non-Gaels, as early as the mid-19th century- the 79th New York Volunteer Infantry, for example, which fought in the American Civil War, which was mostly populated by non-Gaels (Lowland Scots and Scots-Irish for the most part, IIIRC).

It's a philosophical argument...

Anthropology, surely?

...and I suppose you can choose your own definition. I have trouble when a particular group of peoples can make such an impact in their times - and we are ready to accept they simply disappear into oblivion - only to reappear in the same geographic area within 50 years and make a big splash again. But somehow they aren't the same 'people'. Immigration, occupation, culture shifts, technology can change a nation from one century to the next, but they are still that nation, for awhile at least. In this case, I think language at least might tie the 3rd century Tervingi and Greuthungi to the 4th century Goths, and 5th century Ostrogoths; but its probably not possible to prove. Looking at it another way - the Gothic elite and their partially 'Gothicized' subjects probably ceased to be an identifiable culture in the first few centuries of the Arab al-andalus. I'm not sure what emerged in the NW has a particular affinity with the Suebian kingdom that was there before.

This doesn't really answer my question at all. I'm asking you what a "tribe" is, and in what sense the "Goths" represented one, but you're just assuming that both of these are the case and plotting out a rough chronology of their activities.

 

[vogtmurr]

But your previous claim was that the "Goths" had to constitute a discrete tribal entity to be able to raise the forces that they did. If you're revising that to say that only the elite were Gothic, then why do any of them have to be Goths?

I never revised anything. I said there had to be some some continuity of an ethno-political entity. A tribe that recognized themselves as the people we call Goths - enough to reassert their independence, just as the Ostrogoths did after Nedao. It generally takes some cohesion and awareness of themselves as a 'people' for a semi-nomadic 'nation' to go on the warpath with an empire. You and others keep inserting or implying homogeneity not me. Read my posts with Dachs, even if they were entirely Gothic, there is still the question of which of two or more sub branches, and obviously there were others around who joined by opportunity, but they were probably quite susceptible to accepting the Goths as their tribe and dominant culture. Not so much a long settled populace under Roman rule. It is a tricky maneuver to talk about ethnicity. But I will say the term ruling elite makes a lot more sense applying it to their role in Spain and Italy, not when they were a tribal force on the march.

Why does the time frame preclude any such adoption? To back to the example of Highland regiments, they were found outside of the British army, and heavily populated by non-Gaels, as early as the mid-19th century- the 79th New York Volunteer Infantry, for example, which fought in the American Civil War, which was mostly populated by non-Gaels (Lowland Scots and Scots-Irish for the most part, IIIRC).

No idea what the relevance is. Time plays a factor in the gradual submersion, adoption or absorption of cultures, ethnicity, language, etc. Along with about a thousand other factors - I'm not prepared to debate/discuss in this thread the process by which cultures emerge or disappear. How long does it take a group isolated from the main branch to become a separate tribe/culture ? The fact that it became a tradition for many English speaking countries to adopt highlander regiments is little reflection on the ethno-cultural makeup of the host country. I think Fiji and Jamaica have highlander regiments. It is a relatively minor cultural influence, that I think in no way characterizes the tribes known to historians as Goths.

Anthropology, surely?

Or sophistry. Pretty soon we will have to put quotations around tribe, nation, people everytime we mention them in literature. I am not an anthropologist - so suffice to say I'm using tribe in terms of everyday accepted usage. In this case a semi-nomadic people with a long history of their own. I'm not sure what you are reaching for - but some of these questions are philosophical. How about you try and enlighten me instead of entrap me ?

This doesn't really answer my question at all. I'm asking you what a "tribe" is, and in what sense the "Goths" represented one, but you're just assuming that both of these are the case and plotting out a rough chronology of their activities.

Its all so subjective how can I give you a precise definition of tribe ? Basically I am accepting the conclusions of most other scholars on the subject - on what I perceive to be numerous examples and accounts to support that claim. Pointing out a myriad of other possibilities doesn't displace that belief unless you can provide substantiation that one of them fits better. And that's basically all there is to it - choosing the narrative that seems to fit best. What about the mutiny of Gothic foederati after 408 and subsequent liberation of Gothic slaves ? 40 years after their entry in to the empire as refugees. Why would the Romans continue to call them Goths for the hell of it or because they're academically lazy - while a hostile Goth army was blockading their capital ?

You can apply these same questions to every single nation state or collection of savages in history. Tell me is Ptolemaic Egypt Greek ? I can certainly say I've seen it described in numerous reputable sources as a Greek kingdom. I'm not sure. They were a small ruling elite, and managed to subvert the old Heliopolitan Gods and Pharaoh culture, but I don't think Egyptians ever considered themselves Greek - partly because for most of the Ptolemies the Egyptians were excluded from positions of power. It wasn't till the Muslim conquest maybe that the old Egyptian culture was entirely submerged, and a new one emerged - but they considered themselves Egyptian and still do ! Any definitions we try to impose on tribe will probably bear little resemblance to what the people in question feel about it. I submit to you the Goths in the end chose not to consider themselves Romans.

 

[Traitorfish]

I never revised anything. I said there had to be some some continuity of an ethno-political entity. A tribe that recognized themselves as the people we call Goths - enough to reassert their independence, just as the Ostrogoths did after Nedao. It generally takes some cohesion and awareness of themselves as a 'people' for a semi-nomadic 'nation' to go on the warpath with an empire. You and others keep inserting or implying homogeneity not me. Read my posts with Dachs, even if they were entirely Gothic, there is still the question of which of two or more sub branches, and obviously there were others around who joined by opportunity, but they were probably quite susceptible to accepting the Goths as their tribe and dominant culture. Not so much a long settled populace under Roman rule. It is a tricky maneuver to talk about ethnicity. But I will say the term ruling elite makes a lot more sense applying it to their role in Spain and Italy, not when they were a tribal force on the march.

I'm really not following, so perhaps we should go back to the basics: who do you think the "Goths" were?

No idea what the relevance is. Time plays a factor in the gradual submersion, adoption or absorption of cultures, ethnicity, language, etc. Along with about a thousand other factors - I'm not prepared to debate/discuss in this thread the process by which cultures emerge or disappear. How long does it take a group isolated from the main branch to become a separate tribe/culture ?

Then again, why does the time frame preclude any such adoption? You can't just assume that.

The fact that it became a tradition for many English speaking countries to adopt highlander regiments is little reflection on the ethno-cultural makeup of the host country. I think Fiji and Jamaica have highlander regiments. It is a relatively minor cultural influence, that I think in no way characterizes the tribes known to historians as Goths.

Doesn't that rest on the assertion that the polities which identified themselves as "Gothic" were totes Gothic for reals yo, which as Dachs has said is not self-evident from the source material? All we seem to know is that they self-identified as "Goths" and maintained certainly (allegedly) Gothic customs and elements of language, which, as was my point, doesn't necessitate any greater degree of ethnic continuity than putting on a kilt and claiming to be a highlander.

Or sophistry. Pretty soon we will have to put quotations around tribe, nation, people everytime we mention them in literature. I am not an anthropologist - so suffice to say I'm using tribe in terms of everyday accepted usage. In this case a semi-nomadic people with a long history of their own. I'm not sure what you are reaching for - but some of these questions are philosophical. How about you try and enlighten me instead of entrap me ?

I'm not trying to "entrap" you, I'm asking you what sort of organisational form you're referring to when you talk about a Gothic "tribe". Something so fundamental to your model should not be hard to explain.

Its all so subjective how can I give you a precise definition of tribe ? Basically I am accepting the conclusions of most other scholars on the subject - on what I perceive to be numerous examples and accounts to support that claim. Pointing out a myriad of other possibilities doesn't displace that belief unless you can provide substantiation that one of them fits better. And that's basically all there is to it - choosing the narrative that seems to fit best. What about the mutiny of Gothic foederati after 408 and subsequent liberation of Gothic slaves ? 40 years after their entry in to the empire as refugees. Why would the Romans continue to call them Goths for the hell of it or because they're academically lazy - while a hostile Goth army was blockading their capital ?

You can apply these same questions to every single nation state or collection of savages in history. Tell me is Ptolemaic Egypt Greek ? I can certainly say I've seen it described in numerous reputable sources as a Greek kingdom. I'm not sure. They were a small ruling elite, and managed to subvert the old Heliopolitan Gods and Pharaoh culture, but I don't think Egyptians ever considered themselves Greek - partly because for most of the Ptolemies the Egyptians were excluded from positions of power. It wasn't till the Muslim conquest maybe that the old Egyptian culture was entirely submerged, and a new one emerged - but they considered themselves Egyptian and still do ! Any definitions we try to impose on tribe will probably bear little resemblance to what the people in question feel about it. I submit to you the Goths in the end chose not to consider themselves Romans.

I don't understand what any of this has to do with my question.

 

[innonimatu]

Thanks - that is interesting. It is easier to debate evidence (or lack of it), than conclusions. The bagaudae seem to have become a pretty pervasive threat to stability near the end. Maybe they were the sickness that fatally undermined the health of the empire, or were they just another symptom ?

I would like to know more about that, but I don't. I haven't found much about it. It seems that century is very poor in original sources, and archeology hasn't produced much either. Or I just have yet to find better information.
Anyway, some cities were attacked, other (smaller ones) abandoned. Those abandoned may have been due to the decline of long distance trade. The attacks against larger cities? Were they by bands of deserters never rounded up and dealt with during the near-continuous civil wars? By some contingents of barbarians who may or may not have been at some point part of the roman army (the suebi come to mind as possibly not having been subjects of the empire, the visigots not so much), by larger roman armies who may have ceased receiving payment, or by peasants? If by peasants, were they rebelling, against their local masters, or being armed as local armies by them and being used in local disputes? I don't know.

In any case roman civilization in the iberian peninsula does not seem to have been too disturbed during that final century of the empire. Only in the northwest (the area occupied by the suebi, and the northeast (between Gaul and the Ebro) did the war damage seem to have cause trouble to major cities. What happened in the large latifundia and its roman villae in the southern portion of the peninsula I do not know. They were eventually abandoned, but imho that was more likely due to the collapse of long-distance trade than to local damage: the abandoned villae and smaller cities cities show no sign of violent destruction. Though some do have poor walls quickly built around that time: the anarchy of the 5th century may also have prompted people to move to better defended towns.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't assume a purely Gothic nation of several hundreds of thousands followed Alaric around. But there had to be a tribe, large enough to raise armies of 30,000 on multiple occasions, which recognized him as their leader.

If something is capable of raising an army of 30,000 people, it's unlikely to be a tribe.

 

[innonimatu]

If something is capable of raising an army of 30,000 people, it's unlikely to be a tribe.

What is a tribe, in your opinion?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'll go with vogtmurr's definition, because it's the only one relevant to this discussion "a semi-nomadic people with a long history of their own" and add the qualifier of "under at least nominally unified rule (Otherwise we could describe all germanic peoples as "a tribe")."
I don't think it's very feasible for a semi-nomadic unified group to raise an army of 30,000 troops. That many people, with a lifestyle on the move, are incredibly difficult to organize into a coherent political body, mainly because dissenters can just physically leave, and semi-nomadic lifestyle requires a low population density and decentralized leadership.
If the population density is high, then people can't move around easily because land is being used by other people, and if your people are moving around, they can't depend on you for political leadership.
Either they're a much more unified, centralize polity then a tribe (which would require some severe and imaginative revisionism, and rewrite the basis for the Gothic Migrations) or they're getting their troops from outside of the tribe.

 

[innonimatu]

Perhaps, but yet roman sources had claimed rather large numbers for barbarian tribes on the move in prior periods. The cimbri defeated by Marius in the final days of the republic, for example. Have we evidence that they lying outrageously?

 

[vogtmurr]

I'm really not following, so perhaps we should go back to the basics: who do you think the "Goths" were?

