Customer Reviews

Rome and the Barbarians, 100 B.C.-A.D. 400 (Ancient Society and History)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a collection of very long essays on the relationships between Rome and the barbarian societies present beyond or within its European frontier boundaries north of the Alps. Each essay focuses on one part of the Roman frontier in Europe and/or some period of time during the span of time in the title. I found that the level of care and detail displayed in the essays tended to fall as the essays moved from the west (Gaul and Batavia) to the east (Dacia) and from the earliest period (the late Republic) to the latest period (late Empire) covered in the book. I could never figure out how Prof. Burns organized any of these essays. They have no roadmaps, summaries, concluding sections, or subtitle markings to light the way. Mainly, I experienced a well-read, subtle scholar working his way through issues he thought were important for each essay, reaching out as he drove on to the treasure trove of references that he has accumulated in his study or office over the course of his long career. The experience is a bit like eating tapas. You get lots of interesting things to eat through the course of a meal that someone else has planned, but can't predict what will arrive next or why one has appeared with another.

The focus throughout is clearly on Rome--on mainly Roman sources and on events within Roman boundaries or that result from Roman actions. I came to the book mainly to learn more about the barbarian communities of Europe. In fairness, the title, the dust cover, and everything about the book makes it clear that Rome will be the focus--just a heads up for anyone who might have come to this book with priorities like mine.

The references are a goldmine for any amateur like me who wants to know what is available and where to look next. The text itself makes an amateur like me work to fit the pieces together and construct a complete picture that holds together. What follows is the picture that I built by looking for themes that run through the essays and circle back on themselves as Prof. Burns moves from one period or location to another. A warning to other readers: This is my take on Prof. Burns; my apologies in advance for misinterpretations!

The book relies most heavily on written sources in Latin and on Roman artifacts to describe barbarian society. In doing so, it repeatedly raises a strong caveat that Roman writers and artists usually did not seek to describe barbarians accurately. The structure of their works and the tropes used in them reveal a rhetoric broadly shared at the time in which writer and reader (artist and viewer) thought of barbarians as an essential "other" (1) that embodied characteristics that could be used to highlight growing softness and decadence in Rome, and (2) that Rome had to defend itself against and, more specifically, that Roman emperors-to-be had to show they could defend Rome against, whether real a threat existed or not. Result: We should read Latin accounts of barbarian life with great skepticism and an appreciation that their authors did not have the same goals that anthropologists have today.

Patron-client relationships dominated social connections within the Republic and Empire and between the Republic and Empire and barbarian groups throughout this period. Even relationships which appeared to have the imprimatur of an institutional entity tended to rely heavily on the personal commitments of the individuals involved.

The Roman frontier was not clearly defined in geographical terms until well into the Empire. Until then, Romans thought of Rome as a culture that could reach out in all directions and spread its values. The empire itself was defined geographically in terms of where Roman patrons lived in direct face-to-face relationships with their clients. Rome grew geographically as the interests of Roman patrons grew enough to spread a day-to-day presence of Roman culture. Always at the margin of this world were client states that Romans managed with great care without offering citizenship to relevant leaders. Leaders in these client states had specific Roman patrons, who may or may not have represented the interests of the Roman Senate or Empire when they established these leaders as their personal clients.

The Roman Republic expanded geographically to increase the status and wealth of Senatorial aristocratic families. The Empire expanded as generals seeking to be Emperor used successes on the frontier as a way to build support at home in Rome and, increasingly, among their own troops. Repeatedly, the principals seeking Roman expansion pointed rhetorically to the need to secure Rome against an ever-present barbarian threat. Although the threat was sometimes real, the dominant, real motivation for expansion lay in the political, social, and economic interests of the Roman principals.

Barbarians lived more densely in proximity to the Roman frontier than elsewhere. With a few isolated but important exceptions, there is only limited evidence that barbarians appeared there as wannabe invaders. Rather, the frontier offered opportunities for trade and employment. Rome drew the barbarians to its frontier; the vast majority of barbarians did not come primarily to attack Rome. Until very late, those who did attack Rome were basically bandits who posed more of a criminal than a military threat; such bandits existed inside and outside the formal boundaries once they were drawn.

Before contact with Rome, barbarian groups had little political coherence beyond familial clan and tribal levels. They shared language, religion, and material culture, but had no permanent hierarchical political connections. Informal alliances arose periodically to fight wars, but quickly dissolved. Rome sought to create more permanent barbarian client states that would be easier to sustain long-term agreements with and would be more effective in contributing to mutual defense. Over time, these efforts created the kingdoms whose names have come down to us in history. The families that developed claims to the crown in such kingdoms typically built those claims around their relationships with Rome and their ability to draw benefits for their own client tribes from Rome if they controlled the crown. Rome manipulated these families, favoring those who towed the Roman line and setting families against one another when Rome perceived a threat to its interests.

As a proving ground for future emperors, the frontier drew Roman armies to the frontier, drew Roman wealth to the frontier to create and sustain an infrastructure to support these armies, and induced the creation of Roman assets in the frontiers that required the continual protection of the frontier armies. That is, myths about the need to control barbarian forces created the need for a standing army. Fear of civil war between competing generals with their armies encouraged permanent placement of these armies far from the political heartland. Over time, these factors turned the Roman Empire inside out, pushing much of its wealth to its margins and repeatedly drawing its imperial leadership from emperors operating at these margins.

