Invading Barbarians

Barbarian. The word conjures up visions of dumb burley men with rippling muscles, long hair, giant swords and Austrian accents. Although perhaps some of the barbarian people did share many of those traits, originally the term barbarian was simply one who didn’t speak Greek. To the Greeks, when these people spoke, it sounded like they were saying “bar, bar, bar...” and so the Greek word ‘Barbaros’ was formed.

The barbarians came from all over Europe, from the far north in countries such as Norway and Sweden, central Europe in the Germanic areas and to the east where modern day Romania and Bulgaria are.

In general, compared with more civilized cultures such as the Greeks and Romans, the barbarians were more primitive and basic. In some cases, they were quite anarchic which was in direct contrast to the ideals and philosophies of the more learned cultures. Because of this, much of what we know of these peoples comes not from the barbarians themselves, but from the other more sophisticated cultures, such as the Greeks, Romans and Arabs. These cultures were more civilized and had greater understandings of philosophy, government, religion etc, and so provide us with their insights to the barbarian peoples.

This essay shall describe these barbarians and look at the continuities and changes of them over the centuries from a variety of different commentator’s perspectives, and highlights some of the good characteristics along with the bad.

Our first encounter with the barbarian race comes from the Roman senator and historian, Tacitus. In his writings Germania around 100 CE, he provides us with an ample description of his perception of a few types of barbarians found directly to the north of Rome.

In the first tribe he gives us quite a positive and complimentary view of them. Describing their physical appearance of having blue eyes, red hair and “bodies fit for exertion”, they have kept themselves to themselves inasmuch they only marry within their race and they are quite Spartan like in the way they beget their children i.e. the marriages are based on partners having similar strengths in order for the children to come out strong. They are a tight knit group and families are close by when the men go to war.

He goes on to describe another tribe, the Chatti, who in comparison have hardier bodies, sinewy limbs and greater liveliness of mind. They tend to be braver and one of their customs is to grow their beard and hair long until such time as they have slain an enemy. To them this pays the debt of their birth and shown themselves worthy.

Next, the Chauci are perhaps the noblest of the Germanic tribes with their preference to look for greatness with fair play. Although they will defend themselves if the need arises, they do not go out of their way to seek conflict or war. In contrast, the Fenni tribe is extremely poor, very savage, and quite primitive; they have no homes, live off of herbs and the like and use bones as weapons rather than iron.

Let us skip on 280 years to the year 380 CE and here we shall see Ammianus Marcellinus’ view of barbarians at this time and see what differences there are. Again, we are looking at the barbarians from a Roman historian’s point of view.

The first thing to note about this group particular group is that they “exhibit every degree of savagery”. They are quite compact, stocky type of people with thick necks. They eat raw meat and roots. They wear clothing from skins until it falls apart and it can be noted that they are very much like the description of the Fenni whom Tacitus described nearly 300 years before. This group however, is far more dangerous and savage. They are the Hun, and they are a ferocious race. Their fighting methods are extremely savage, but it also very disorderly, but it is this disorder that confuses the enemy. They are a nomadic people and it is virtually impossible for any of them to say where they were originally born. One unusual aspect of the Hun is that they apparently have no religion, and this enhances the concept of them not knowing right from wrong and can constitute another reason why they are so ferocious in battle.

The Alans is the second tribe he tells us of. They are similar to the Hun, with the exceptions of being less savage, taller and more handsome. Those killed in battle are honored, but those who die a natural death are reproached.

So, in the couple of hundred years we have looked at so far, we can see few major changes in the barbarian people. They still appear generally quite savage, disorganized and some actually appear to fit the idea of a certain barbarian from Austria quite well.

This leads us onto the Greek poet, Agathias and his Histories some two hundred years later around 570 CE. Will we see any major differences with the people he describes? Or are the apparent savagery and primitiveness still evident?

