Gaiseric

The Vandal Who Destroyed Rome

Ian Hughes

• Publisher: Pen & Sword Military
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781473890299
• Topic: Storia
• Subtopic: Storia militare e marittima

While Gaiseric has not become a household name like other 'barbarian' leaders such as Attila or Genghis Khan, his sack of Rome in AD455 has made his tribe, the Vandals, synonymous with mindless destruction. Gaiseric, however, was no moronic thug, proving himself a highly skilful political and military leader and was one of the dominant forces in Western Mediterranean region for almost half a century.The book starts with a concise history of the Vandals before Gaiseric's reign and analyses the tactics and weaponry with which they carved a path across the Western Roman Empire to Spain. It was in Spain that Gaiseric became their king and he that led the Vandals across the straits of Gibraltar to seize a new home in North Africa, depriving Rome of one of its most important remaining provinces and a key source of grain. Roman attempts at reconquest were defeated and the Balearic Islands, Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia were all added to Gaiseric's kingdom. His son, Huneric, was even betrothed to Eudoxia, daughter of the Emperor Valentinian III and it was her appeal for help after her father's murder that led Gaiseric to invade and sack Rome. He took Eudoxia and the other imperial ladies back to Africa with him, subsequently defeating further attempts by the Eastern Roman Empire to recapture the vital North African territory. Ian Hughes' analysis of the Gaiseric as king and general reveals him as the barbarian who did more than anyone else to bring down the Western Roman Empire, but also as a great leader in his own right and one of the most significant men of his age.

Chapter 1

Vandal History and Gaiseric’s Early Life

Gaiseric was born around AD 389: the exact date is unknown and must be calculated from later evidence.1 The illegitimate son of ‘King’ Godigisel, and half brother of Godigisel’s legitimate son Gunderic, it is alleged by the ancient sources that his mother was a slave.2 Although it is possible that this was propaganda aimed at damaging his reputation, if his mother was a Roman who had been enslaved it would explain the claim that he had originally been a Nicene Catholic rather than an Arian.3 The place of his birth is also unrecorded, although modern historians have sometimes guessed at the location.4 All that is actually known is that at the time of his birth, the Vandals were living in Pannonia. This had not always been the case.

Until recently it has been assumed – following Jordanes, who was writing in the sixth century – that Gaiseric’s people had their origins in the Baltic region:

Now from this island of Scandza, as from a hive of races or a womb of nations, the Goths are said to have come forth long ago under their king, Berig by name. As soon as they disembarked from their ships and set foot on the land, they straightway gave their name to the place. And even to-day it is said to be called Gothiscandza. Soon they moved from here to the abodes of the Ulmerugi, who then dwelt on the shores of Ocean, where they pitched camp, joined battle with them and drove them from their homes. Then they subdued their neighbours, the Vandals, and thus added to their victories.

Jordanes, Getica, 25–26

It would appear from this that the Vandals were a small group of peoples on the fringes of the Baltic who were easily defeated by the Goths. Seemingly complementing Jordanes, the earliest mention of a Germanic tribe known as ‘Vandilii/Vandili’ is by Pliny the Elder in the late first century AD:

There are five German races: the Vandili, parts of whom are the Burgundiones, the Varini, the Carini, and the Gutones.

Pliny, Natural History, 4.28

Map 1: The Roman Empire on the Death of Theodosius, AD 395.

A tribe by the name of ‘Vandilii’ are also mentioned by Tacitus in his Germania, also in the late first century (c.AD 98):

Some, with the freedom of conjecture permitted by antiquity, assert that the god had several descendants, and the nation several appellations, as Marsi, Gambrivii, Suevi, Vandilii, and that these are genuine old names.

Tacitus, Germania, 1.2

Since Jordanes’ account places the Vandals on or near the shores of the Baltic Sea, many archaeologists associated the Vandals with the Przeworsk culture, an archaeological phenomenon based on similarities in finds – especially cremation burials – reaching from the Baltic through a large part of central Europe. The supposition was that the Vandals began life on the Baltic littoral before extensive migrations brought them to the borders of the Roman Empire.

However, recent work has brought these assumptions into question, with it being shown that even the basic concept of ‘migrational waves … does not stand up to scrutiny’.5 For example, the connection between the ‘Vandilii’ in Pliny and Tacitus and the tribe who later invaded the Empire is extremely insecure, especially as neither Pliny nor Tacitus give a specific location to the Vandilii. Further, rather than being a single tribe, these two excerpts suggest that the Vandilii were almost certainly a large union of peoples existing during the first century AD, so there is no direct connection between these peoples and the two tribes (Asdings and Silings) later known as the Vandals apart from the coincidence of their names.6

In addition, a further reassessment has broken the association of the Vandals with the Przeworsk culture, since previous analysis of the archaeological evidence is now seen as being ambiguous at best. It has been recognized that, rather than beginning in the region of the Baltic and spreading south with the assumed Vandal ‘migration’, pottery and burial practices associated with the Przeworsk culture actually had many local origins and the perceived spread is simply a coincidence of local societies evolving similar forms rather than adopting them from an outside source.7

Likewise, it has always been supposed that, due to their later influence, the Vandals were a powerful and important feature of cross-border politics. Instead, it must now be accepted that, far from being a tribe of great power and prestige from its earliest days, between the second and the fifth century the Vandals were actually a small group of unimportant peoples – one of around fifty tribes on the Roman frontiers – that are barely mentioned in the historical sources and have left little individual residue in the archaeological record.8

In reality, the first ‘secure’ reference to the Vandals dates to the second century AD. During the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and probably in AD 171:9

The Astingi [Asdings], led by their chieftains Raus and Raptus, came into Dacia with their entire households, hoping to secure both money and land in return for their alliance. But failing of their purpose, they left their wives and children under the protection of Clemens [the governor of the province], until they should acquire the land of the Costoboci by their arms; but upon conquering that people, they proceeded to injure Dacia no less than before. The Lacringi … attacked them while off their guard and won a decisive victory. As a result, the Astingi committed no further acts of hostility against the Romans, but in response to urgent supplications addressed to Marcus they received from him both money and the privilege of asking for land in case they should inflict some injury upon those who were then fighting against him. Now this tribe really did fulfil some of its promises.

Cassius Dio, Roman History, 72.12

The information ties in with the division of the Vandals into two distinct confederations: the Asdings and the Silings.10 The ‘alliance’ of the Astingi (Asdings) with Rome, which was most likely a foedus, may have lasted for quite a time, as the next secure reference dates to around a century later, when in late summer 270 a Vandal warband invaded the Empire near Aquincum.11 It is possible that the invaders could have been Silings rather than Asdings, although it should be noted that during this period the Asdings were probably settled in the region of the Upper Tisza River.12 Alternative evidence suggests that at this time the Silings were settled in the region later known as Silesia.13 Whatever the source of the attack, the Emperor Aurelian responded and the Vandals were quickly defeated.14 This was followed in c.280 by a battle in which the Emperor Probus defeated a mixed force of Vandals and Burgundians, although again whether the ‘Vandals’ were Asdings or Silings is unclear.15 In neither of these cases is the danger sufficient to form a major threat to the Empire.

However, in the fourth century, c.330–335, the Asding Vandals came under Gothic attack:

Soon he [Geberich, king of the Goths] sought to enlarge his country’s narrow bounds at the expense of the race of the Vandals and Visimar [Vidimar], their king. This Visimar was of the stock of the Asdingi … At that time they dwelt in the land where the Gepidae now live, near the rivers Marisia, Miliare, Gilpil and the Grisia … They then had on the east the Goths, on the west the Marcomanni, on the north the Hermunduli and on the south the Hister, which is also called the Danube. At the time when the Vandals were dwelling in this region, war was begun against them by Geberich, king of the Goths, on the shore of the river Marisia which I have mentioned. Here the battle raged for a little while on equal terms. But soon Visimar himself … was overthrown. Then the remnant of the Vandals who had escaped, collecting a band of their unwarlike folk, left their ill-fated country and asked the Emperor Constantine for Pannonia. Here they made their home for about sixty years and obeyed the commands of the emperors like subjects.

Jordanes, Getica, 22.113–15

Some historians have doubted the story as relayed by Jordanes; with good reason, as after the excerpt above Jordanes goes on to state:

A long time afterward they [the Asdings] were summoned thence by Stilicho, Master of the Soldiery, ex-Consul and Patrician, and took possession of Gaul. Here they plundered their neighbours and had no settled place of abode.

Jordanes, Getica, 22.115

Obviously, this story is contradicted by other sources, so it is clear that Jordanes is mistaken when he claims that Stilicho invited the Asdings into Gaul. On the other hand, supporting evidence from Peter the Patrician suggests that there was indeed an alliance between Constantine and a group of Vandals in the 330s.16 As a result, it should probably be accepted that the Asdings did live in the Tisza basin and that at least some were driven out by a Gothic attack, moving to Pannonia under the auspices of the Emperor Constantine. Furthermore, it should be noted that the ease with which the Goths defeated the Vandals supports the idea that the Vandals remained a small, unimportant group of tribes.

Once their small size is accepted, there remains the question of whether they were settled in Pannonia I, Pannonia II or both (see Map 1). The chances are that, following earlier policies and learning from some of the mistakes made when allowing the Goths into the Empire, the Vandals were probably distributed across the two provinces in the hope that they would settle and merge with the loyal Roman inhabitants. If the hypothesis is correct, the attempt to integrate the Vandals was doomed to failure, not least because the Vandal leaders were not employed by Rome, instead remaining in control of at least some of the settlers. Again, this suggests that the Vandals were a small tribe and the Romans did not expect them to cause many problems for the Empire.

‘Romanization’

Even prior to the settlement, along with the other ‘Germanic’ tribes along the northern frontier, the Vandals were slowly influenced by the spread of Roman goods via trade, especially with regard to jewellery and ceramics.17 But whereas the trade and giving of ‘gifts’, or subsidies, to allied tribal leaders may have helped in the formation of large tribal groupings such as the Greuthungi, Tervingi, Alamanni and Franks, similar payments appear not to have helped the Vandals to form their own large alliance. This may be because before the fourth century any such support in the region appears to have been given to the Sarmatians. As a result, the Vandals remained divided into their two major branches, the Asdings in the south, where Gaiseric was born, and the Silings in the north-west, with only some of the Asdings later entering Pannonia. In part due to this division, the Vandals remained insignificant.18

Conversion to Arianism

Yet there was one way in which the Empire would have a major effect upon Vandal traditions. At an unknown date, the Vandals converted to Arianism. In the standard, Catholic/Nicene creed, Jesus is seen as being equal with God, part of the ‘Trinity’ of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Arians believed differently. For them, it was clear that Jesus was created by God: God the Father was Unbegotten (eternal), whereas Jesus was Begotten (not eternal), and therefore God was superior to Jesus.19 Jesus was ‘like’ God, but not the same. Obviously, this was opposed by the Nicenes as heresy.

In the middle of the fourth century AD, Arianism had a strong following in the Roman army. As a result, any barbarians serving in the army at this time would likely have been converted to Arianism rather than the Nicene creed. In addition, a Goth named Ulfilas (c.310–380) was converted to Arianism and was sent to preach to the Goths. It is likely that at the same time, missionaries were sent to other tribes, including the Vandals. The missionaries were helped by religious divisions within the Empire, and especially by the fact that Constantius II (337–361) was of a ‘semi-Arian’ persuasion, whilst Valens (364–378) was a committed Arian.20 Both of these emperors may have actively encouraged barbarian conversions.

A further factor was that Ulfilas had translated the Bible into Gothic, meaning that the missionaries could now easily convert the Vandals, as they spoke a language similar to the Goths. However, many Vandals doubtless remained pagan, only becoming converts after they had entered the Empire in the early fifth century, in th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Maps
• Introduction
• The Sources
• Abbreviations to the sources used in the text
• Chapter 1: Vandal History and Gaiseric’s Early Life
• Chapter 2: The Invasion of Gaul
• Chapter 3: Hispania
• Chapter 4: The Empire Strikes Back
• Chapter 5: Freedom
• Chapter 6: Gaiseric
• Chapter 7: Settlement
• Chapter 8: Conquest
• Chapter 9: Consolidation and Expansion
• Chapter 10: The Sack of Rome
• Chapter 11: War
• Chapter 12: Majorian’s African Campaign
• Chapter 13: The Renewal of War
• Chapter 14: The Roman Invasion
• Chapter 15: End Game
• Conclusion
• Appendix: The Division of Land, AD 411 and 439
• End Notes
• Outline Chronology
• Select Bibliography
• Plate section