The Migration Period – Also Known As The Barbarian Invasion https://www.thecollector.com/barbarians-crossing-the-rhine-the-end-of-rome
The crossing of the Rhine in 406 AD was part of a period of European history known as the Migration Period,’ or the ‘Barbarian Invasions.’ Lasting from the mid-to-late-4th century until the 560s, large numbers of Germanic peoples, Huns, Avars, and Slavs either migrated within the Roman Empire’s boundaries or else migrated into the Empire from outside its borders. Traditionally, the arrival of the Huns in Europe in 375 is considered the beginning of the Migration Period, while the Lombard conquest of Italy in 568 marks its end.
Certainly, the sudden appearance of thousands of barbarians in the empire, and the warfare that occurred as a result, would suggest the former. However, archaeologists have suggested that many of the ‘barbarians’ who crossed into the Roman Empire already lived in established agricultural communities and were actually drawn into Roman political disputes which led to their steady resettlement within the empire itself. It seems likely that these were not desperate peoples venturing across the frontier out of necessity.
In fact, across many of their borders, the Romans had long maintained relationships with barbarian groups living on or beyond the frontier. Through the giving of gifts and conferment of imperial legitimacy, the Romans were able to build alliances with friendly barbarian chieftains, who in turn acted as buffers against potentially hostile barbarian groups beyond. The breakdown of central authority and the fragmentation of power in the late Western Roman Empire meant these relations were neglected, even to the point of former border allies moving into Roman territory, and assuming control of the local area.
In many cases, this happened with the support of the local Roman population. If the central government in Rome was not able to send troops to maintain order and political control, why not allow a local chieftain, possessing the military might to protect the region, to take charge? It is likely in this way that the Western Roman Empire steadily broke down and was replaced by emerging barbarian kingdoms.
It is the contemporary author, Prosper of Aquitaine, who gives us the precise date for 31st December 406 for the crossing of the Rhine. Although it is unknown exactly how the river would have been crossed, a suggestion by the 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon that the Rhine was frozen has become popular – of course, it is also highly possible that the barbarians used boats or an existing Roman bridge.
It is unknown how many people crossed, or what they would have looked like, although it seems likely that they would have been organized in tribal societies formed through the process of ‘ethnogenesis’ – the formation of an ethnic group, perhaps with a shared language.
We do have a list of the peoples who crossed from contemporary authors, but the accuracy of these lists is all but impossible to ratify. Jerome, writing in 409, informs us that the migration involved Quadi, Vandals, Sarmatians, Alans, Gepids, Herules, Saxons, Burgundians, Alemanni, and Pannonians. It is important to note that some of these groups were strongly associated with literary and historical tradition at the time and were likely to have been synonymous with barbarians in general.
According to the fragments of a lost account by the contemporary historian Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus (known as the ‘Frigeridus fragment’), there was a tribal group of Frankish foederati, allied to the Romans, who resisted the Rhine crossing. The Franks were winning a war against the Alans under King Godigisel, until support from a group of Alans turned the tide late in 406, paving the way for a large-scale crossing of the frontier during the winter.
Following their crossing of the river, it is unclear whether the groups involved in the barbarian invasion moved together as a tribal confederation or diverged and separated. What is clear is that a wave of violence ensued, and several Roman cities in the region were sacked, including Mainz, Worms, and Strasbourg. This upheaval in northern Gaul continued until at least 409. It met little to no resistance from the Western Roman Emperor Honorius, who had only just managed to repulse an invasion of Italy by the Gothic King Radagaisus, and who was preoccupied with political machinations in Rome.
Why Cross The Rhine?
So why did these tribal groups cross the Rhine at the end of the year 406? The fact that the border was relatively lightly defended, or almost totally unguarded, could have been one of the primary reasons. It has been suggested that the Roman general Stilicho greatly weakened the Rhine’s defenses in 402, withdrawing troops to deal with Alaric I’s Visigothic invasion of Italy, and leaving the border defenses in the hands of Frankish and Alemanni allies. This, combined with the weakness of Honorius’ government in Rome, made crossing the Rhine and looting the cities beyond it a tempting proposition
It has also been posited that the group who crossed may have been the remains of Radagaisus’ failed invasion of Italy earlier in 406, or groups of barbarians who had been pushed westwards, fleeing the encroaching Huns. Historian Peter Heather has argued that the evidence for widespread withdrawal of Roman troops from the Rhine in the years before 406 is weak and that therefore those who crossed the Rhine were more likely to have been refugees than opportunistic raiders. The fact that they moved in the middle of winter, arguably the worst time of the year for military campaigning, supports this idea.
It is worth noting that the dating of the Rhine crossing has been disputed, specifically by historian Michael Kulikowski. In a 2000 article, he suggested that 31st December 405 was in fact a more likely date, citing the possibility that Prosper was spacing major events in his chronicle so as to have one occurring in each calendar year.
A December 405 dating also explains why the Roman general Stilicho did not act against the Rhine invaders, as he would have been busy fighting Radagaisus forces – if we accept the traditional date of December 406, Stilicho’s inaction is notable and difficult to explain. Furthermore, the contemporary historian Olympiodorus of Thebes asserted that the Rhine barbarian invasion caused the usurpation of Marcus in Britannia in mid-406, another discrepancy which an earlier 405 dating of the crossing would solve.
Aftermath Of The Barbarian Invasion
Whether it occurred in December 405 or 406, the consequences of the Rhine crossing were dire for the Western Roman Empire. This group of tribes of the barbarian invasion looted several cities across northern Gaul and were able to move essentially unchecked by the Roman authorities – it was only the actions of the usurper Constantine III that seemed to end their violent progress. By 409 they had reportedly reached Hispania. Although there are no reports of widespread looting occurring throughout central and southern Gaul, the presence of these barbarian groups certainly destabilized Roman power and made provincial Romans less dependent on the central government.
****
In Britain, the revolt of the usurper Marcus, which may have been caused by unease and dissatisfaction at the Rhine crossing, developed into a major issue for the Western Emperor Honorius. When Marcus and his immediate successor Gratian were both killed after falling foul of their troops, general Constantine III rose to command the British legions, who swiftly declared him emperor.
Crossing into Gaul in 407, Constantine won a series of battles against the groups of the barbarian invasion who had breached the Rhine frontier, restoring some semblance of order. By mid-408 he had established his capital at Arles and was minting coins, and by 409 he had defeated Honorius’ allies in Hispania and forced the Western Emperor in Rome to recognize him as co-emperor. Having executed his best general Stilicho for treason, and facing another invasion of Italy by Alaric I, Honorius had little choice but to accept.
Although Constantine’s usurpation soon fell apart through the rebellion of his own generals and military defeat to Honorius’ new general Constantius, the usurper had badly damaged the Western Empire. The barbarian invasions had breached the Rhine frontier, and various barbarian groups had settled in the empire after the crossing of 406.
The province of Britannia was lost as well, never to be regained. *****? Never lost - changed
Thanks be to God
Therefore, the Rhine crossing of 406 was a seminal moment in the decline of the Western Roman Empire, as well as exacerbating the rebellion of Constantine III. As a result of the ‘barbarian invasion,’ the empire abandoned one of its long-standing frontiers and was forced to allow various barbarian groups into the political landscape of the empire.
It is these barbarian polities that would go on to grow into the kingdoms that would eventually replace the Western Roman Empire.
Barbarian Invasion: The Beginning of the End for Rome? https://www.thecollector.com/barbarians-crossing-the-rhine-the-end-of-rome
============================================================
https://www.thecollector.com/roman-republic/
The word Senate comes from the Latin word “senex,” or “old man.” The Senate was, by design, a council of elders. As a deeply hierarchal society, the oldest families of Rome formed the powerful Patrician class, and the patriarch of each of those families served on the Senate, the advisory board for the king. When the Romans overthrew the monarchy in 509 B.C., the Senate remained the highest governmental body. Two members of the Senate were elected annually to lead both the Senate and the army as consuls
The Murder of Caesar by Karl von Piloty – 1865
The Praetorian Guard was less enthusiastic, but did not challenge that particular line of emperors. However, as the personal bodyguard of the emperor and the unit allowed to carry weapons in Rome, they maintained a unique threat to the emperor and the Senate, and as such could also decide the fate of Rome.
In fact, in 193 A.D., the Praetorian Guard auctioned off the position of emperor, essentially selling the Empire. A wealthy senator named Didius Julianus purchased the position for 6,250 drachmas per soldier. However, Didius did not fare well either. The Senate sentenced him to death after only 66 days of rule and a Praetorian executed him in his own palace.
=======================================
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/thirdcenturycrisis_article_01.shtml
Third Century Crisis of the Roman Empire By Pat Southern
Rising threats
Contemporaries who lived through the third century upheavals looked back on the previous age as one of peace and prosperity, but in reality it could be said that Rome had lurched from crisis to crisis ever since its foundation in 753 BC.
Rome had lurched from crisis to crisis ever since its foundation.
There had always been famines and plagues, military disasters, civil wars, attempts to seize supreme power, rebellions within the provinces, raids and invasions from beyond the frontier, and migrating tribes pressing on the edges of the Roman world.
The Romans had dealt with all of these in the past and survived. The trouble was that in the third century many problems surfaced at the same time, some of them on a grander scale than ever before, and they proved more difficult to eradicate.
Two of the most serious threats to the empire in the third century were the developments taking place among the tribes of the northern frontiers beyond the Rhine and Danube, and the growth of a formidable centralising power in the east.
Northern frontiers
Relations with the northern tribesmen had never been stable, nor were they continually hostile. Rome maintained the upper hand by a combination of diplomacy and warfare, promoting the elite groups among the various tribes and supporting them by means of gifts and subsidies. Sometimes food supplies and even military aid were offered.
Various emperors had settled migrating groups of peoples within the empire and had often recruited tribesmen into the Roman army, where they rendered good service.
The ultimate aim of many of the tribes was not necessarily total conquest.
The very fact of the empire's existence influenced the way in which native society developed on the periphery. When all kinds of dangers threatened the tribes beyond the empire, it probably seemed safer and more lucrative to be on the other side of the Roman frontiers.
The ultimate aim of many of the tribes was not necessarily total conquest, but a wish for lands to farm and for protection. This became more necessary to some peoples in the first decades of the third century.
Climate changes and a rise in sea levels ruined the agriculture of what is now the Low Countries, forcing tribes to relocate simply to find food.
At about the same time, archaeological evidence shows that vigorous, warlike tribesmen moved into the more peaceful lands to the north-west of the empire, precipitating the abandonment of a wide area that was previously settled and agriculturally wealthy.
The northern world outside the Roman Empire was restless. Raids across the frontiers became more severe, especially in the 230s, when Roman forts and some civilian settlements were partially destroyed.
As the power of the tribal federations grew, the Romans began to feel nervous and to think of defensive walls for their unprotected cities.
Eastern frontiers
The east was also restless, but for different reasons.
The Parthian empire, bordering on the eastern edges of the Roman world, had been weakened by civil war, but this changed in the first years of the third century when the Sassanid Persians expelled the Parthian rulers.
By 226 AD, Ardashir, an Iranian prince descended from Sasan (from whom the Sassanids take their name) had established himself as Shahanshah, 'king of kings'.
The Persians were determined to deal with Rome more firmly.
His declared intention was to restore the ancient Persian empire to its former glory, pushing his borders westwards into Roman-controlled territories.
His son and successor, Shapur, followed these aggressive expansionist policies, which meant trouble for Rome. The search for a stable frontier between these two rival empires had been a continual problem.
(It must be acknowledged that the aggressors were nearly always the Romans, in response to perceived threats.) and by the middle of the third century they had defeated the armies of three Roman emperors.
Internal strife
Gallienus is depicted as a serious young man, unaware of the problems to comeGallienus is depicted as a serious young man, unaware of the problems to come. Under pressure on two frontiers, the Romans started to squabble among themselves. Civilians distrusted their own armies and the soldiers distrusted some of their commanders - even the emperor to whom they had sworn allegiance. So they proclaimed new emperors.
The army had always been able to make or break emperors, but never in such quick succession as they did now. After the assassination of Severus Alexander in 235 AD, the soldiers in various parts of the empire proclaimed fifty emperors in about the same number of years.
Some of these emperors survived for only a few months, despatched by rival armies or even by the troops who had recently proclaimed them. To be declared emperor once marked the apogee of a man's career. In the third century it was a death sentence.
The year 253 AD seemed to herald an end to the anarchy. Valerian and his son Gallienus were declared joint emperors, sharing power as some emperors had done in the past.
Here, an older Gallienus is frowning, concerned, determined - staring at an uncertain future.
It seemed possible to stem the raids from the north and also deal with the eastern question. Valerian departed for the Persian war, while Gallienus turned to the western provinces. But within seven years of their accession it had all gone wrong.
In the fateful year 260 AD, Valerian was captured by Shapur, leaving the eastern provinces unprotected.
A Palmyrene nobleman called Odenathus gathered an army and fought off the Persians, temporarily stabilising the east. Gallienus acknowledged him because he was in no position to rescue his father or fight the Persians himself.
At around the same time, the western provinces of Gaul (modern France) and Germany set up their own Gallic Empire (Imperium Galliarum) under their chosen emperor, Postumus.
The empire was in danger of splitting up. Gallienus was deprived of control of two large areas and of the bulk of the armies, but he adapted the resources at his disposal, actively fighting off usurpers and tribesmen, dashing back and forth to meet each new threat.
He received no thanks for his efforts. Time was the one thing that he needed to reunite the empire, but he didn't get it. In 268 AD, Gallienus was assassinated.
Empire restored
Gallienus was succeeded by Claudius II, called Gothicus after he fought off an invasion of the Goths. Claudius was one of the few who escaped assassination, dying of plague in 270 AD.
The next emperor, Aurelian, self-proclaimed 'restorer of the world', brought the divergent parts of the empire back under his control. But the reunification did not halt the constant usurpations and rebellions.
With the accession of Diocletian in 284 AD, the empire enjoyed greater stability for the next two decades, and some of the material and financial damage was repaired, although not entirely successfully.
Faced with multiple problems and slow communications the emperors could do very little to help.
The province of Britain declared independence under Carausius, and held out for nearly ten years.
Prolonged civil wars broke out after Diocletian's death in 308 AD, brought to an end when Constantine finally emerged supreme in 324 AD.
Roman society was increasingly divided in the third century. Class distinction was accentuated, impoverishment of the middle classes created a reluctance or inability to play any part in local government, which was expensive to the point of annihilation.
Internal law and order broke down. Soldiers bullied and exploited civilians. Foreign peoples invaded Roman provinces, killing and destroying, carrying off people and plunder.
Fear escalated. Provincials passed on their grievances to the emperors, but faced with multiple problems, vast distances and slow communications the emperors could do very little to help.
Endemic insecurity bred its own problems. Any population that feels threatened, but cannot rely on the normal authorities to protect itself, usually ends by taking the law into its own hands.
Different world
The proclamation by the army of so many emperors is one aspect of this insecurity. There may have been power-crazed individuals who simply wanted to be emperor. In many cases the prime motive was not the desire to topple the whole Empire but to organise regional self-help.
Faith in the emperors declined in direct proportion to their inability to protect the provinces, so the soldiers and the provincials turned to other leaders who could provide protection and security.
The tragedy of the third century is that the chosen leader had to usurp imperial powers to assume the necessary authority instead of acting on behalf of a legitimate emperor who had lost all his credibility.
That the empire recovered is a tribute to the various emperors who put an end to the chaos.
******************** also constantinople
The result was constant disunity, forcing the Romans to spend valuable time and resources fighting each other, instead of working together to devote all their energies to solving the social, religious, financial and military issues that beset the empire in this time of crisis.
The fact that the empire came so close to disintegration, and yet recovered, is a tribute to the various emperors who put an end to the chaos. But in doing so, they created a different world.
The Roman empire entered the third century in a form that would have been recognisable to Augustus and his successors, but it emerged into the fourth century with all its administrative and military institutions changed, bureaucratic, rigid, and constantly geared for war, with its capital no longer at Rome but in Constantinople.
The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine by T D Barnes, (Harvard University Press, 1982)
The Age of the Soldier Emperors: Imperial Rome 244-284 by Brauer, (Noyes Press, 1975)
The Emperor and the Roman Army 31 BC to AD 235 by J B Campbell, (Routledge, 1984)
The Gallic Empire: Separation and Continuity in the North-west Provinces of the Roman Empire AD 260-274 by J F Drinkwater, (Stuttgart, 1987)
The Roman West in the Third Century. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports S109 by A King, and M Henig, (eds.) (1981. 2 vols)
Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire by Ramsay MacMullen, (Harvard University Press, 1963)
The Roman Empire From Severus To Constantine by Pat Southern, (Routledge, 2001)
Restorer of the World: the Roman Emperor Aurelian by John F White, (Staplehurst: Spellmount, 2005)
Diocletian and the Roman Recovery by Stephen Williams, (London: Batsford, 1985. Reprinted by Routledge, 1997)
The Roman Empire and its Germanic Peoples by H Wolfram, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997)
