What were the Bacaudae?

[Epictetus]

Yes. Hence my idiocy.

Edit: Well, this is a nice way to start a new page, with me making fun of myself.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Sonic is right.

[Robert Vermaat]

This is completely off-topic, but my idiocy might be amusing. I was wondering why "Vortigern Studies" hadn't posted in this topic, as I knew he was an expert in this time period. :errr:

He has. He now goes by the name of Robert Vermaat ;-)

Hee hee. :wink:

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Anyways, the Bacaudic Groups that plagued the west in the 3rd and 5th centuries seem to have had little effect on the decline of the west overall, except maybe for manpower.

[Robert Vermaat]

I disagree. the 3rd-c. rebels were a nuisance, and sometimes a difficult one, but they were dealt with. Tax rebellions were a constant during Roman history, often local but always dealt with.

The 5th-c. bacaudae were different intwo respects. For one they tied up troops in time of crisis. The Alans sent to quell them seem to have stuck around, and their presence lead to a militarization of the countryside. This will surely have affected the local economy, degrading the standard of living. It also may have lead to the development of local 'big men', as did the presence of the Franks in Toxandria. the movement itself was secessionist, and therefore very dangerous the the Roman state, and by the later 5th c. this was all too common in Gaul. By the 460s it caused the rejection of a Roman emperor and the last severance of ties with Rome under Aegidius, who probably had support from the Gaulish nobility as had Avitus before him. Unfortunately, without support from Rome Gaul could not stand alone, and Syagrius' 'kingdom' was absorbed by the rising Frankish kingdom. Although, at the time, no one would have seen it that way, it was more likely that one 'dux' usurped the army and power of another 'dux'.

[Conal]

Unfortunately, without support from Rome Gaul could not stand alone, and Syagrius' 'kingdom' was absorbed by the rising Frankish kingdom. Although, at the time, no one would have seen it that way, it was more likely that one 'dux' usurped the army and power of another 'dux'.

Not "the" Dux Bellorum? :whistle:

[Lothia]

In Michael Grant's "Fall of the Roman Empire" he writes about the Bacaudae in his -Section 3: The Poor against the State-
The consequence [of ruinous taxation (at the time of John Chrysostom)] was that thousands of men despaired of making an honest living at all, and went underground to form travelling gangs of robbers and bandits. These guerilla groups, the equivalents of today's drop-out terrorists - likewise thrown up and thrown out by social systems they find unacceptable -were swollen not only by deserters from the army, but by hordes of destitute civilians as well. This had happened before, but now the problem assumed truly formidable dimensions.
Banditry on a considerable scale was reported from Italy, North Africa, Spain and the Danube. But it was in Gaul that the gravest disorders occurred. In the third century this had already been one of the worst trouble-spots, and now there were major outbreaks once again. These Gallic bands assumed, at some stage or other, the old name of Bacaudae or Bagaudae, meaning 'rebels'. This designation, like their whole quasi-military movement, may have had certain nationalist overtones. For this was an epoch when the decay of central control meant a revival of regional sub-cultures, particularly in countries such as Gaul where the people had still, in some areas, retained their own language.
And so Ammianus reports a serious Gallic upheaval in 369. Later, for a number of yeas between 401 and 406, gangs of marauders were active in the Alps.

The section goes on for several pages.
Tom

[starman2012]

IIRC Grant wrote about some trouble of this kind as far back as the time of Commodus, due in part to a deserter named Maternus.