Herwig Wolfram History Of The Goths Pdf 14l

0 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

Katerine Aldrige

unread,
Jul 10, 2024, 11:46:56 AM7/10/24
to cudistupoud

Athanaric (died c. 381 CE) was a king of the Thervingi Goths (better known as the Visigoths) and, according to some sources, the first and greatest king. He was of the noble Balts family of the Thervingi tribe and a relative of the later king of the Visigoths Alaric I (reigned 395-410 CE), best known for the sack of Rome. As the ruling judge of his tribe, it was Athanaric's responsibility to foster and encourage the ancient pagan faith of his people which informed their cultural identity and, because of this, he violently persecuted those Goths who embraced Christianity in the 4th century CE.

According to legend, he had sworn to his father, Aoric, that he would never set foot on Roman soil and would remain an enemy of Rome. This story has been modified by recent scholarship to suggest that Athanaric's position as judge prevented him from leaving his tribal lands or encouraging cross-cultural exchange and is supported by the fact that, once he was no longer a judge, he was received at Constantinople as an honored guest of the Eastern Roman emperor Theodosius I c. 381 CE where he died. His civil war with the Gothic chieftain Fritigern divided the Goths, but his military skill in this conflict, as well as those engagements with the Roman emperor Valens, made him a hero among his people.

Herwig Wolfram History Of The Goths Pdf 14l


Download Zip https://lpoms.com/2yLrW7



The king of the Goths was known as a reiks (pronounced "rix" or "rex" and translated as "judge") and, according to the work known as the Ostrogothic Origo, co-ruled with another who held the title of dux (a word meaning "leader" or "general" and, later, becoming "duke"). The reiks was responsible for governing the people and maintaining tribal customs and beliefs, while the dux was a military commander in charge of the army.

Athanaric's grandfather, Ariaric, seems to have held both positions or, at least, was a judge who also waged war. According to the historian Herwig Wolfram, Ariaric "was the most eminent Goth of his time" and "may have been the supreme commander in the defensive war against the Romans" (Athanaric the Visigoth, 264). Athanaric's father was Aoric, who would inherit the title of judge but may have originally been general of the army (the dux to his own father's reiks) and who fought against Roman incursions into Gothic territory.

In 332 CE Aoric was sent (or went willingly) to Constantinople as a hostage to guarantee the compliance of the Goths with a peace treaty recently signed with Rome. He was so well respected that the emperor Constantine the Great (272-337 CE) had a statue of him erected to honor him, and he was treated well during his stay among the Romans.

It is not known what he experienced in Constantinople but, whatever it was and whatever honors were shown him, nothing made him like Roman culture any more than he had when he fought against it under his father Ariaric. Wolfram writes, regarding this:

Athanaric's father did not overcome his hatred of all things Roman, or it may have been that he grew to believe that the Roman world presented an extreme threat to the traditional tribal structure of the Goths. At some point in time, probably after returning home following Constantine's death in 337, the Gothic prince undertook to instill in his son, Athanaric, an anti-Roman political outlook. It is known that Athanaric not only understood this to include repelling the Romans in one of their offensive wars but also that he sought to counter Romanization and the accompanying internal crisis of the Goths through a bloody persecution of the Christians among them in 369-372. (Athanaric the Visigoth, 265)

Following Aoric's death, Athanaric became judge in his place and may have appointed a general or may have ruled alone. At what date he assumed rule is unknown, but he was recognized as the king of his people in 365 CE when the Roman usurper Procopius rebelled against Valens, won a sizeable portion of the army to his cause, and took control of Constantinople while Valens was away on campaign in Asia Minor. In accordance with the treaty between the Goths and the Romans of 332 CE, Procopius (claiming a direct relationship with Constantine) insisted that Athanaric send troops to help him maintain his position should Valens return. Three thousand troops were sent but arrived at Constantinople in May of 366 CE to find Procopius had been assassinated.

They turned around and marched towards home but were subdued by the Roman army under Valens' authority as enemies of the state who had joined Procopius' side. The 3,000 Goths were interred while it was decided what to do with them. Athanaric wrote to Valens demanding their release, and Valens responded by sending ambassadors to hear the king's side of the story.

