Crossing of the Rhine: 405 AD?

[Justin I]

I have been reading about the barbarian invasion of Gaul traditionally dated 31 December 406, and found an interesting suggestion by Michael Kulikowski that we might actually have the wrong date for it. He explains his theory in this article, but unfortunately I don't have JSTOR.

Basically the argument is that before Constantine III revolted in Britain, we know that Marcus and Gratian each tried their own revolt. But it doesn't make sense that the barbarian invasion, in Kulikowski's words "could have provoked a usurpation already under way."
Also, Stilicho's supposed inaction against the barbarians makes more sense if the barbarians invaded on New Year's Eve 405, because Stilicho had his hands full with Radagaisus' invasion of Italy until August of 406.

Has anyone here read Kulikowski's article? He's a pretty sharp guy and I think he might be on to something.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Justin,

I've written about this before here, but the link to my initial post on April 22, 2006 seems not to work anymore, which is a shame. It makes you wonder is much ever written on this forum is lost...

[D B Campbell]

Has anyone here read Kulikowski's article? He's a pretty sharp guy and I think he might be on to something.

I liked Kulikowski's article, until Tony Birley persuaded me otherwise (Roman Government of Britain, Oxford 2005, p. 458).

Birley notes that Kulikowski was reviving an argument already proposed by N.H. Baynes, JRS 12 (1922), 417ff.

[sonic]

Kulikowski bases the theory on the fact that the rebellion in Britain is said by Zosimus to have been caused by the barbarian invasion of Gaul. Kulikowski (and Baynes before him) accepted that the two were definitely linked and, correctly noting that the British rebellion took place in 406, consequently claim that the invasion must have been before this and must therefore have been on the last day of 405.

There are two problems here. One is in assuming that the chronicles are very poorly dated. The concept is that if a year had no entry, then the chroniclers moved an entry from a different year to fill the gap. Although a possibility, this is not necessarily true.

The second is in assuming that Zosimus, who's grasp of Western events isn't always totally accurate, knew the whole story of the causes and events of the British rebellion. This is unlikely. What is more likely is that the rebellion in Britain had nothing to do with the barbarian invasion. Concerned with events in the Western Empire, the British appointed a leader called Marcus. He was quickly assassinated and a man named Gratian appointed in is place. Over the winter of 406-7 the rebellion was confined to Britain by the weather in the Channel, a factor unknown to Zosimus.

Early in 406 news finally reached Britain of the barbarian invasion. When Gratian refused to act, he was replaced with Constantine (III). Constantine did cross the Channel and invade Gaul. As this was after the barbarian invasion, Zosimus (and no doubt others) assumed that the cause of the British revolt was the barbarian invasion. However their failure to mention either Marcus or Gratian suggests that they were not aware of all of the facts.

In this hypothesis, the dating in the sources of both the British revolt and the barbarian invasion are correct, and what is missing is a complete knowledge of events on the part of Zosimus, who understandably assumes that the invasion was the cause of the revolt.

This seems to be preferable to the theory proposed by Baynes and Kulikowski.

But you may think differently ... :grin:

(I hope this makes sense: as usual I'm a little short on time!:-( )

[Justin I]

Thanks guys. Sounds like the conclusion here is that it's possible that 405 is the correct date, but Kulikowski is going out on a limb? The sources are lacking, but we know the British had a habit of rebelling in the later years of the Western Empire and might have done so regardless of whether the barbarians crossed the Rhine.

Sonic are you the same guy who wrote that book about Belisarius a few years back? If so there's a copy of it on my nightstand upstairs and I've worn the spine out pretty good on it, which obviously counts for something.

[sonic]

Guilty as charged! Glad you liked it and thanks very much for the endorsement.

[Alanus]

Just a note on your source--Kulikowski.
He's a smart man, but has gone out on the wrong limb before, perhaps from an innate distrust of ancient authors. In Rome's Gothic Wars, he slammed Jordanes real hard as a fictionalist, claiming that Jordanes' statement about the eastern Gothic kingdom extending almost to the Urals was bull****. Then, after RGW was published, archaeologists discovered a high-Gothic site on the river Samara.

As a rule, the old guys got their dates correct; maybe not all the details.:grin: