Stilicho

The Vandal Who Saved Rome

Ian Hughes

• Publisher: Pen & Sword Military
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9781473829008
• eBook ISBN: 9781848849105
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Historical Biographies
• Index: History

A military history of the campaigns of Stilicho, the army general who became one of the most powerful men in the Western Roman Empire.
Flavius Stilicho lived in one of the most turbulent periods in European history. The Western Empire was finally giving way under pressure from external threats, especially from Germanic tribes crossing the Rhine and Danube, as well as from seemingly ever-present internal revolts and rebellions.
Ian Hughes explains how a Vandal (actually, Stilicho had a Vandal father and Roman mother) came to be given almost total control of the Western Empire and describes his attempts to save both the Western Empire and Rome itself from the attacks of Alaric the Goth and other barbarian invaders.
Stilicho is one of the major figures in the history of the Late Roman Empire, and his actions following the death of the emperor Theodosius the Great in 395 may have helped to divide the Western and Eastern halves of the Roman Empire on a permanent basis. Yet he is also the individual who helped maintain the integrity of the West before the rebellion of Constantine III in Britain, and the crossing of the Rhine by a major force of Vandals, Sueves, and Alans—both in A.D. 406—set the scene for both his downfall and execution in 408, and the later disintegration of the West. Despite his role in this fascinating and crucial period of history, there is no other full-length biography of him in print.

Chapter One

The Roman Empire and its Neighbours

Rome

Stilicho was born sometime around the year 360. By this time the Empire had recovered from the rapid turnover of emperors and the barbarian invasions of the third century. Although civil war was still common and the threats of attack by ‘barbarians’ across the northern and eastern borders still remained, it was a period of relative peace after the chaos of the previous century.

The emperors Diocletian and Constantine are credited with major changes in the structure of the Empire, especially with regard to the bureaucratic, financial and military spheres. The details of these changes need not detain us here: where such detail is needed this will be covered at the appropriate point. However, certain trends need to be highlighted as they play a pivotal role in the life of Stilicho.

The first of these concerns the bureaucracy. The ‘civil service’ had greatly expanded following the reign of Diocletian and his inauguration of the Tetrarchy. In this the Empire had been divided and each half had been ruled by an Augustus (emperor). Each Augustus had his own Caesar (deputy and successor) to help run his half of the Empire. Each of the four co-rulers had a Praefectus Praetorio (praetorian prefect) to help with the administration of their ‘quarter’ of the Empire. Over the course of time the role of the Praefectus had changed from a military to a civilian post. However, each Praefectus still wielded great power and could influence military affairs as they retained control of the main logistical system of the Empire. Although abandoned on the death of Diocletian, the system of using four Praefecti was revived under Constantine. As time passed the position of prefect became more influential.

The second trend was a change in the nature of the army. The ‘old’, c.5,000-man legions were replaced by smaller entities numbering c.1,000 men, although some of the older formations may have continued to exist, possibly at the reduced number of c.3,000, on the borders.¹ This was for a variety of reasons, for example easing the logistical burdens by splitting troops into smaller formations and having them supplied from local areas to ease the difficulty of transporting goods over long distances. It was also in response to changes in the nature of Roman warfare. Large-scale battles were now becoming rare, with most conflicts being small-scale skirmishes and the repelling of limited border raids. Roman forays into barbarian territory rarely ended in battle, the tribesmen preferring to withdraw before the might of Rome. A further change was a policy of deploying troops either in or near to cities to act as garrisons, as described in the Notitia Dignitatum. Although still often perceived as being ‘mobile field armies’, in practice they tended to remain stationary unless called on by the very highest military authority: either an Augustus or a Caesar.

3. The tetrarchy and the prefectures of the Roman Empire.

As time progressed there had also been a change in the nature of the higher officers commanding the army. Although barbarian leaders were able to enrol in the army from an early date, they could not rise to the highest level earlier in the Empire due to being outside the ‘cursus honorum’ (‘course of honours’), the sequential order of public offices held by the Roman nobility. The granting of citizenship to the free population of the Empire by Caracalla in 212 and the crises faced by the Empire during the third century appear to have eroded traditional appointments. For example, senators had been barred from holding military office, probably in an attempt to restrict the number of revolts.² Subsequently, men of the equestrian class came to fill the posts previously reserved for senators. The barbarian nobles expected and received the status of equestrian and so gained the benefits that went with that status, including increasingly high posts within the army hierarchy. By the early fourth century Germanic officers were reaching the higher levels of military command within the Empire.³ This trend would reach its pinnacle during the lifetime of Stilicho: by the end of the fourth century many of the top ranking officers were of Germanic extraction.

An often-overlooked development was in the financial sphere. Massive inflation had resulted in coins rapidly losing their value, partly as a product of debasement – the mixing of base metals with the gold or silver used to make the coins. The result was that lower denomination coins became increasingly worthless and only when Constantine introduced the aureus, a relatively stable gold coin, did the problem of inflation ease slightly. However, what is usually disregarded is that this would only help the rich and powerful, not the lower classes: the lower denomination coins continued to lose their value as they were continually debased. As a consequence, when Germanic invaders demanded gold for their peaceful cooperation, the burden tended to fall on rich senators who had political power. Consequently, any leader who gave away too much money in subsidies to barbarians would incur the hostility of powerful men who had the means to make their grievances felt.

Society

It is possible to see the later Empire as one in which the divisions within society contributed to the fall of the West. Over time the rich became wealthier. This was partly because many farmers were forced to sell their lands or their service to the rich in order to fulfil their tax obligations. Consequently, the rich greatly increased their holdings and wealth whilst many of the poorer people were forced into poverty. The outcome was that the wealthy came to hold power greatly disproportionate to their numbers. Once ensconced in their position, these same men tended to use their influence to protect their own interests rather than those of the state.

An example of their influence may be seen in the repeated elevation of usurpers in outlying provinces to the role of ‘emperor’. These usurpers were supported by local magnates who felt that their own interests were at risk, and decided to support a man who promised to protect them. Usurpers could not have made such a bid without the support of the local magnates.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the rise of the bacaudae in the West. The origin and nature of the bacaudae remains unclear, but it would seem that the phenomenon was mainly one of armed ‘uprisings’ by peasants in the less-Romanized areas of Gaul and Spain. The movement may have been enlarged, if not started, as a result of poorer peasants taking up arms to protect themselves and/or survive. Yet this is not the only example of peasant unrest in the West: there are numerous instances of local peasants helping invading armies, either by joining them or by guiding them to stockpiles of food and supplies.

Yet we must be wary of exaggerating the tendency of people to rebel against the Empire. Although it is natural for those with wealth to wish to safeguard it, there is a large difference between desiring a change of policy and actively becoming involved in supporting a usurper: if on the losing side, the magnates risked not only their own lives but those of their entire families. Likewise, the tendency amongst the poorer citizens was probably to see events as just one more burden that they had to bear in an extremely unjust world. The power of apathy amongst the poor should not be underestimated. The apathy may to some extent have been assisted by the rise of Christianity. The promise of rewards in the afterlife will have made many more tolerant of conditions in this life, as they were confident that their forbearance would be rewarded by God.

The fourth century

After the death of Diocletian there were further outbreaks of civil war. These continued until 324, when Constantine I gained complete control of the Empire. His dynasty continued to rule – in between fighting each other in yet more civil wars – until the death of Julian in 363 during his invasion of Persia. Jovian was made emperor on the spot to replace him and was forced to conclude a humiliating peace treaty to extract his army from Persia. Possibly as a reaction to the peace treaty, Jovian was killed in the following year (364) on his journey to Constantinople to accept the throne.

There followed the accession of Valentinian I and the beginning of a new dynasty. Valentinian, who was to reign until 375, quickly appointed his brother Valens to rule in the East. These two men were the emperors at the time of Stilicho’s birth, and Valentinian’s generalship and strength ensured that during this period the Germanic tribes in the West were contained and their invasions repelled, although the pressure on the borders of the Empire remained intense.

Valentinian I

After his accession, Valentinian spent time organizing his half of the Empire before travelling to Gaul to direct operations against the Alamanni, who in 366 had entered imperial territory. Forced to retreat, they regrouped before launching a further attack in 367. Valentinian and his army defeated them in battle, but the Romans also suffered high casualties. After negotiations, in 371 Valentinian made peace with their king, Macrianus and then spent time on improving defences along the Rhine.

4. The division of the Empire under Valentinian II, Gratian and Valens.

Due to his personal focus on the activities of the Alamanni, when in 368 groups of Saxons, Picts and Scots raided Britain, Valentinian sent one of the comes rei militaris (‘count’ of the military), Theodosius, to recover and stabilize the situation across the Channel. In a similar manner, when in 372 a Moorish prince named Firmus rebelled in the province of Africa, in the following year Theodosius was again sent to restore the province to imperial control. Betrayed by some of his supporters, Firmus committed suicide rather than allowing himself to be captured. However, Theodosius was not to enjoy his reputation for long: in late 375 or early 376, possibly due to political intrigues at court, he was arrested and executed. His son, also named Theodosius, was spared and retired to live on his estates in Spain.

Unfortunately for Valentinian, the building of new forts along the Rhine resulted in increased tension. Following the death of one of their leaders, Gabinius, in 374, and claiming that the Empire had erected forts on their territory, the Quadi invaded Pannonia. Valentinian moved with an army to meet them. However, infuriated by the behaviour of their ambassadors, Valentinian suffered an apoplectic fit and died on 17 November 375.

Gratian and Valentinian II in the West

Valentinian was succeeded by his sons Gratian and Valentinian II, who were born of different mothers. Gratian had been acclaimed as Augustus as early as 367 at the age of eight but on the death of Valentinian in 375 the troops in Pannonia had acclaimed Valentinian II as co-emperor, although he was only around seven years old. Rather than fight a civil war Gratian acceded to their claims. Gratian chose to rule Gaul, Spain and Britain, leaving Italy, Illyricum and Africa to Valentinian II.

Gratian accepted his Uncle Valens’ decision to allow the Goths to enter the Empire in 376. However, when the Goths rebelled against Roman rule in 378 Gratian was delayed as he was fighting against the Alamanni (being only ten years old, Valentinian was not expected to lead the army in the West). The delay meant that Gratian and the Western army missed the Battle of Adrianople.

Valens

Upon his accession in 364 the most pressing dilemma faced by Valens was the situation on the Eastern frontier. The Persians were intent on gaining the maximum benefits from the peace treaty of 363–4 and Valens’ first task was to limit the extent of the damage to the frontiers. However, this was to be postponed for several years.

First, in 366 he was faced with the rebellion of Procopius, the last member of the Constantinian family. Valens had a shaky start yet managed to prevail and Procopius was defeated, but before Valens could head East he was faced with disturbing reports from across the Danube. He was informed that the Tervingi, a Gothic tribe north of the Danube, were planning to invade. Earlier in the century (332), Constantine I had defeated the Tervingi and made a treaty with them. They had kept to the treaty and had been preparing to support Procopius as the last descendant of Constantine’s dynasty. When Procopius’ attempt on the throne failed, their king, Athanaric, appears to have decided to act unilaterally.

In order to pre-empt their invasion, in 367 Valens crossed the Danube. The Tervingi retreated and Valens could not bring them to battle. Floods on the Danube the following year halted any attempt to repeat the invasion, but in 369 Valens crossed the Danube and defeated the Greuthungi (another Gothic tribe) before defeating the Tervingi. Athanaric was forced to sign a treaty, but was now hostile to the Empire and especially to the Arian Christianity supported by Valens and followed by many of his own people. According to some sources, as a result of his ‘defeat’ Athanaric began a persecution of those amongst his own people who had become Arian Christians.⁴

Sozomen and Socrates claim that the persecution resulted in a civil war amongst the Tervingi. The details are unknown, except that Valens appears to have supported Fritigern, the leading Arian Christian, against Athanaric. The precise chronology of these events is unknown, but this is unimportant. The vital information is that Valens and Fritigern had been allies prior to the events of 376.

The German tribes

By the fourth century many c...

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Dedication
• Acknowledgements
• List of Illustrations
• List of Maps
• Foreword
• Introduction
• Abbreviations
• 1. The Roman Empire and its Neighbours
• 2. Stilicho, Serena and Theodosius
• 3. Command in the West
• 4. The Roman Army
• 5. The Barbarian Armies
• 6. The Campaign in Illyricum, 395
• 7. The Rhine and the Greek Campaign, 396–7
• 8. Gildo’s Revolt and the African Campaign, 398
• 9. Consolidation, 398–400
• 10. Alaric and the Invasion of Italy, 401–402
• 11. The West and the Invasion of Radagaisus, 402–406
• 12. Stilicho and the Invasion of Illyricum, 406–407
• 13. The British Revolt and the Invasion of Gaul, 406–407
• 14. Stilicho Responds to the Invasions, 407–408
• 15. The Fall of Stilicho
• 16. Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome?
• Notes
• Appendix I: Glossary
• Appendix II: Outline Chronology
• Appendix III: Select Personalities
• Select Bibliography