Although Athanaric produced proof that Procopius had presented himself as the legitimate ruler of the Eastern Roman Empire, nothing would be done about returning the troops. Wolfram writes, "Valens, who was taking bloody revenge on the followers of his enemy, had not the slightest intention of sparing barbarians and did not hand over the captives. Nothing more is heard of them" (History of the Goths, 66). Athanaric's role as judge, and vow to his father, had guaranteed an anti-Roman stance prior to this event but, afterwards, his policy became more hardened; Rome could not be trusted and should not be tolerated.

The emperor Valens (r. 364-378 CE) was a vain and proud man who sought the kind of glory in battle which had enshrined earlier emperors like Caesar or Pompey. The Roman officer and historian Ammianus Marcellinus (330-395 CE) wrote of him:

He was an immoderate covetor of great wealth; impatient of labor, he affected an extreme severity, and was too much inclined to cruelty; his behavior was rude and rough; and he was little imbued with skill either in war or in the liberal arts. He willingly sought profit and advantage in the miseries of others and was more than ever intolerable in straining ordinary offences into sedition or treason. (618)

The Goths, fearing that Valens might carry his reprisals against the allies of Procopius into their territories, placed themselves firmly under Athanaric's leadership and formed a confederacy of different tribes for defense. Valens interpreted their mobilization as an act of war and, in 367 CE, he launched his offensive. The Romans marched into the Thervingian territories to subdue the barbarian enemy but could not seem to find them anywhere. Athanaric's forces were extremely mobile and knew the region well and so were able to evade the Romans easily.

Valens, for his part, seems to have believed that he had the element of surprise on his side and that the Goths had no idea he had even invaded. Athanaric drew the Roman forces deeper and deeper into his territory and then engaged in guerilla warfare tactics, striking the Romans without warning on every side and then vanishing as quickly as they had come. The Romans were able to kill some of the Goths and destroyed the fields and crops they came to but could gain no advantage against an invisible enemy who only appeared in order to strike. Valens had invaded the region in the spring of 367 CE and, as Ammianus notes, returned in the fall "without having inflicted any serious damage on the enemy or having suffered any himself." He decided that the next time he would try a different tactic and crush the Goths completely.

The rains were heavy throughout the early part of 368 CE and the Danube River flooded, as did the plains and forests surrounding it, and Valens could not mount another campaign against Athanaric simply because he could not cross the river. The floods caused problems for the Goths as well, as their crops were washed away and the harvest in the fall was poor. Trade with the Romans, of course, had ceased and food was scarce. Still, Athanaric refused to come to terms with Valens and, in 369 CE, the Romans again crossed the Danube and invaded.

Athanaric used the same strategy he had employed two years before and again drew the Roman troops into terrain that favored the mobile Goth fighting force but hampered the Roman battle formations. The Romans experienced more heavy resistance than they had in 367 CE, including the addition of Greuthingi cavalry who had allied themselves with the tribes under Athanaric. The guerilla tactics of the Goths continued as the Romans marched deeper and deeper into their territory until, finally, Athanaric decided to make a stand and engage them in battle.

The Romans tried the tactic of dividing their forces to encircle the smaller army of the Goths but were unsuccessful. Athanaric directed his men at the center of the Roman line but was repelled. The Romans then re-grouped and launched a direct assault that drove the Goths from the field. The Goths were defeated but it was in no way a decisive Roman victory, as the "vanquished" army simply vanished into the surrounding forest.

It is possible that Athanaric considered prolonging the conflict and inviting Valens back another time for a third round, but his people were starving and the Romans had destroyed a significant amount of arable land in their invasions. Athanaric, therefore, sent word to Valens that he was interested in opening negotiations for peace. Valens sent word back that Athanaric should come to Constantinople for the peace talks but, of course, Athanaric could not do this because he had sworn to his father never to set foot on Roman soil and, further, as judge, he could not leave his region. Wolfram writes:

This judge was not allowed to leave the tribal territory, which made him the most unsuitable leader for an offensive war. Rather, he was responsible for the defense of the land of Gothic people against domestic and foreign enemies. (History of the Goths, 67)

Valens refused to compromise his position as emperor and meet with a barbarian chieftain, who was dictating the terms according to barbarian superstitions, in barbarian territory. Still, Valens realized that the war was costly and, after three years, he had not one single decisive victory to show for his troubles. It was negotiated that the two leaders would meet on neutral ground acceptable to both and so, as Wolfram writes:

7fc3f7cf58
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages