Were Migration-Era Tribes Invited?

[Matt DiGirolamo]

Hello all! First time poster, here. Is there any evidence to suggest that the Romans invited/welcomed the various Germanic Tribes to settle within their borders during the Migration Period? I've had a discussion on and off within my legion about that period, and this has come up a few times. I would be very interested to see any evidence for or against it.

[Robert Vermaat]

Welcome Matt!

To answer your question more broadly, inviting foreign tribes was a common policy for the Romans. This was done for varying reasons; a former hostile tribe could be pacified this way, the number of men were a welcome addition to the ranks of the army, tribes could be settled in in sparsely populated areas, etc. Until the later 4th c. this was never a problem - Constantine reportedly settled as many as 300.000 Sarmatians throughout the West, who all assimilated without leaving a trace. But even afterwards this could still be a succesful mechanism, e.g. the vanquished Vandals were resettled in the Oriënt without any problem.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Yes, they commonly were. The Romans had a policy of shuffling peoples around, bringing the most Romanized ones into the Empire, the Romanizing ones they put on their borders, and the hostile ones they'd use military excursions to force away from the Empire.

The Salian Franks were invited into the Empire in 353. The Tervingi were as well. It was the Grethungi, Goths of Radagasius, Vandals, Suebes, Burgundians, and Alans who weren't, and they came into the Empire to escape vassalization by the Hun Empire.

The Alans ended up joining the Romans and being Romanized, at least.

[Matt DiGirolamo]

Interesting information. So am I to take away from this, then, that their system of absorbing tribes got severely overloaded by those escaping the Huns, and the resultant chaos brought about the collapse of the western half of the empire?

[Robert Vermaat]

Interesting information. So am I to take away from this, then, that their system of absorbing tribes got severely overloaded by those escaping the Huns, and the resultant chaos brought about the collapse of the western half of the empire?

Not exactly that way, but I think it's correct to say that the internal problems of the Empire had become so big by the late 4th century, that the system was under severe stress and could not function as effectively as it had before. For assimilation you need to be the example for the immigrants - we see occasions during the 5th c. when that is no longer the case. However that was not mainly caused by an 'overload of tribes' but especially by a government becoming increasinly powerless due to ongoing civil wars, a failing tax system due to an increasing gap between rich and poor, religious identity, economic crisis, etc.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

becoming increasinly powerless due to ongoing civil wars

To be fair that was only an issue because of Stilicho's obsession and arrogance, and quickly resolved by Constantius III. We see a brief civil war again in 423-425, which was ended by the Eastern Roman Empire and resulted in the installation of Valentinian III on the throne as a "puppet" of Theodosius II (a plan that was quickly destabilized by Aetius' arrival with an army of Huns).

The civil wars weren't a serious issue because exploitation by Barbarians of Roman weakness was quickly or immediately reversed by the competent leadership that resulted from these wars: namely Constantius III and Aetius. The fact that Aetius held the Western administration together for longer than it took to fall apart after his death is a testament to his leadership.

a failing tax system due to an increasing gap between rich and poor

Not so much an increasing gap but because the rich owned the poor through indentured servitude and debt. The real failure in the tax system was the loss of Africa, which was their primary grain export and tax base.

religious identity

Non-issue, really. The problem with Christianity is that adept potential administrators or officers often chose to become bishops or clergymen rather than bureaucrats or military officers, which put a drain on leadership in the Imperal state as well as physical manpower for the army. This was on top of the fact that the Church slowly became viewed as the voice of Imperial authority over the Imperial administration and bureaucracy itself.

[Robert Vermaat]

The civil wars weren't a serious issue because exploitation by Barbarians of Roman weakness was quickly or immediately reversed by the competent leadership that resulted from these wars: namely Constantius III and Aetius. The fact that Aetius held the Western administration together for longer than it took to fall apart after his death is a testament to his leadership.

Not so much an increasing gap but because the rich owned the poor through indentured servitude and debt. The real failure in the tax system was the loss of Africa, which was their primary grain export and tax base.

Non-issue, really. The problem with Christianity is that adept potential administrators or officers often chose to become bishops or clergymen rather than bureaucrats or military officers, which put a drain on leadership in the Imperal state as well as physical manpower for the army. This was on top of the fact that the Church slowly became viewed as the voice of Imperial authority over the Imperial administration and bureaucracy itself.

Civil wars were endemic and were not only a constant drain on the military, but also had a laming effect on the government which could never entrust too much power into the hands of any strong man. Not a serious issue? From Adrianople onwards they keep happening, and although indeed Stilicho was a problem, this was a symptom of the position the Empire was in: East-West rivalry gave room to strong generals behind an (increasingly) powerless throne, especially in the West. Constantius III was also such a general (among a number of lesser rebels who tried to gain the upper hand) who triumphed after a period of two decades of usurpers in Britain, Gaul, Italy and Spain. Aetius came to power after yet another usupation (john) and a similar damaging struggle for power (with Boniface). Not a serious problem? Barbarian generals and troops became increasinly normal during these power struggles, and this really is the beginning of the blurring of Roman and barbarian. In the east the manage to stop this process by the later 5th c., but in the West citizens will hardly have noticed the difference between a Frankish magister militum with his Germanic troops, all perfectly in Roman service, and a Frankish count answering to king Clovis a century later. 

Tax gathering had become endemically problematic due to loss of revenue in civil war areas, but also due to the very rich arming themselves and simply refusing to pay. 
The gap between those very rich and the struggling lower classes is becoming very wide in this period, with a few owning hundreds of estates and while the former middle class are struggling to pay their taxes. The former wealthy decuran class is now in a position where they cannot keep the cities intact. We even see people fleeing from their jobs towards barbarian territories - can you imagine what would have caused them to take such a drastic step? Here, too, we see  an identity problem, with people turning away from their Roman identity. Something even Gallic nobles would do around mid-century after Rome failed them once more.

Church is a non-issue? Churches being exempt from taxes, the very rich donating their estates over to the church - not a problem? People choosing for the church rather than the Roman administration, taking its place in some areas. And don't forget the church looking at some Christian Germanic kings as allies, while shunning Romans who happen to be pagan or of the wrong Christian faith. Here, too, a blurring of formerly clear identities. I'd call that an issue.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Barbarian generals and troops became increasinly normal during these power struggles, and this really is the beginning of the blurring of Roman and barbarian.

Yes they did but they didn't necessarily replace the Roman Army, under Aetius the Barbarian Generals were Sigisvult, Ricimer, and Vertericus. The rest were all Romans. The poet Merobaudes was descended from the Frankish General Merobaudes but he was fully Romanized by then. Although Sigisvult became the Junior Magister Utriusque Militiae, he was probably only Comes Foederatorum prior to that, and Vertericus and Ricimer were likely nothing more than Comites Foederatorum. Majorian seems to have been Master of Soldiers of Gaul until he was replaced by Agrippinus in 452, while Aegidius was probably Dux Belgicae Secundae. Astyrius, Vitus, and Merobaudes were both Magistri Militum per Hispenias, while Censorius was Comes Hispenias and Avitus at one point Magister Militum per Gallias.

The dominance of the Foederati comes after the disbanding of the Roman military upon Aetius' death, with Ricimer and his Burgundian interests dominating the Imperial court and Avitus being the first Emperor promoted by a Barbarian group (the Visigoths).

Civil wars were endemic and were not only a constant drain on the military, but also had a laming effect on the government which could never entrust too much power into the hands of any strong man.

Actually it was not entrusting power that caused these civil wars. The West worked on an emperor-manager system by this point and whenever the active manager died/was assassinated/they tried to divide up power, it caused civil wars. This is why you had the civil war between Felix and Boniface and then Boniface and Aetius.

When power was in the hands of a strong man, the system worked and was very stable. Theodosius II's meddling in attempting to become the manager of the West over Valentinian III, which was why he set up the relatively weak Felix in opposition to Boniface, is why the first 7 years of Aetius' generalships were a mess.

From Adrianople onwards they keep happening, and although indeed Stilicho was a problem, this was a symptom of the position the Empire was in: East-West rivalry gave room to strong generals behind an (increasingly) powerless throne, especially in the West.

There wasn't an East-West Rivalry except with Stilicho who wanted to implement the Child Emperor system in the East as well and became obsessed with controlling both halves of the Empire, something Aetius, by comparison, actually refused to do in 450 after Theodosius II's death and Marcian's ascension.

It was the obsession of Stilicho that allowed the usurpations of Constantine III and Maxentius to happen and go unchecked, and his death that caused the crisis with Alaric. Constantius III fixed that entire situation in FOUR YEARS. His death and by extension Honorius' death is what led to Castinus promoting Ioannes as Emperor (with himself trying to be the Magister Militum) which led to the invasion of 425 by Theodosius II after he mulled about it for 2 years.

n the east the manage to stop this process by the later 5th c., but in the West citizens will hardly have noticed the difference between a Frankish magister militum with his Germanic troops, all perfectly in Roman service, and a Frankish count answering to king Clovis a century later.

There would have been significant differences and Arbogast commanded Roman troops as Magister Peditum over Valentinian II, not Frankish Foederati. Any troops that were of non-Roman origin and enlisted into professional Roman ranks would have been just as well equipped and trained as the Roman troops anyways.

Tax gathering had become endemically problematic due to loss of revenue in civil war areas, but also due to the very rich arming themselves and simply refusing to pay.

We don't really have evidence for this except with Bacaudic revolts which aren't well studied.

The evidence shows that the issue with the Rich was that in the 4th century when the draft came around the Rich opted into giving an Aedoratio to the Emperor instead, which was so effecitve it became an informal way of taxing the rich who had otherwise exempted themselves out of paying all taxes during the late Republic (unless your estates were outside Italy, then you had to pay taxes still). Aetius and Majorian both recognized that issue and attempted to apply all tax laws on the non-Italic aristocracy to the Italic aristocracy, but they were highly resistant to it and it ultimately didn't work under Aetius and was one of the factors that furthered the divide between the Gallic and Italic aristocracy which allowed for Majorian's execution by Ricimer.

The gap between those very rich and the struggling lower classes is becoming very wide in this period, with a few owning hundreds of estates and while the former middle class are struggling to pay their taxes. The former wealthy decuran class is now in a position where they cannot keep the cities intact.

Yes the middle class pretty much got annihilated and city governments began to break down in the 4th century AD. The curial councils were gone and being on one was unappealing. Participating in the Roman state structure became unappealing. That was the problem.

We even see people fleeing from their jobs towards barbarian territories - can you imagine what would have caused them to take such a drastic step?

I've never seen evidence of people "fleeing" into barbarian territories, in fact the Aremoricans and Litaui are a direct contradiction of this, where Romans in Britain fled to Gaul to remain a part of their Empire.

Here, too, we see an identity problem, with people turning away from their Roman identity. Something even Gallic nobles would do around mid-century after Rome failed them once more.

There does develop a crisis of identity yet the Roman identity would remain intact well into the late 6th century, possibly as far as the 7th.

Church is a non-issue? Churches being exempt from taxes, the very rich donating their estates over to the church - not a problem? People choosing for the church rather than the Roman administration, taking its place in some areas. And don't forget the church looking at some Christian Germanic kings as allies, while shunning Romans who happen to be pagan or of the wrong Christian faith. Here, too, a blurring of formerly clear identities. I'd call that an issue.

But a comparatively minor one, the Church played a major role in upholding the Imperial authority and state structure, we see this with Valentinian III (sadly that mosaic doesn't survive intact). Furthermore, the pagan Litorius had no problem advancing to the rank of Master of Soldiers of Gaul.

[Robert Vermaat]

We're in danger of coming wide off the mark here, as originally we should be discussing if Rome invited the tribes or not.
Let me just say that a lot of the above was coverd in a very nice book by Ralph Mathisen: Roman Aristocrats in Barbarian Gaul: Strategies for Survival in an Age of Transition. here he covers much of the identity problem which plagued the citizens and nobles of the West, who were forced to look elsewhere when their traditional source of weath and safety kept failing them. Alliances with barbarians, a capital offense by the start of the 5th century, had become acceptable just 2 decades later.
He also mentions sources such as Salvian, Mamertinus and Faustus, who reported cases of many Romans who had to take shelter with the barbarians for varyous reasons.

The rivalry between east and west (or rather, the augusti) began almost as soon as the Empire was divided. Many occasions show us that one ruler either attempted to gain more of the territory of his colleague, or had to subdue yet another usurper either in the East or the West. I fail to find a prolonged period in which the two parts managed to co-exist in peace and harmony. This, too, had a profound effect on foreign tribes, because (starting especially with Constantine) the need for manpower almost Always meant hiring barbarians for great amounts of gold.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The rivalry between east and west (or rather, the augusti) began almost as soon as the Empire was divided. Many occasions show us that one ruler either attempted to gain more of the territory of his colleague, or had to subdue yet another usurper either in the East or the West. I fail to find a prolonged period in which the two parts managed to co-exist in peace and harmony.

Yeah, and this is now an outdated understanding of the East-West relationship. There's several papers on imperial cooperation and Meghan McEvoy's book on the Child Emperor system that developed in the West under Arbogast and Valentinian II goes into extensive detail on it as well. The general understanding has transformed to that the East and West were still a united empire and for the most part operated in tandem.

[Robert Vermaat]

Yeah, and this is now an outdated understanding of the East-West relationship. T

I'd call that a shift in opinion, not 'outdated understanding'.
Fact is that the 4th and 5th c. are riddled with internal conflict rather than peace and goodwill. It's a united Roman Empire, I have no doubt, but the internal fighting did not change much compared to the days of Marius, Caesar, Augustus, Vespasian or the infamous third century. They just did it from 2 or more capitals instead of one. 

Btw you mentioned Aetius' generals and who were barbarians and who weren't. Do you know the identity of all of them?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Only the prominent ones' names survived. There are others, Germanus of Auxerre, the Tribune Mamertinus.

But on the contrary, we also know a large number of Aetius' recruits were Alan and Alemannic. My point was that the Roman army was still Roman.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Vadomarius was an Alamannic King who initially fought the Romans during the 4th Century AD but who then, apparently with his entire tribe, moved into the Roman Empire, surely at the Roman's request, and he became a respected General who ended up commanding a field army.