Rome accepted barbarians into its military forces in many different roles as far back as the Republic. Barbarians initially entered as individuals, who were diffused through the empire to serve under Roman leaders. Barbarians also entered as auxiliary light forces, ultimately under their own leaders. Some barbarians came to Roman service for a time and returned home, taking with them an understanding of how the Roman army worked. Others remained to retirement and were granted Roman citizenship for themselves and their children. Rome settled such retirees in colonies along the frontiers, building "Roman" communities from ex-barbarians with diverse heritages. Through the long passage of time, communities of military brats with barbarian heritages grew up; the sons replaced the fathers in their army units, building a tradition of local military service in these frontier families. Germano-Roman soldiers increasingly rose through the ranks to become legionnaires and generals and so potential Emperors.

Ultimately, Rome could not sustain army units on its frontiers in Europe and confront the Persian Empire at the same time. The Roman army was overextended; Rome decided to reduce its army presence on the European frontiers. As the army thinned down and disappeared in places, the infrastructure needed to support it went away as well, leaving significant parts of the frontier underpopulated. Barbarian groups moved in, with and without formal permission, to occupy empty lands. It became easier to protect towns from bandits and marauders than to defend whole areas formerly occupied by commercial farms (villas) or long expanses of road. Frontier towns built walls and increasingly looked to their own defense without significant input from the centrally managed Roman army. Arrangements that presaged medieval Europe began to arise well before large German kingdoms displaced central Roman authority in the West.

In the passage of time, Roman culture suffused itself into geographical areas well beyond Rome's formal boundaries. Roman society on the frontier increasingly absorbed influences from the barbarians drawn within the boundaries over time. Roman military personnel came to revere their German heritage as much as their Roman citizenship, especially following an imperial decision in the early third century to expand access to citizenship dramatically, thereby reducing its exclusivity. Roman generals of German descent led armies dominantly of German descent in the name of the Empire in the West. In a series of civil wars, some seized responsibility for the civil oversight of large regions from the central government. When Rome ultimately ended its efforts to sustain central authority in the West, new political entities arose to preserve the benefits of Roman culture for their own people, but this new culture could not preserve the cosmopolitan free-trade zone that had characterized the Roman world at its height. New leaders applied traditional patron-client relationships to sustain order in a more fragmented Germano-Roman world that evolved fairly steadily into a medieval world in the West as broader historical forces, beyond the control or understanding of any of the players, played themselves out in the Empire as a whole.

Troubling parallels between experience 2000 years ago and current events arise repeatedly. Does Prof. Burns perhaps bring too much of a modern perspective to bear? Or should we be busy learning from this rich account of the management of relationships between a dominant world power and the many, "less-advanced" societies that ring its frontiers and send emigrants across them during an era of rising uncertainty, anxiety, and instability?

Thomas Burns has painstakingly compiled a career's worth of educational study to show the relationships created, nurtured and harnessed between the Roman people and the ancient tribes of Western and Eastern Europe. You may find it suprising the actual dependencies held between both groups. The establishment of border "Barbarians" to shield long held Roman interests from the more savage of the norther tribes is a very old view of modern allied states. The Roman Republic and subsequent Empire was, in a very few words, a complex diplomatic, economic and military machine. The numerous working parts required much more than the strong arm presumed by most passing readers. The ability to successfully manage this type of entity placed incredible demands on Rome and its leaders while, at the same time, provided the proving (battle) grounds for all aspiring Roman up and comers. Burns does a fantastic job in showing that not only did Rome use the Barbarian tribes to prove the mettle of Roman officers, but integrated these same tribes into what would eventually become the ancient worlds greatest "modern" economy. The fall of the Roman Empire is shown not to be the cause of irresistible hordes of barbarian invaders, but the inherent impossibility of managing the vastness of Roman interests. Thomas Burns has earned his merits as a Roman scholar and in doing so brings to light a broad expanse of history and speculation that is integral to the study of Rome. Recommend this book to anyone who seeks a wide understanding of Rome and the group who both sustained and eventually became its citizenry - the Barbarians.

This is the revisionist account that grafts modern concepts of `diversity' `tolerance' and `cultural awareness' onto people who lived in 100 B.C. In this book it is assumed that since Rome dared to make value judgments and condemn the barbarians, who in fact were savage and ruthless, that Rome must somehow be some sort of evil hegemon like America and the Barbarians must have been `noble savages' like innocent peace loving native Americans. Unfortunately this is revisionist tripe. The reality is the barbarians actually were savage and it took Roman civilization to pacify and civilize them. Only by serving in the legion and learning roman ways of life and settling in the provinces did the barbarian tribes like the Gauls adopt civilization and become what we know today as the medieval europeans. If it hadn't been for Rome and Rome's extraordinary pursuit of science and technology and administration Europe would be a cultural backwater of feuding tribes to this day, much the way Creaser found it in 30 AD. In fact Rome's influence is so broad that not a major town exists in Europe today that doesn't include the trappings of a Roman wall, aqueduct and amphitheater. The Barbarians on the other hand built few lasting structures.

Seth J. Frantzman