Text/Peter Heather
Some have tried to describe the demise of the Western Roman Empire as a well-anticipated peace process, and in particular like to cite the example of western Roman landlords cooperating with barbarians to justify the entry of barbarians into Rome. In fact, the cooperation between these landlords and barbarians was entirely due to the fact that the barbarians destroyed the tax base of the Roman Empire, resulting in the decline of the military and political power of the Roman Empire and the inability to protect the landlords. Moreover, the landlords who cooperated with the barbarians were only a survivor bias, and a large number of landlords outside of them were wiped out by the barbarians. Once Rome was ruled by barbarians, Europe entered the Dark Middle Ages.
Based on these phenomena, the so-called transformation of Western Rome from a unified empire to multiple successor states is basically a peaceful process, which is first and foremost inconsistent with the evidence.
The original premise of this view – that the foreign groups that eventually established the successor state were initially invited in – was based on a very unreliable basis. There is no evidence that Roman officials invited the Goths of Radagaissus, the Rhine invaders (Vandals, Arans, and Suviers), Burgundians, or Huns.
In other words, every group of invaders involved in the crisis of about 405-408 was uninvited and met with all-out resistance. The same was true of other smaller groups involved in the early border crisis of about 375–380, such as the Tyfars, the Goths led by Farnobius, the Sarmatians, and the Huns and Alans allied with the rebellious Goths in the fall of 377. Similarly, the Grussonians, led by Alteus and Safrakes, were among the two main Gothic groups that crossed the Danube in late summer or early autumn in late 376. The group was initially excluded, but they took advantage of the tensions between the Roman Empire and the Gothic Wenji to cross the Danube.
Barbarians invaded Rome en masse
The only outsiders who actually gained permission to enter the Empire were the Gothic Wingi, but the Emperor Valence at the time may not have had a choice. In the summer of 376, when the Goths arrived at the Danube and asked for asylum, the emperor was fully engaged in war with Persia.
When fighting at one border, only an idiot would allow another important border to catch fire. According to one historical record, it was only after a heated debate that the Empire made the decision to accept the Twenji, and this was more of a means of controlling losses at the time.
The Emperor was too weak to deal with both the Twengi and grussonians at the same time, and he could only adopt a divide-and-rule approach, accepting one group of people and excluding another. As evidenced by this, the Emperor implemented contingency plans to eliminate possible military threats from the Twenji, in particular by exercising strategic control over the food supply and ordering an attack on the leader of the Twengi when problems arose.
In the 4th century (and before), emperors did occasionally recruit detachments from Goths and other vassal states to fight for themselves, even during civil wars, but the Romans did not allow large numbers of armed men to enter Rome permanently—it was much more dangerous than recruiting armed forces from beyond the borders and sending them home after the war.
Considering that the barbarian groups that crossed the border into the empire in the late 4th and 5th centuries were clearly not invited by Rome, some have made some mixed views about the crisis of 405-408.
The view was that the Empire had loosened its grip on the relevant borders, thus signaling an invitation. This is a bit like the argument made during the war in the Malvinas Islands in the early 1980s: Britain dismantled the minesweeper Endeavour, which had once cruised the South Atlantic for economic reasons, and argentina's Galtieri military junta interpreted it as a sign that Britain would not delay Argentina's takeover of the Malvinas Islands.
Applying this analogy to the crisis of 405-408 would lead to a more likely and interesting argument, but one that is not very convincing.
It is said that the trigger for the barbarian invasion was the withdrawal of Roman troops from the northern border region of Gaul, and Rome terminated or drastically reduced subsidies to border vassal states. The problem was that most of the invaders of 405-408 did not live in the border areas immediately adjacent to the Empire, as the main beneficiaries of the subsidies did, but from outside the border areas, and some even lived far away, such as the Alans.
There were not many Roman armies in Britain and northern Gaul, and with these armies, the usurper Constantine III controlled almost all of Western Rome in the autumn and winter of 409-410. And in any case, the first attack (launched by Radagasus) was not aimed at an area that was said to have been semi-withdrawn.
In short, there is no reason to think that the unprecedented wave of barbarian invasions was related to Rome's explicit or implied invitations. Outsiders used violence and entered Roman territory on their own initiative.
What happened after the initial invasion was no different. From the arrival of the Goths on the Danube in 376 to the dethronement of Romulus Augustulus in 476, there were many political changes, none of which had the fundamental aim of overthrowing the Empire, but all of which involved regular violent confrontations between invaders and the Roman Empire, often on a large scale.
From an immigrant perspective, the political process over the course of 100 years can be divided into two main phases.
The first stage was to confront the Roman authorities, lest they undermine the independence of the group at the outset of their contacts. This was done by the Twenji and Grussonians between 376 and 382. For those who crossed the Rhine in 406, military strength and the ability to travel far away in North Africa were crucial to surviving the initial conflict with the Roman (and Visigothic) forces deployed in Spain. The Burgundians seemed to have moved into Roman territory with consent in the 1630s, but this occurred after they were defeated by the Huns, and the Roman general Aetius appeared to have supported these attacks.
These groups survived the first encounter with Roman power, while many other groups failed to do so. Some Gothic subgroups were broken up between 376 and 382; Rada Gaisus' forces disintegrated in 405, many members were sold into slavery, and some survivors later rejoined Alaric. As we have seen before, the Rhine invaders also suffered heavy casualties between 416 and 418, so much so that three previously separate groups—the Asting Vandals, the Siringer Vandals, and the Alans—merged into one. No matter how you look at it, surviving your first encounter with the Roman Empire is not easy.
According to my statistics, from 376 to 418, when they finally settled in Gaul, the Goths, who united to form the Visigoths, experienced 11 major battles and numerous small battles.
The overall level of violence is crucial to two specific characteristics of the first phase of population migration. First, it helps explain why immigrant groups tend to migrate multiple times. Continuous migration was a survival strategy, and these groups either prompted the Roman Empire to compromise (as was the case with the Goths led by Alaric from the Balkans to Gaul) or moved to safer, more prosperous places where they continued to fight against the Empire (the Vandal Confederation moved to North Africa).
Second, without this level of violence, it is impossible to explain why so many groups of immigrants would act together in smaller but larger coalitions without continuing large-scale conflict. The new political units formed on Roman soil, such as the Visigoths, the Vandal-Alanite Alliance, and the Ostrogoths, were all larger units more capable of countering the military power of the Roman Empire, and their members were both able to survive and gain more favorable conditions.
A raging wave of illegal immigration
More violence is crucial to the second phase of migrant politics: once the initial survival is assured, one's own status is elevated as much as possible. The two phases tended to penetrate each other, because even the first Gothic immigrants in 376 did not enter the empire just to survive, but had other ambitions; but the second stage of migration was still very distinctive and worth listing separately.
The second phase was characterized by the emergence of a framework for Roman diplomatic relations with the barbarians, with which the destruction of specific groups of immigrants would not have occurred.
For the Visigoths led by Alaric, the second phase began sometime between 395 and 418, and was evident in the group's subsequent diplomatic engagement with the Roman Empire. Beginning in 418, diplomacy focused on how much territory the Visigoths would occupy under what conditions, rather than whether their presence should be tolerated.
Even so, the second phase was a constant military conflict: first in southern Gaul, where the regional capital of Arles became a target for the Goths in the 1620s and 1930s, and then, in the late 1960s and 1970s, there were more conflicts between the Loire and Gibraltar, when the Goths led by Euric (reigned 467-484) established a large independent kingdom.
In contrast, the Vandal-Aran alliance only entered its second phase in the mid-1940s, when Western Rome was forced to recognize the Union's conquest of North Africa, when in fact the second phase of the alliance was not as stable as the Corresponding Phase of the Visigoths. While dying, the Western Romans also tried twice to retake the Vandal kingdom in 461 and 468.
As for the Franks and Anglo-Saxons, they did not have to confront the Roman Empire head-on, and thus entered the second phase directly in a sense. Nevertheless, they were driven by violence to pursue their ambitions with conquest and requisition.
Now let's switch to the perspective of the Roman Empire. The link between immigration violence and the collapse of Western Rome could not be more direct. In simple terms, Rome taxed a relatively developed agrarian economy to sustain its army and other institutions.
There are other sectors of the economy, but agriculture as a share of the empire's gross domestic product will not be less than 80%, and many scholars believe that the proportion is even higher. In this case, the activity of immigration directly affected the tax revenue of the empire, which in turn greatly weakened the viability of the state.
Whenever a piece of territory fell into the hands of immigrant groups (for example, the Spanish provinces were occupied by Rhine invaders in the second decade of the 5th century), there was one less piece of land that could contribute to the national treasury. Moreover, if the provinces were caught in conflict, they would not be able to pay their taxes, even if they were not completely conquered.
The provinces surrounding rome were occupied only by the Goths led by Alaric for two years, and for nearly a decade thereafter, the taxes paid were only one-seventh of the normal rate. Similar relief was received in two North African provinces, which did not belong to the Vandal-Aran kingdom of the 1/40s, but were occupied by the Vandal-Arans for 3 years in the mid-1940s. Thus, it might be roughly assumed that taxes in provinces that had experienced major wars had been reduced by six-sevenths.
Do a count of how many lost and damaged provinces there are– they are the land tax base in Western Rome, and you will see how serious the problems posed by immigration are.
As early as 420, Britain was completely freed from the control of the Roman center, as was the Garonne Valley, which granted the Visigoths. In addition, much of Spain was occupied or contested by Rhine invaders, and much of central and southern Italy was devastated by the Visigoths' stay between 408 and 410 years.
The tax reductions resulting from all these losses are perfectly reflected in the Late Roman Roster of Officers and Civil Servants, the Notitia Dignitatum. The roster lists the Western Roman armies of the early 1920s.
About half of the field corps established in 395 was destroyed during these two decades. At this time, more than half of the replacement troops who joined the legion (62 of the 97 teams) were only nominally upgraded to the garrison of the field army.
Not only were the field armies damaged without being replenished with high-quality troops, but there was also no indication that other units had replaced the upgraded garrisons in carrying out their duties. The quality and quantity of the army fell sharply, which was the direct effect of the erosion of the imperial tax base.
Worse is yet to come. By 445, the richest provinces of Western Rome—Numidia, Baixassian, and Proconsularis in North Africa—had submitted to the Vandals, part of Pannonia (present-day Hungary) had become The Huns, and the Burgundians and some other Alans had acquired small areas of Gaul by the mid-1930s. At this point, nearly 50 percent of The Western Roman tax base had been eroded and funds were running out.
Predictably, Western Roman legislators at the time complained that landlords were reluctant to pay taxes and would try to recoup existing tax incentives. The reluctance of landlords to pay taxes is obviously an important phenomenon, especially since there are good reasons to think that the tax rate must be raised at this time. In addition, the Western Romans were inventing new taxes.
But if therefore, the reluctance of the rich to pay taxes was a major reason for the collapse of Western Rome (some argue so), it is putting the cart before the horse. In imperial politics, the rich and those with ties always enjoyed tax privileges: one of the reasons your friends supported you in winning power was because you could make them rich. This phenomenon was particularly prominent in the 1640s because many provinces had fallen into the hands of immigrants or suffered losses from war, and Western Rome's income had been reduced to dangerously low levels.
The Roman Empire suffered military losses and political capacity, creating a new strategic situation that allowed immigrants to further expand their control and expand dramatically from the mid-1960s onwards.
The corpse of the Western Roman Empire
At this time, the Western Roman army was in poverty due to the decline in tax revenues, and the situation was much worse than before, and in the face of the Visigoths, Vandals, and others (especially the Franks, who had just begun or were about to complete the work of establishing a power base in the Western Roman homeland), the Western Romans had no chance of winning. From the perspective of the impact on taxation and even the military institutions of the empire, the direct causal relationship between armed immigrants and the collapse of Western Rome is indisputable.
Against this backdrop, after the 5th century, the local Roman aristocracy became increasingly inclined to enter into deals with different immigrants, a trend that, like the reluctance of the nobility to pay high taxes, was a very minor phenomenon in the collapse of the Roman Empire.
Again, we should look at these deals in the context of the time. The local aristocrats involved were essentially landowners, and most of their estates (the basic source of wealth) were located in the same place, and these tangible assets could not be moved. Therefore, if the place where the property is located is placed in the ever-expanding sphere of influence of a certain immigrant group, the landlord has little choice. They will either reconcile with the immigration leaders (if possible) or risk losing the land that is the source of all their wealth and status.
Such a settlement will not happen automatically. We see that in the Low Britain, the original Roman landlord class was completely unable to survive the Anglo-Saxon occupation.
The idea that the end of Western Rome was a process of basic peace, and that local elites no longer continued to participate in the decision-driven drive of the state's core structure, was not convincing. On the contrary, the political processes of the 5th century were achieved through violence. Caught in the middle, these elites have no choice, willingly or unwillingly, and can only reconcile with the new forces that have come to their land before it is too late.
Here, we sometimes overlook a key difference between the Central Government of Rome and the local Roman landowners. Looking only at the latter, many reconciliation events can be recorded. However, these events occurred because the immigrant groups crossed the border by force, and the Western Romans lost their tax base, no longer had enough income to maintain a decent army, and the landlords of the provinces were thus completely exposed to the barbarians.
Welcome to the Feast of Literature and History
The most popular among the professions, the most professional among the popular
Familiarity with history is defamiliarized, and unfamiliar history is popularized