Well, the first group he tells us about is the Franks. The most apparent thing to note about the Franks is that they appear to be rather civilized and have even modeled their government on Rome’s. It could be said that they are the exact opposite to the idea of the barbarian because they do not seek war; they are very well bred, well spoken, dress well and live virtuous lives. In fact they are Christian and adhere to the “strictest orthodoxy”.

The second group discussed is a mixed mongrel people known as the Alamanni. These are similar to the Franks in terms of administration and government, but they follow their own traditions and their religious observance is different. Their religion is more of one of the worship of nature and the like, so very pagan, but their contact with the Franks is changing some of the more astute ones perceptions and beliefs towards Christianity. Agathias is none too complimentary of their sacrificial religious ways however, although from his writings, he is quite positive towards this people.

Next, we turn our attentions towards the viewpoint of the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, Maurice and his manual of war which gives us some excellent biographies of some of the barbarians we have already met, and some new ones. His Strategikun was written in 600 CE and discusses some ways of war of the barbarians.

Firstly, we meet a new pair of barbarian people, the Turks and the Avars. Both are considered Scythian, and although there are many other peoples under this race, only the Turks and Avars offer any form of military discipline.

The Turks are very independent and numerous, but their weakness is that they are not very versatile. They are trained only in warfare and are brave (remember, bravery is our common element in dealing with barbarians). Avars are more devious, clever and quite scoundrelous in their warfare. They are not to be trusted and often in agreements, they are deceitful, often agreeing to something and then doing what they want anyway. Their monarchial governments do not allow much room for mistakes from their people and harsh punishments are often inflicted upon them.

Next we revisit the Franks and along with them, we meet the Lombards. Both being light haired peoples, they are bold and undaunted when in battle and place great value on freedom. Maurice gives us positive praise of these barbarians and so far, they seem to be the most civilized of the barbaric races with respect to the Roman and Greek historians who have made these observations thus far.

He then speaks of the Slavs and Antes who have similar customs to one another and both refuse to be enslaved or governed, especially on their own land. Although very tough, they are quite welcoming to strangers and have livestock and store produce. Their uniqueness comes in the way they fight. As they live in dense woodland or marshes they fight more like bandits, and do not like to fight in open spaces. If in the open, they will let out a battle cry to ward of threat, but if their cry does not frighten their assailants, they will retreat to their woodlands and shelter and fight from there.

The next group of people are thought to have come from Iran and Turkey and settled into Europe around the 4th century. In this account, our new commentator, the Arab Ibn Fadlan tells of his meeting of the people of the Bulghars in the 920’s. So we have gone forward in time another 300 years or so to see what changes, if any to the barbarian people.

This people are extremely dirty. Despite having great physiques, they do not bathe or clean themselves after fornication or excreting. Although they do wash their hands and faces once a day, they use the same bowl of water as the next man, and each spits, blow their noses in it and so on. They do have religious beliefs and they believe that burning their dead rather than burying them (which they find crazy and abhorrent), enables their dead to enter paradise quicker.

With our penultimate commentator, Ibrahim Ibn Jakub investigates Christian Spain and Poland and tells us of the barbarians there around 960 CE. The barbarians in Spain are very similar to the Bulghars, spoken of by Ibn Fadlan, in that personal hygiene is not the main priority in their lives. In fact, they believe it to be healthier to stay dirty.

The second people Fadlan informs us of, the Slavs are quite similar to the Hun, they are typically aggressive and would become a strong force if they could unite their kingdoms together. They have fought against the Franks, Byzantines and Langobards with varying degrees of success. They have interesting morals regarding their women. Before marriage, a woman can sleep with many men and it is actually preferable for her not to be a virgin when she is married. If she is still a virgin, it is likely that she would be cast aside as not being good enough.

And so finally, we meet our last commentator and final barbarian people. In the 1070’s, Adam of Breman wrote the History of Archbishops of Hamburg Breman. In it, he talks of the northern most parts of Europe, Sweden & Norway, and the people there. In Sweden, the land is very fertile and the people there are quite well off. The men can have up to three wives, princes can have unlimited wives. All offspring of these marriages are considered legitimate. Despite this, adultery is punishable by death.

In contrast, the neighboring Norway is very unproductive due to its mountainous environment and the harsh cold. The people resorted to pirating in order to survive and collect wealth from other lands. Over the passage of time, they have accepted Christianity and have learnt to be more content with their lots.

In conclusion, I believe that our commentators all highlight one thing in common that all barbarian people share with one another, (this despite the vast range of distances that separated them), and that is in most cases they were all very brave and strong.

Over the course of the 900 years or so, it is difficult to say what changes or continuities have been made as the comparisons have been over different races and kingdoms throughout Europe. It would be like comparing the English to the Italians over a set period of time, they’re not the same people. The barbarians of Sweden cannot be directly compared to the barbarians of Turkey for example in this way.

In some cases, we can see that there are differences between barbarian peoples. Take the Franks and the Huns, complete opposites in outlooks, but many other barbarian races each have elements of both within their cultures. We can see the barbarians in Christian Spain are similar to those in the Bulghars in that both have very poor hygiene standards (compared to the commentators), but within those two societies, being dirty is perfectly normal and acceptable. From a certain point of view for example, these two peoples, both have been commentated on in the latter part of the barbarian day, and one could normally assume that this type of behavior towards hygiene would have been seen in the early days rather than later days.

It is interesting to note that in the later days, we see Christianity moving in and having an effect on various barbarians. The Franks are the obvious example, but in other barbarians, we can see its influence on them, and in turn we see the influence on the Alamanni, who also slowly embraced it due to their contact with the Franks. The Vikings in Norway came to accept it, thereby accepting their lot in life.

However, one thing that has never changed is the wars and fighting. But history also tells us that is not solely exclusive to the barbarian world and is totally irrelevant to how civilized a people may or may not be.

Grade A

The Achievements of Augustus

Rome. The year is 44 BCE, and the greatest city on earth has experienced a torrid hundred years with conquests, war, failed dictatorships, civil wars, political shifting and power struggles between major generals of the time. At this time, the great general and statesman, Gaius Julius Caesar had been declared dictator for life, and Rome seemed to be slowly losing its status of a republic. Thus, it was decided by a small group within the senate that for the sake of Rome, that Caesar must die. And so it was, on the 15 March 44 BCE, Caesar was assassinated by this group led by Brutus and Cassius. It was for the good of Rome, or so they believed.

Unfortunately, this action did not restore Rome to its former glory, and in time was plunged back into civil war. Mark Antony, ally of Caesar rivaled a young general named Octavian, who was the nephew and adopted son of Caesar. The conflict between the two would last around ten years, after which Antony was finally defeated. Octavian now stood supreme with Rome effectively at his mercy.

Would Octavian follow the mistakes of Caesar, or would he learn by history and succeed where so many others had failed to become a successful ruler of Rome? And how did he turn Rome from a republic to an empire and why was he successful?

To answer these questions, it is necessary to look at various historical documents in order to understand and gain a picture of how Octavian (who would be later known as Augustus, meaning “the revered one”, and hereafter known in this essay as Augustus) perceived himself and how he was perceived by others. History is rarely absolute and a truth for one person is not necessarily the truth for another, so an understanding of various sources is required in order to come to a reasonable conclusion.

When Julius Caesar embarked on his personal quest to become sole ruler of Rome, his methods and desires were quite direct and in conflict to what Rome stood for, and this of course would have riled a lot of people, especially those whose family tradition went back to beginnings of Rome. It was only a matter of time before important people would get together and rebel against Caesar, and of course, the rest is history.

The transformation for what would become Augustus’ empire was very slow, he was clever in that he made no major changes, only gradually taking over each office himself and he managed this by making these changes actually in accordance with the constitution. He had this ability, this knack of getting his peers to award him these privileges and slowly and surely he took everything over, this in stark contrast to his predecessor, Julius Caesar. For example, he was appointed imperator and pontifex maximus, (the two big roles in Rome) by the senate, and yet, he had not demanded either role.

By analyzing various historical data and documents, we can gain further insight to his success and how his peers regarded him. In the primary document of a Decree issued by Emperor Augustus in 4 BCE which deals with extortion, we can see a leader who is firstly concerned about the subjects of Rome and is attempting to make their lives more just and easier.

For example, the law speaks about the “established legal process for extortion so that the allies might more easily be able to take action for any wrongs done them and recover moneys extorted from them, and whereas this type of process is sometimes very expensive and troublesome for those in whose interest the law was enacted, because poor people or persons weak with illness or age are dragged from far-distant provinces as witnesses, the senate decrees as follows:” The new law basically follows on to describe that any person wishing to recover extorted money will be assigned an advocate to bring the matter before the senate. This makes the process for all much easier and trouble free, as they will not have to travel potentially great distances in order to state their complaint.

Although this is a minor law in the grand scheme of things, from it, it can be seen that Augustus does seem to be looking after his subjects. It also shows that Augustus and the senate are operating as a unit, in agreement with one another by comparing the first line to the closing line of the decree. It states in its opening line “The Emperor Augustus, pontifex maximus, holding the tribunician power for the nineteenth year, declares…” and the closing line states “The senate likewise decrees that the judges who are selected in accordance with this decree of the senate shall pronounce in open court each his several findings, and what the majority pronounces shall be verdict.”

And even within the body of the document, Augustus states “…it will be evident to all the inhabitants of the provinces how much both I and the senate are concerned that none of our subjects should suffer…”

This is a small step into making a successful empire, the attention to detail, rather than just looking at the bigger picture. Any successful politician throughout history is one that deems the smaller matters of state as important as the larger ones.

In an inscription from the city of Narbonne in 11 CE, it orders three Roman equities and three freedmen to sacrifice animals for supplication to Augustus on various dates. This shows another positive aspect of the reign of Augustus that a conquered people (Narbonne is a city in Gaul, what is now known as France), are to supplicate to Augustus and he is perhaps viewed as godlike by them. This could be because Narbo (as it was known back in those days) was the wealthiest city in Gaul, so the people are thus very happy with their prosperity and supplication to Augustus would be something they would be happy to do.

More support for a successful reign comes in the Odes by Horace, a well renowned poet of Augustus’ day. He suggests that Augustus is responsible for bringing back fertile crops, restored great military pride, revived ancient virtues and great majesty. “As long as Caesar [Augustus] is the guardian of the state, neither civil dissension nor violence shall banish peace, nor wrath that forges swords and brings discord and misery to cities.” Great praise indeed and it is clear that Augustus has been placed on a pedestal.

The secondary source material from Suetonius’ “Life of Augustus” is again indicative of a successful reign. It shows Augustus’ cleverness in appearing humble when offered the title “father of his country” in 13 CE, a year before his death. Originally he refused the title, but when a certain Valerius Messala, on behalf of the body of the senate said “Good fortune and divine favor attend thee and thy house, Caesar Augustus; for thus we feel that we are praying for lasting prosperity for our country and happiness for our city. The senate in accord with the Roman people hails thee ‘Father of thy Country’.”

At this, Augustus broke with tears in his eyes and replies “Having attained my highest hopes, members of the senate, what more have I to ask of the immortal gods than that I may retain this same unanimous approval of yours to the very end of my life?”

In Augustus’ own words in his Res Gestae Divi Augusti, (meaning The Deeds of the Divine Augustus), he speaks of this too, as his final deed.

So far, the documents appear favorable to the reign of Augustus. It seems his people and his peers support him and worship him. He had been granted great honors and had bestowed upon him great offices of responsibility. Did everyone feel the same way? Were all the people happy with his reign and view it as being successful?

The following two sources available are both secondary, Roman History from Dio Cassius was written some two hundred years after the death of Augustus. The other, Annals from Tacitus was slightly closer to the time Augustus, written within forty years.

Both form a more cynical view of his reign, but it has to be remembered these are secondary accounts and so are subject to interpretation of the authors based on primary documents they would have studied. However, they do have the advantage of hindsight and also more time to reflect on what the reign of Augustus did at the time, and how it had affected the empire since.

Dio Cassius’ view of events were that he felt Augustus had manipulated the senate by hand picking and nominating supporting peers into positions of power. Although elections were held to keep in with the ancient traditions, Dio Cassius feels that Augustus took care that no persons should hold office that he felt were unfit for or if they were susceptible to bribery etc.

Tacitus backs up this thinking by suggesting that Augustus greatly took advantage of the fact that he was the sole strong power after dispatching Antony as his main rival. There was really no one else to challenge him. He also suggests that Augustus bought a lot of his power. Augustus himself does admit to in his writings by stating that he had “transferred out of my own patrimony 170,000,000 sesterces to the soldier’s bonus fund...” It can be argued that he bought support; but it could also be argued that Augustus loved Rome so much he would do anything to build it up and make it great. Augustus also stated in his own writings that he made up various tributes by money or grain when the provinces taxes fell short. Not to mention the various games, shows and exhibitions he also put on for the people out of his own pocket. Had he bought the people, or did he love Rome so much he would do all he could to protect her?

Tacitus continues by declaring that the nobles were made wealthier and they preferred the safety of the new regime compared to the perils of the old. And of course, as time went by, a younger generation was coming through, one that had never experienced the old republic, so the transformation from republic to empire slowly came to fruition. And remember, all this was done without any direct confrontation to the constitution by Augustus; he had played it all to his advantage.

Dio Cassius makes note that Augustus had absolute power, including all finances. He also notes that Augustus paved the way for future rulers of Rome by the fact “at all events, when his ten year period came to an end, there was voted him another five years, then five more, after that ten, and again another ten, and then ten for the fifth time, so that by succession of ten year periods he continued to be sole ruler for life.”

Even though these two secondary documents are more negative towards the reign of Augustus, they do clearly show that he had successfully transformed Rome from a republic to an empire. In their opinion, it was via more foul means. The result is still the same though; Augustus generally had a successful reign.

Rome as a whole was happy, coins issued in 2 BCE show the prominent head of Augustus, and coins issued around 20-16 BCE showed Augustus triumphant on a chariot pulled by elephants with a slave holding a laurel above his head. The Arch of Augustus built in the north eastern town of Rimini is indeed a splendid reflection of his rule, once again showing the support of him by those in the provinces away from Rome. Maps show how he established the foundations for a road network throughout the empire that would grow and expand to be at their peak some two hundred years later.

The means by which Augustus changed the Republic of Rome to an empire are most likely a mixture of the facts mentioned in the sources. He was very patient and understood that the way to success was not by direct confrontation as per Julius Caesar, or by any triumvirate (he had even been part of the second one along with Mark Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus), nor by a dictatorship like Sulla’s in the early part of the first century before Christ. His success in transforming to an empire was by working with the system, rather than against it. He knew his history, he knew about those who before had tried and failed and then he applied this knowledge to great effect.

The cynic in me wants to suggest that he did it by use of manipulation, money, use of the circumstances to his advantage and the use of his supporters in key roles, but the general consensus of all the documents is that Rome was a much more vibrant, happier and healthier place to be than under the old regime. Where were the wars? The civil unrest? The Roman armies marching on Rome herself as before? It is quite clear that Rome was better off at this time than certainly the previous hundred years.

The optimist in me sees a man who truly loved his country with a passion, and he did everything he could in his power to control it in order to make it more prosperous, successful and beneficial for all, Romans and provincials alike.

In reality, perhaps it was a mixture of the two, because certainly one does need an ego to have the self confidence and belief in oneself to rule and so each method most likely fed into the next and this in turn brought a momentum that slowly but surely changed Rome forever.

Grade A.