the goths in aquitaine

German Studies Association

The Goths in AquitaineAuthor(s): Herwig WolframReviewed work(s):Source: German Studies Review, Vol. 2, No. 2 (May, 1979), pp. 153-168Published by: German Studies AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1429805 .Accessed: 04/06/2012 13:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

German Studies Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to GermanStudies Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=gsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1429805?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

ARTICLES

The Goths in Aquitaine

HERWIG WOLFRAM

University of Vienna

In the year 418, the Roman Goths or Visigoths, led by their

king, Theoderid (often referred to as Theoderic I), established themselves in Roman Aquitaine (Aquitania secunda) and in several

city-districts of neighboring Roman provinces and made Toulouse the capital of the new Gothic kingdom. They did not enter as conquerors, rather they were settled as foederati, a federated tribe, of the imperial government.2 At its greatest, the kingdom's borders in the north and northeast followed the ancient frontier of Aquitania secunda, then turned south on the Dordogne towards the south-east and reached the Mediterranean in the north-east of Narbonne. Essentially, the region encompassed 120,000 square kilometers, about a fifth of Gaul. Of the estimated million inhabitants living in the region, less then ten percent were the newly

1. I wish to thank many American, Austrian, German and French col-

leagues for having offered me the opportunity for a thoroughgoing dis- cussion of the present article. Above all I am indebted to Professor K. F. Werner, Director of the Deutsches Historisches Institut Paris, Professors T. Bisson, University of California at Berkeley, and R. Benson and various members of the Department of History at UCLA, which I

joined for the Fall quarter 1976 as a Visiting Professor. This article was first given as a guest-lecture in French (Les Goths en Aquitaine) on May 6, 1976, in Paris, then in English on November 18, 1976, at Berkeley and on December 2, 1976, at UCLA. My friends Professors Patrick Geary, Prince-

ton, and Peter Reill, UCLA, corrected the English version. 2. See e.g. D. Claude, Adel, Kirche und Konigtum im Westgotenreich,

Vortrage und Forschungen, Sonderband 8 (Sigmaringen 1971) 36ff. E. A.

Thompson, "The Barbarian Kingdoms in Gaul and Spain," Nottingham Medieval Studies 7 (1963) 3ff. A. Loyen, "Les debuts du royaume wisi-

goth de Toulouse," Revue des Etudes Latines 12 (1934) 406f?. L. Schmidt, Die Ostgernnanen, ed. 2, last new print 1969 (Miinchen 1941) 406ff. M. Rouche, L'Aquitaine des Wisigoths aux Arabes (418-781), Service de reproduction des theses, Universite de Lille III (1977). The later is now

by far the best book on the Goths in Aquitaine.

GERMAN STUDIES REVIEW

arrived Goths.3 The kingdom itself did not have a long life. Theoderid reigned from 418 to 451. He was succeeded by his three sons, Thorismund (451-453), Theoderic II (453-466), and Euric (466-484), the most famous of the three. Euric's son, Alaric II was the last ruler of the kingdom. The kingdom fell in 507 when Alaric was slain by King Clovis of the Franks in the Battle of Vouille.

Because this kingdom was relatively short-lived, many scholars have failed to appreciate the importance of the history of the kingdom of Toulouse (Regnum Tolosanum),4 preferring instead to concentrate upon the Italian Gothic kingdom of Theoderic the Great. This, however, is a mistake, for the study of the Aquitanian Visi- goths can illuminate a set of important questions associated with the rise of barbarian statehood in Roman territory that cannot be accomplished if one concentrates solely upon the Goths in Italy. The difference between the two Gothic kingdoms is crucial. Theo- deric the Great continued a tradition established by Odoaker, and the last Roman emperors of the fifth century. He ruled a praefectura, an established political and social entity of the Empire. The Aquitanian Visigoths, on the other hand, began by ruling a small realm and over time were able to conquer the better part of the Gal- lic-Spanish praefectura. In so doing, they were forced by circumstances to mediate between Gothic and Roman traditions. The result was a unique conjunction of diverse elements that had far- reaching consequences even after the disappearance of the kingdom itself.

Even the appearance of the Visigoths on the Atlantic coast poses an important problem. Why did the Romans settle these federates within the heart of the Empire? And why settle them in one of the richest regions of Gaul, an area so rich that one contemporary described it as Gaul's marrow.5 Since 382 the Romans had allowed certain barbarian tribes to live as federates within the Empire. But they were careful to restrict these barbarians to frontier regions.

3. K. F. Stroheker, Eurich, Konig der Westgoten (Stuttgart 1937) 8f. Cf. E. Z6llner, Geschichte der Franken (Miinchen 1970) 209-212, and E. Ewig, "Das Fortleben romischer Institutionen in Gallien und Gerrnanien," X Congresso internazionale di scienze storiche 6 (Florenz 1955) 591 n. 1.

4. Chronicon Caesaraugustanum a. 507, ed. T. Mommsen, MGH Auc- tores Antiquissimi 11 (1894) 223; cf. Hydatius 244, ed. ibid., 34ff.

5. Salvianus, De gubernatione Dei VII 8, ed. K. Halm, MGH Auctores Antiquissimi 1 (1877) 85.

154

HERWIG WOLFRAM

The barbarians were used to defend the Empire against incursions from other barbarians living beyond the Roman borders.6 In Aquit- aine, however, no serious external enemy menaced its security. The only threat came from pirate Saxons who could easily be rushed back by the private armies and fleets of the Gallic senators. Cer- tainly, the imperatives of defense against external enemies cannot account for the settlement of the Goths in Aquitaine. The only possible explanation for the Goths settlement is that they were

brought in to protect Aquitaine from an internal threat. As Edward Arthur Thompson argues, this threat came from the Bagaudae, armed rustics - brigands, serfs, farmers, and shepherds - who had tried to overthrow the established order in the years preceding the Gothic settlement. Though mentioned as early as 286, the Bagaudae became extremely dangerous in 409 when Armorica-Brittany threw off Roman rule. In order to prevent a similar fate in Aquitaine, the Roman

government settled the Gothic army in the endangered provinces south of the Loire.

The Gothic army, therefore entered Aquitaine as hospites,

guests; theu were to share the domaines with the great Aquitanian landlords, becoming, in the proper sense of the word, their consortes. At first glance, the conditions of this contract, officially recognized in 418, appear excessive; the sors Gothica, or Gothic part, com-

prised two-thirds of the cultivated land, half of the uncultivated land and probably a third of the labor force. But upon close examination, the division proves far more limited. Senators still held possessions not touched by the arrangement and the curiales, members of the Roman urban middle-class, seem to have been excluded to-

tally from the forced division.8 The original center of the Gothic

settlement comprised an area of about one hundred kilometers a- round Toulouse. The Gothic expansion was made primarily at the

expense of the great senatorial possessions called regna, kingdoms,9 and these were only partially expropriated. Thus, though for some the word hospes, Gothic guest, became a name for ruth-

6. E. A. Thompson, The Wisigoths in the Time of Ulfila (Oxford 1966) 22f. Cf. E. Ewig, "Probleme der frinkischen Friihgeschichte in den Rhein- landen," flistorische Forschungen fi'r Walter Schlesinger (Koln 1974) 52f. E. A. Thompson, "The Settlement of the Barbarians in Southern Gaul," The Journal of Roman Studies 45 (1955) 69.

7. Cf. Schmidt (n. 2 above) 494. 8. D. Claude, Geschichte der Westgoten, Urban-Taschenbucher 128

(1970) 37f. Gaupp (n. 12) 400f. 9 . H. olfram, Intitulatio I., Mitteilungen des Instituts fur osterreich-

ische Geschichtsforschung, suppl. 21 (1967) 35.

155


lessness and recklessness, these opinions were probably exag- gerations. Though Sidonius Apollinarius might complain that he could not write six-footed verses (hexameters) while surrounded by seven foot tall barbarians with hair reeking of rancid butter,l0 the situation could not have been that tragic for the decree estab- lishing the Goths was readily renewed.ll Simply said, the Goths played a vital role in Aquitaine; they filled a political vacuum by providing the inhabitants with an executive power. As such the Goths, or rather their upper strata, had a vital interest in maintaining the existing Roman social order.12

The Goths thus served as a balance to the Gallic Bagaudae, as agents in maintaining the status quo. Many commentators have overlooked this fact and have seen the Goths and the Gallic Ba- gaudae as striving for the same ends, the overthrow of the Roman order. This opinion is based upon Salvian's statement, "Goths, Bagauds and other barbarians exercised where they reigned a great attraction on the impoverished and oppressed Roman indigenous." In this view, Goths, Bagauds, and the proletariat of the region shared common interests. But this analogy of interests is a false one: the Bagaudae did not pay taxes, neither did the Goths, but for different reasons. The Goths were Roman military personnel, that is to say, they were tax-exempt by definition. Both the Goths and the Bagaudae expropriated senatorial lands, but did different things with it. The Bagaudae sought to do away with the established socio-economic order, the Goths did not. Gothic rule appeared appealing to the internal proletariat because the (oths either reduced the weight of taxes or, at least, did not increase the tax burden. But this occurred simply because the Gothic kingdom was less sophisticated than the Roman government and hence

10. Sidonius Apollinaris, Carmina XII vv6-11, ed. C. Luetjohann, MGH Auctores Antiquissimi 8 (1887) 231. Cf. Epistulae VIII 9, v.34, ed. ibid., 136.

11. Thompson, "The Settlement" (n. 6 above) 65. 0. Perrin, Les Burgondes (Neuchatel 1968) 287ff.

12. Thompson, "The Settlement" (n. 6 above) 69ff. R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mas- sachusetts; 1966) 192f. and 211f. H. Nehlsen, Sklavenrecht zwischen Antike und Mittelalter, Gbttingen Studien zur Rechtsgeschichte 5 (1972) 162f. E. T. Gaupp, Die germanischen Ansiedlungen und Landtheilungen in den Provinzen des romischen Westreichs (Bresslau 1844) 394ff. Cf. e.g. F. Lot, "Du regime de 1'hospitalite," Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire 7 (1928) 966ff. Rouche (n. 2 above) 5ff., 125ff., 153ff.

13. Salvianus, De gubernatione Dei V 22, 59 and V 37, 62.

156

HERWIG WOLFRAM

required less money,. The lower classes of the Gallo-Romans thus had the impression that justice and the conditions of life were better with the barbarians than in the region still directly dependent upon Roman administration. All the Goths did was take advantage of the existing class structure and run it more efficiently than the Romans had done. In the long run, however, the same

polarization between rich and poor, masters and serfs, upper and lower class which had ruined Gallo-Roman society was to afflict the Gothic kingdom.14

This development was insured by the fact that class differentiations had already appeared in Gothic society before the Goths had crossed the Danube. The long Gothic migrations had favored socio-economic differentiation. Thus, in 418, not all Goths became social and economic consorts of the Gallo-Roman nobility, only the Gothic chiefs and lords did. Alongside of these chiefs we encounter warriors of free and even unfree status. The differentiations in Gothic social structure is mirrored in the first Gothic law code, the Codex Euricianus. The Codex deals with slaves who wage war for their master's (dominus) account and it distin-

guishes between two categories of socially free people who were

economically dependent upon a patronus (lord). Notice that an important distinction is made between a dominus, lord of slaves, and a patronus, lord of free men. The two categories of free men were buccellarii and saiones . Of the two, the institution of the buccellariatus was the oldest and the most important. But the Codex Euricianus was the first legal document to officially recognize the buccellariatus as a fullfledged institution. Else- where the Roman Emperors still tried to outlaw it as a private usurpation of imperial and public rights. The Gothic buccellarii were authorized to profit from "arms and other benefices even from land which they had received from their lords" as long as they stayed in the lord's service. If they changed lords, which, as free men, they were allowed to do, thebuccellariiwere required to return to the lord the land they had received. The buccellariatus was hereditary, passing untouched from one generation to another, irrespective of the sex of the descendant. As such it provided great security for the warriors, but also reduced their social liberty. The institution of the saionatus was more restrictive. The word saio, pFobably of Gothic origin, means companion at arms. All

14. P. Courcelle, Histoire litteraire des grandes invasions germaniques, ed. 3 (Paris 1964) 144 n. 2.

157


that the saio received during his term of dependence belonged to the lord, except the saio's armament and weapons. It is clear, however, from the Codex that the social categories all pertained to differentiations between fighting men. It is impossible to imagine that real peasants and artisans could be found amongst the lower strata of the Goths. Even the slaves brought by the Goths to

Aquitaine were trained for warfare rather than to plow the soil.15 In effect, the Goths who settled in Aquitaine did not come as a

single, migrating people but as an army of Goths, an exercitus Gothorum.

Since the admission of this barbarian host and their integration into the Roman world inevitably caused social and ethnic con-

flicts, it is important to know more about this people. Generally, one has become accustomed to calling the Goths of Toulouse the

Visigoths or even the Westgoths, according to the popular etymology established by Cassiodorus in the sixth century. 7 But this is a

grand simplification as the history of this people shows.

The king and the leading strata of the Goths who settled in

Aquitaine called themselves Vesi, that is, the "good ones."18

The Vesi originated in what is now called Roumania and had left

their lands in 376 when the Huns appeared.19 But only the domi-

nant class and the warriors, those responsible for the tribe's tra-

dition, crossed the Danube and were admitted to Roman territory. The lower levels of society, the peasants, did not leave their

homeland, for they had nothing to gain by moving south.20 This

selective migration explains the Roman impression that the Gothic

warriors whom they met were all nobles.2 It also set the stage for

the metamorphosis of the Goths from a nation, rooted to a specific area, to an army. In other words, the term Gutthiuda which in the

15. Claude (n. 2 above) 40-43. Nehlsen (n. 12 above) 165f. Codex Euricianus 323, ed. K. Zeumer, MGH Leges Visigothorum (1902) 23f.

16. I. Wolfram,- "Gothische Studien II.," Mitteilungen des Instituts fuir dsterreichische Geschichtsforschung 83 (1975) 311f. and 321ff.

17. R. Hachmann, Die Goten und Skandinavien, Quellen und For-

schungen zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte der germanischen Volker N.F. 34 (1970) 124.

18. S. Feist, Vergleichendes Wdrterbuch der gotischen Sprache, ed. 3 (Leiden 1939) 298 sub voce "iusiza." Sidonius Apollinaris, Carmina

(n. 10 above) VII vv. 399 and 431, 213f. 19. Thompson, Wisigoths in the Time of Ulfila (n. 6 above) 21ff. 20. Cf. Ibid. 64ff. 21. Wolfram, "Gotische Studien II." (n. 16 above) 311f. n. 101, ac-

cording to Eunapios frag. 37.

158

HERWIG WOLFRAM

fourth century designated the Transdanubian land of the Gothic people acquired the new meaning of the army of the Goths.22

In these Transdanubian areas (Dacia) the Vesi did not con- stitute a homogenious tribe but were organized in families called Kunja (from Kuni related to the English Kin). During the period of migration these differentiations disappeared. Now the Vesi were divided in groups according to the metric system, which was found among all nomadic horsemen. These changes also brought with it basic institutional changes. The Danubia-Vesi did not have a king in the usual sense of the word. Rather, they had a judge who shared his power with the aristocracy.23 The perpipathetic Gothic army soon became subordinated to a king in the full sense. According to Gothic tradition the federated Visigoths elected Alaric I as king in 395. Recent scholarship has questioned this tradition on the grounds that the fifth century sources were so confused and inaccurate in their political terminology that it is impossible to infer what really happened in 395.24 In my opinion, this skepti- cism is unwarranted. Here I do not wish to get involved with the conflicts of interpretation.25 I only with to point out that a migrating tribe could not have survived in Roman territory without the very centralized institution called kingship. Only a king could decree defection to the Romans a felony and punish Gothic deser- ters.26 Further, a king differed from a chieftain in that the king could not trade his people for any improvement of his own status within the Roman world.27 As king, that is, as a partial and re-

22. See n. 16. 23. Wolfram, "Gotische Studien II." (n. 16 above) 310f. n. 100 and

319 n. 121. H. Wolfram, "Athanaric the Visigoth: monarchy or judgeship. A study in comparative history," Journal of Medieval History 1 (1975) 265ff.

24. Claude, Adel, Kirche und K6nigtum (n .2 above) 21f?. 25. However, it can be challenged whether this scepticism is valid.

For instance, Olympiodorus clearly shows that in his opinion Alaric I holds the same ethnic mandate as his successors down to Theoderic I whose kingship is no longer questioned. And Olympiodorus was quite familiar with the ethnic entities of his time since he even served as Roman ambassador to the Hunnish court. Cf. Olympiodorus frag. 3, 10, 26, and 35., E. A. Thompson, History of Attila and the Huns (Oxford 1948) 8 and 34.

26. Zosimos IV 25, 2 (Modares). A. H. M. Jones, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire 1 (Cambridge 1971) 372f. (Fravitta), and 605 (Modares). Cf. Procopius, De bello Gothico III (VII) 1, 41 (alleged reason for the murder of Uraias).

27. Fritigern, the conqueror of the battle of Adrianople in 378, would secretly offer his unconditional help to the Emperor only hours before the fight began. Fritigern, a Gothic chieftain, was not interested in destroying the system that could garantee his career as a Roman official. But a

159


gional usurper of imperial power,28 he had only two options open. Either gain imperial recognition as federate king on Roman soil, or

engage in a life and death struggle with the Emperor in order to

prove himself. Finally, only a successful king could provide permanent settlement and some sort of institutionalized order within the Roman world.

The Visigoths, like the elected people of the Bible, roamed

forty years through the "desert" until they reached their blessed

country, Aquitaine.29 The process of settlement was necessary to transform the Gothic kingship into a Gothic kingdom. Before that, everyone's position rested on the spoils of battle; a form of capital that could only be invested safely if the tribe became sedentary once again. As long as they were part of migrating Gothic groups, Gothic lords and noblemen had to subsist on what they had con-

quered and they had to replenish it constantly.30 Further, it was possible to lose everything in a single disastrous encounter. Thus, the Gothic leading strata became interested in the stability provided by an established kingship, located within a specific area. As soon as Theoderic I reached the agreement that allowed the Goths to settle in Aquitaine, the plurality of pretenders who sought the Visigothic throne disappeared. The Gothic upper strata gladly followed their king's victorious flag - in Gaul, in Italy, in Spain, which the Regnum Tolosanum used as both a crown colony and a field of maneuver. Only on the eve of the battle of Vouill6 when the happy days of Gothic expansion were over once and for all do the sources mention the existence of noble opposition. After then, the morbus Gothicus, the disease of Gothic kings of getting killed or at least deposed by their people, became endemic.

The Visigothic kingship changed the institutional structure of the tribe. Above all the kuni-system was abolished, which greatly facilitated the absorption of foreign elements. Thus the Visigothic

Gothic king felt differently and had to act differently. Ammianus Marcel- linus XXXI 12, 8f. Cf. Malchus frag. 14 (Theoderic Strabo's responsi- bilities toward his people).

28. Prudentius Contra Symmachum II 6 95f 29. Cf. Iordanes, Getica 251, 122, as to another "desert-period" in

Gothic history. 30. Claudianus, In Eutropium II vv. 194-299. 31. Procopius, De bello Gothico I (V) 12, 36-38. Cf. Gregorius of Tours

(n. 32)11 37. 32. Fredegar, Chronica IV 82, cf. Gregorius of Tours, Historia Fran-

corum III 30. H. Messmer, Hispania-ldee und Gotenmythos (Geist und Werk der Zeiten 5, 1960) 68 and 73.

160

HERWIG WOLFRAM

ethnogenesis started anew or, more properly speaking, a new Gothic ethnogenesis occurred. Already in 376, in Thrace-Bulgaria, indigenous mine-workers and impoverished peasants were incorporated in the Gothic army. Then, previously admitted Goths and enslaved prisoners flocked to the new-comers' flag.33 After the fall of Stilicho in 408, the Visigothic army was said to have been increased by thirty thousand men, and a few months later by forty thousand barbarian slaves whose liberation was obtained by Alaric at the gates of Rome in 409.34 Exaggerated though they may be, these figures point to some positive conclusions. The migrations of the Visigoths were a period of transition. During these forty years a rapid change in ethnic composition took place. The greatest impact on the Visigothic ethnogenesis was due to Ostrogothic groups. The Vesi in their Danubian homeland fought on foot, and even in 378 at the battle of Adrianopolis they had to wait .for the arrival of Ostrogothic horsemen in order to begin the fighting with a hope of victory.35 However, by 507 at the battle of Vouille the largest part of the Aquitanian Goths appeared to have been on horseback.36 This reorganization of armed force indicates a pro- found assimilation of the Visigothic tradition along Ostrogothic lines.7 In other words the Visigothic army served as a vehicle to bring the eastern ways of life to the west. On at least four different occasions Ostrogothic horsemen, even members of Theoderic the Great's royal family, sided with the Visigoths "to become again one body as they used to be."38 This Ostrogothic immigration lasted from the seventies of the fourth to the seventies of the fifth century.

In sum, from literary and toponymic evidence we can tell that

33. Ammianus Marcellinus XXXI 6, 5f. On the other hand, the Visi- gothic group of Wulfila refused to join them. Wulfila's followers had fallen victims to Gothic persecutions around 348 and from 369 to 372. Now, they did not feel like travelling with semi-nomadic barbarians. Thompson, Wisigoths in the Time of Ulfila (n. 6 above) 103f. K. Schaferdiek "German- enmission," Reallexikon f'r Antike und Christentum 10 (1977) col. 504.

34. Zosimos V 35, 6, and 42, 3. 35. Ammianus Marcellinus XXXI 12, 10 - 13, 12. H. Wolfram, "Die

Schlacht von Adrianopel," Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Anzeiger der philologisch-historischen Klasse 114 (1977) 239ff. and 247ff.

36. R. Wenskus, Stammesbildung und Verfassung (Koln 1961) 469 n. 244. Gregorius of Tours (n. 31 above).

37. W. Kienast, Studien iuber die franz6sischen Volksstimme des FniThmittelalters (Pariser Historische Studien 7, 1968) 170.

38. Iordanes, Getica 284, 131. Wolfram, "Die Schlacht" (n. 35 above) 248 n. 104.

161


in Gothic Aquitaine there existed at least the following peoples and ethnic groups: the Gothic Vesi and Ostrogoths, Galindi from the Baltic Sea, Thracian-Roman Bessi, Vandals, Alans, and other Sarmatian denominations such as the Taifali in Poitou, and also some West-Germanic splinters such as the Varni, Rhine-Thurin- gians and Western Eruls.39 This catalogue, incomplete though it may be, indicates the variety of the polyethnic entity that called themselves Goths as opposed to the Roman indigenous population.40 Both groups stood under the direct rule of a king, despite the fact that at least until about 466 Aquitaine was still officially Roman territory and part of the Roman Empire.

How long the Aquitanian Goths remained Roman federates is still a disputed issue. Following Andre Loyen, one believes that the problem is easier to solve than usually assumed.41 As

long as the Roman Empire exercised enough power to make it worth- while for the Goths to be its faithful federates, they obeyed the Emperor - at least in theory. When, however, King Euric had realized that the foedus no longer paid off, he broke the treaty and conquered almost all Roman land in Spain and in Gaul south of the Loire river and west of the Alps. Then he ruled in his own

right this vast territory of more than 750,000 square kilometers, over six times as large as his father's federated kingdom.42

The shaping of the Visigothic Kingdom offers a better opportunity to examine the vast spectrum of difficulties that went with the rise of barbarian statehood in Roman territory. The relationship between the Goths and the Romans constituted the fundamental problem of the formation and even more of the survival of the King- dom of Toulouse. In considering a Gothic kingdom in Roman territory, scholars usually concentrate upon the Italian kingdom of Theodoric the Great. However, Theodoric only continued what Odoa-

er, Rikimer and the last Western Emperors of the fifth century had

39. Rouche (n. 2 above) 125ff. (Goths and Taifali). Kienast (n. 37 above) 87 n. 43 (Galindi). E. Gamillscheg, Romania Gernanica. 1 (1934) 338 (Bessi). C. Courtois, Les Vandales et l'Afrique, ed. 2 (Paris 1964) 46 (Vandals and Suevians). B.S. Bachrach, A History of the Alans in the West (University of Minnesota Press 1973) 137ff. (Alans; the list of Alan place names is the only somewhat reliable part of the book). Cassio- dorus, Variae III 3, 3; Sidonius Apollinaris, Epistulae (n.10 avove) VIII 9,5 wv. 31-32; Iordanes, Getica 233, 117 (Varni, Rhine-Thuringians and West- ern Eruls). Cf. n. 59.

40. Schmidt (n. 2 above) 503f. 41. Loyen (n. 2 above) 414f. 42. Iordanes, Getica 237, 118, and 284, 131. Stroheker (n. 3 above) 88f.

162

HERWIG WOLFRAM

started, that is to rule the Italian dioceses.43 Instead, the Aqui- tanian Visigoths created their realm in little more than a small province and some city-districts, and only their fourth king was able to conquer the better part of the Gallic-Spanish praefectura.

Beginning in 414 at recently conquered Narbonne, King Athaulf celebrated his marriage with the imperial princess Placidia, the sister of Emperor Honorius and the daughter of Emperor Theodosius. At this wedding, the Gothic king remarked that he originally had intended to replace Romania by Gothia. However, he had re- nounced this project because the Goths were incapable of creating an institutionalized state according to law. So he decided to become Rome's innovator and protector.44 Whatever one may think of the historic value of this famous formula, which certainly had its place in Roman rhetoric, the attitude of Athaulf - at the start more hostile than amicable towards the Romans - seems to have been sincere.45 Athaulf had his son baptized with the name of his imperial grandfather, Theodosius. The son, however, died several months after his birth and the gift of his name remained only a political program. That program included the pretensions of the infant to both the imperial throne and the Gothic kingdom, pretensions which the Goths soon recognized were far beyond their powers.46 As part of the army that defended all of Gaul in 451 at the battle of the Plains of Chalons; the Goths did extremely well. Aetius, the Roman commander-in-chief, defeated the Huns led by Attila. Because of the unreliable Alan group of Orleans, the very heart of the multinational Gallic army were the Goths. The Alans had to be divided up between the Goths in such a way that they could neither pass over on to the side of the Huns nor flee.47 But when the Goths tried to make an emperor of their own choice, they failed. In 455, when Theoderic II talked his professor Avitus into accepting the imperial distinctions, the support of the Goths was not enough to keep the Gallic senator alive, let alone long in the position of Augustus.48

43. Cf. A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284-602, 1 (Oxford 1964) 238ff.

44. E.A. Thompson, "The Visigoths from Fritigem to Euric" Historia 12 (1963) 105ff.

45. J. Straub, Regeneratio Imperil (Darmstadt 1972) 212f., and 264f. 46. Claude, Adel Kirche und Konigtum (n. 2 above) 30. Ibid. Geschich-

te der Westgoten (n. 8 above) 22. 47. Sidonius Apollinaris, Carmina (n. 10 above) VII vv. 230-240, and

w. 316-356. Iordanes, Getica 186-218, 106-114. 48. Sidonius Apollinaris, Carmina (n. 14 above) VII w. 357ff. Claude,

Geschichte der Westgoten (n. 8 above) 30f.

163


On several occasions, Romans had already expressed their allegiance to the Goths. When in 439 the existence of the kingdom was in question, the inhabitants of the Gothic lands sided with the Goths against a Roman army. The general Litorius threatened to take Toulouse with pagan Hunnish mercenaries. Since he wanted to surpass his master Aetius, he refused the mediation of some Catholic bishops and continued to fight. Despite brilliant initial success he lost the battle and his life. Even the indigenous Roman Catholics celebrated the Gothic victory as the liberation of their native soil from foreign oppression and the end of an evil-doer and frequentor of pagan practices.49

Around 470 the number of Roman functionaries who wanted to end the general misery with the aid of the Goths increased. We know of two Roman generals, Vincentius and Victorius, who continued their careers as Gothic duces and conquered the last strong- holds of Roman resistance in the name of the Gothic King. This seems to be the more unusual since both belonged to the nobility they fought; Victorius was a member of the senatorial class in

Auvergne, Vincentius probably a nobleman of the Spanish province of Taragon. These men and others like them were nevertheless not traitors. They made decisions based on self-interest when the withdrawal of the Roman government created a political and military vacuum which furthered internal strife among the indigenous senatorial families. The Arverne nobility fought the Goths almost five

years longer than the Roman Emperor did.5 Then they joined themselves to the new lords. Their feeling of having been abandoned by the imperial government seems to have accelerated this

process considerably. Arverne horsemen sided with the losing Goths in the battle of Vouille.51

However, it is safe to conclude that only the legislation of Euric and that of his son Alaric II prove a genuine cooperation between Goths and Romans. This cooperation was forged first by conflict and then by cohabitation. Thus in the first Latin-Barbarian

Kingdom a community was established which followed a Roman

49. Courcelle (n. 14 above) 98-100, 145f., and 347 n. 1. Rouche (n. 2 above) 14ff.

50. K.F. Stroheker, Der senatorische Adel im spatantiken Gallien (Tibingen 1948, new print Darmstadt 1970) 148 n. 37 (Arvandus), 217-219 n. 358 (Sidonius Apollinaris and Victorius), 215f. n. 352 (Seronatus). K.F. Stroheker, Germanentum und Spiitantike (Zurich 1965) 77.

51. Stroheker, Der senatorische Adel (n. 50 above) 145 n. 22 (Apol- linaris).

164

HERWIG WOLFRAM

model, that is statehood regulated by written law. The legislation of Euric is at the base of both Visigothic and non-Visigothic law codes, and formed the basis of the laws of the Bavarians in the

52 Alpine countries until the end of the early middle ages.5

Usually one attributes the overwhelming success of King Clovis and his Frankish lev6e-en-masse at Vouille to the fact that the king had converted to Catholicism, which, supposedly, induced the Roman-Catholic majority of the Gothic kingdom to have greeted the Catholic Franks as liberators. Textbooks still keep repeating what Gregory of Tours has us believe of the Arian Goths. It is not true. The Kingdom of Toulouse did not perish as a result of religious controversies or because Clovis took advantage of an innate Gothic-Roman conflict. The reasons for the collapse of the King- dom are manifold and complex and among them one reason is mis- sing - lack of Roman support. If we have a closer look at what is commonly labeled Euric's and Alaric II's anti-Catholic policy, we will discover that these measures were of political rather than of religious nature.53

It is true that Euric and Alaric I1 persecuted and exiled Catho- lic bishops. But almost all of them were either representatives of Roman resistance or incumbents of those sees situated at the Gothic border with most parts of their dioceses belonging to neighboring kingdoms. These bishops had to cooperate with the enemies of the Goths as long as they wanted to uphold their jurisdictional rights. They thus became suspect to the Gothic kings. After 475, Sidonius Apollinaris had to leave his bishopric of Clermont. He

spent two years in exile for having been the spiritual leader of the Arverne resistance against the Goths. The man who sent him to exile obviously was his relative Victorius, the "Roman" dux of the Gothic army in Auvergne and Aquitaine. Reading Sidonius' letters one can observe that there was little dogmatic controversy between the Roman Catholic clergy and the Arian Goths.54 Further-

52. P. Classen, "Fortleben und Wandel spatr6mischenUrkundenwesens im Friihen Mittelalter. Recht und Schrift im Mittelalter," Vortrige und Forschungen 23 (Sigmaringen 1977) 18ff., and especially H. Nehlsen, "Aktualitit und Effektivitat der altesten germanischen Rechtsaufzeich- nungen," ibid. 483ff. Stroheker, Eurich (n. 3 above) 98ff. Idem., Ger- manentum und Spdtantike (n. 50 above) 122f.

53. K. Schiferdiek, Die Kirche in den Reichen der Westgoten und Suewen bis zur Errichtung der westgotischen katholischen Staatskirche (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 39 Berlin 1967) 18ff, Gregorius of Tours (n. 32 above) II 35.

54. Schaferdiek (n. 53 above) 30f. and 37ff. Cf. n.50.

165


more it appears as though Theoderic II and Euric could rely on the support of Roman crypto-Arians from all over the Roman world who found both an asylum and new activities at the Court of Toulouse.55 On the other hand, these Goths who were separated from the prin- cipal tribe were rapidly converted to Catholicism through assimilation.56 Assimilation also affected the Goths of Toulouse. Roman law interdicted connubium, intermarriage with strangers, and the Aquitanian Goths accepted this as a matter of fact. But when it was abolished it was considered to be a social rather than an ethnic discrimination.57

There is still some controversy over the disappearance of the Gothic language in Aquitaine. However, the end of the fifth century marks the end of the creative use of the Gothic language.5 Already around 470, Gothic place names betray an obvious shift in the structure of the language. Before, the sort of Saxon genetive type of Harjanis villa, Harjan's village, prevailed, but afterwards we find villa Harjanis or just Harjanis, that is belonging to Harjan. A word might be proper as to the problem of Gothic place names as a whole. Although the Goths had nothing to do with the shaping of the present French-German language border, French and German historians and philologists are equally interested in the Gothic

toponomy for different reasons. The French play down and the Germans increase the number of Gothic place names, since the former are reluctant and the latter anxious to discover influences of the Germanic Goths.59

However, it is pointless to use place names in order to esta- blish demographic figures, since the Goths did not colonize Aqui- taine and were bilingual in any case. There was no need of intro-

ducing a great many new toponyms since existent place names were understood. Only rarely were new names invented, such as when Goths settled in formerly uncultivated or abandoned land.60 One

55. Schaferdiek, Die Kirche (n. 53 above) 110f. (Aiax), cf. 28f. (Modahari). 56. Claude, Geschichte der Westgoten (n. 8 above) 27. 57. Leges Visigothorum III 1, 1. 58. Ennodius, Vita Epifani 89, ed. F. Vogel, MGH Auctores Anti-

quissimi 7 (1885) 95, refers to the year 475 when Epifanius visited with King Euric at Toulouse. The Pavian bishop stated that the Visigothic King spoke Gothic. This is the last evidence of the vivid use of the Visigothic language.

59. Kienast (n. 37 above) 43f. n. 4f., gives an excellent survey on the

problem. Rouche (n. 2 above) 125ff., proposes by far the best solution of the problem. Cf. Gamillscheg (n. 39 above) 347ff. Cf. n. 39f.

60. Df. Sidonius Apollinaris, Epistulae (n. 10 above) III 5, 2. On the

166

HERWIG WOLFRAM

has to define what is meant by Gothic bilingualism. The evidence points to a bilingual or rather multilingual Roman barrack language which the Goths adopted. They thus became not only familiar with Roman every-day slang but also with institutional, religious, and

military language and concepts. They learned enough Latin to understand their Roman "hosts."61 The place name Harjanis villa

proves a mish-mash, hybrid language after all. To summarize, the Goths who settled in Aquitaine lived ac-

cording to ethnic traditions and political experiences dating not

only from the period of their migrations but recalling the time when

they populated the vast areas north of the Danube. The Danubian- Gothic element dominated, but among the other groups of barbarians or rebarbarized peoples one should not overlook the Ostrogothic contribution to the Regnum Tolosanum. As a result of the political and ecclesiastical circumstances of the fourth century the Goths had adopted Arianism. But until the end of the Aquitanian Kingdom it is impossible to prove that the Visigoths followed an anti-Catho- lic policy. It is interesting to note that the great controversy took

place only during the period immediately preceding the conversion of the Spanish Visigoths in 589. In the relationship between Goths and Romans one must distinguish several levels. In personal relationships, a feeling of mutual antipathy dominated for a long time. In the political sector, the functionaries of the imperial government, as well as those of the regional Roman institutions, took into account the fact that the exercitus Gothorum was an executive organ that sometimes was the only means to guarantee interior and exterior peace. The Gothic army was just another barbaric army in the Roman service and certainly no less Latinized than what the sources euphemistically call Roman troops. This is why, and most strikingly so, that the Roman generals spared the Goths "often conquered but never annihilated." The Romans who did not hold to this rule could be sure of encountering opposition on the part of their compatriots. During the reign of Euric the

foedus, the treaty, between the Romans and the Goths was finally buried.63 The battle of Vouille, however, did not signify the end of an historical process which one could call the assimilation be-

problem of the agri deserti see A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 2 (n. 43 above) 812.

61. H. Wolfram, "Gotische Studien III.," Mitteilungen des Instituts fiir osterreichische Geschichtsforschung 84 (1976) 244ff.

62. Orosius VII 37, 2. 63. See n. 41.

167


tween the barbarians and Romans in Gaul during the early Middle

Ages, but it ended the rule of the Goths in Aquitaine. Contempor- aries already considered the events of the year 507 as decisive,64 as we do today. Thus the geopolitical and strategic structure of Gaul - in since Julius Caesar - was destroyed. From the beginning of the sixth century it was no longer possible to conquer Gaul except from the North. Arab efforts failed as did all other overt resistance in the South against the North. On this point, the Goths in Aquitaine had followed the Roman experience and tradition. It is not surprising that their ancient territory of settlement, unlike

Burgundy and Normandy and even France itself, is not called today "Gothy" but still Aquitaine.

64. Chronicon Caesaraugustanum a. 507 (n. 4 above). Iordanes, Getica 245, 121.

168

the goths in aquitaine

Documents