Then again, why does the time frame preclude any such adoption? You can't just assume that.

Okay. Been preoccupied and out of town. It was a bit of an overstatement for me to say earlier "they were a people already well established in two branches of long standing." The two significant tribal groups known as Goths that emerged out of the Balkans and Hungary don't have to be direct equivalents of the Greuthungi and Tervengi, but had elements of both, and perhaps others that lived in the area under their rule before 370. One group were certainly a 'tribe' that defeated a Roman army in 378. Some would serve in the Roman army as auxillaries or foederati, and subsequently appear in the area under a Goth leader. Why would we consider Alaric's subsequent invasion as irrepresentative of the tribe that had given rise to said forces ? Did more join later, such as another rebellious division of foederati, quite possible. But they may well have temporary, or a minority that merged with and became Goths in a tribal sense of the word. Maybe they are the missing element Dachs (and Heather) are referring to. Obviously neither Dachs nor I can give you a precise breakdown of who the Goths were. I can only support it with circumstantial evidence.

The element of time has multiple contexts in this discussion, but I'll point out that those who became Hun vassals retained their identity and revolted 50 years later.

Doesn't that rest on the assertion that the polities which identified themselves as "Gothic" were totes Gothic for reals yo, which as Dachs has said is not self-evident from the source material? All we seem to know is that they self-identified as "Goths" and maintained certainly (allegedly) Gothic customs and elements of language, which, as was my point, doesn't necessitate any greater degree of ethnic continuity than putting on a kilt and claiming to be a highlander.


I'm not trying to "entrap" you, I'm asking you what sort of organisational form you're referring to when you talk about a Gothic "tribe". Something so fundamental to your model should not be hard to explain.


I don't understand what any of this has to do with my question.

Well this went over my head then. Rather than try to offer precise definitions of tribe, Goth, and their organizational form; I've offered several examples of people who were known as Goths, where they came from, when they were a tribe (dominant majority on the move under unified leadership, or distinct subset living under occupation), and when a ruling elite (minority in power over a settled area). It includes those who served in the Roman army and also operated as independent warbands. Refute them - or try another line of query if you want. These fundamental questions about my assumptions seem preoccupied with the promotion of alternative theories, that would require just as lengthy explanations and leaps of faith.

I would like to know more about that, but I don't. I haven't found much about it. It seems that century is very poor in original sources, and archeology hasn't produced much either. Or I just have yet to find better information.
Anyway, some cities were attacked, other (smaller ones) abandoned. Those abandoned may have been due to the decline of long distance trade. The attacks against larger cities? Were they by bands of deserters never rounded up and dealt with during the near-continuous civil wars? By some contingents of barbarians who may or may not have been at some point part of the roman army (the suebi come to mind as possibly not having been subjects of the empire, the visigots not so much), by larger roman armies who may have ceased receiving payment, or by peasants? If by peasants, were they rebelling, against their local masters, or being armed as local armies by them and being used in local disputes? I don't know.

In any case roman civilization in the iberian peninsula does not seem to have been too disturbed during that final century of the empire. Only in the northwest (the area occupied by the suebi, and the northeast (between Gaul and the Ebro) did the war damage seem to have cause trouble to major cities. What happened in the large latifundia and its roman villae in the southern portion of the peninsula I do not know. They were eventually abandoned, but imho that was more likely due to the collapse of long-distance trade than to local damage: the abandoned villae and smaller cities cities show no sign of violent destruction. Though some do have poor walls quickly built around that time: the anarchy of the 5th century may also have prompted people to move to better defended towns.

SW France and Spain north of the Ebro is where the Goths jockied for elbow room after their expulsion from Italy. So their initial occupation would be predictably more violent, their subsequent expansion in Iberia was more at the expense of Vandals and other tribes. But then again chaos or rebellion was already in full swing. After the collapse of Roman authority and departure of the Vandals, there is little reason to suspect a violent conquest in southern Spain. The Goths were still preoccupied north of the Pyrennes with the Franks until 510 or later.