Barbarian Organisation
Bookmark this page

BARBARIAN ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

First waves attacks 3^rd century defeated, continuing invasions 4^th and 5^th centuries overloaded defences of the empire, tribes into empire, encouraged by Hunnic presuure.

Literary and archaeological evidence suggests barbarian society was uniform and no significant differences in material or socio-political culture exited.

Barbarian society: extremely fragmented andonly posed danger to the Roman Empire when several groups united, actions by single cantons a nuisance themselves unlikely to affect long-term integrity of the empire, groups divided internally.

Cooperation between cantons was extremely rare – Alamannic cooperation in 352  ambition certain King, Frankish cantons unite in 396, cantons from different regions fought.

Romans exploit fact no love lost between different Barbarian groups – there was no such thing as Barbarian nationalism

BARBARIAN MILITARY PRACTICES

Political developments made larger armies more common, but tactical sophistication, equipment changed little, little need for Roman generals to change tactics.  What Herodian wrote 3^rd century can be applied here

“not from set battles expect success against an enemy.  They believe it is from hit and run tactics they gain what plunder they get.

Like fighting – social prestige and social mobility, glory also perceived riches inside the Roman Empire.

J.M. Wallace-Hadrill “opportunism, short-sighted and ruthless, was characteristic of every barbarian who made his way in the Roman world” – a parasitic relationship with the empire, but not dependency.

No thought of overthrowing the empire, except maybe late 5^th century in the West.  Empire was too big and resources too small, even strongest Barbarian alliance – Attila’s confed of Danubians only able to challenge Empire as a regional power –not threaten existence.

Barbarian attacks divided into three types: Raids, Conquests and Defensive Wars.

RAIDS

Most common and usually carried out by single canton 200 – 300, larger raids, like Radagasius more common as the 5^th century developed.

Occurred at time of perceived Roman weakness, when moving troops etc.  Opportunities caused by Roman action elsewhere increased Barbarian attempts in turn created more crises – Stilicho’s attempts against Alaric involved weakening Gaul’s defences, bring about Radagaisus attempts and Vandals and Suevi. – Gothic diversion Aqutiane allowed Franks in northern Gaul – unsubdued Barbarian group caused havoc.  20 years protecting what she had in Gaul not getting any back

From the 380s – failure to expel or destroy the Goths in the Balakns means serious internal troubles were always a possibility, increasing severity of other crises.

If Barbarians could settle they would – no opposition from a raid, began farming early on.

Some settlements were on something approaching equal term 0 Visgoths Aquitaine 418, not prisoners of war type settlements as before – government administered settlements cause little disruption

Once settled use position to ask for more, or better “settlement” – Alaric sacking Rome attempt to compel Honrius to grant his demands

Problem of Goths wandering with Alaric shown in 415 – not let them wonder again but settle them in Aquitaine.

Other Notes in this Category

1. Barbarian Organisation
2. Barbarians and Bishops
3. Crisis 439
4. Introduction
5. Nomadism, Horses and Huns
6. Roman Organisation
7. Roman Strategy against Barbarians
8. The Huns
9. The Huns and the end of the Roman Empire - Peter Heather
10. Vandals and the Collapse of the west
11. Would Empire have collapsed without the huns?

Didn't find this useful?

• Visit Coursework.Info for over 14,000 GCSE, A-Level and University Essays