Visigoths and Romans during the fourth century AD.

Assimilation, resistance and

cultural interferences,
in Analele Universitatii Bucuresti, istorie, XLV, 1996, pp. 31-36.
Cristian Olariu
-31-

In the third century, in the conditions of the military anarchy, there appeared a new
danger on the Roman imperial frontieres. In AD 238, there is registered the first massive
attack of the Gothic populations over the Roman Empire. Several authors had spoken
about this new "plague" occured over the Empire. Indeed, during more than two
centuries, the Gothic populations threatened the security of the Roman frontier, especially
in the Danube area. On the other hand, these Germanic populations were by far the most
influenced barbarians in contact with the Roman Empire. Their area of settlement was
mainly Bessarabia, Muntenia, Moldavia and the Eastern and Central parts of
Transylvania [1]. But, in the Visigothic area of settlement, there also existed Taifali,
Sarmati, former Roman provincial inhabitants, Carpi and even Iranian populations [2] ;
also, as a consequence of the barbarian raids of the third century, there were in this area
even groups of Roman prisoners from Asia Minor (see for example the case of Ulfilas'
forefathers, captured by plundering Goths in "the village of Sadagolthina in the city
district of Parnassus, Cappadocia, and were carried off to Transdanubia" [3].
The Visigothic social structure was one of an "heroic" or "barbarian" organisation, and
the contact with the Romans helped to strengthen the power of the aristocracy. The
barbarian aristocracy was directly interested in raising it's social status, by achieving
prestige goods by all means: plundering raids, commerce, or negotiations. It's position in
the Visigothic society was threatened

-32-

by the great social mobility, through which every able warrior could raise it's status and
became a new member of the aristocracy. On the other hand, the aristocratic status was
not very well defined, due to the period of migrations. There were several tribal chiefs,
who saw themselves as the leaders of the community, but their position could be
threatened at any moment by some able newly-raised leaders. During the fourth century,
we are witnesses of a sedentarization of the Visigoths, in the areas quoted above. One of
the main problems in the Romanian archaeology is that it could not be found any material
traces of this aristocracy (i. e. hillforts, palaces, etc.) except some treasures (i. e. the well-
known treasure from Pietroasa, Botosani, Tauteni-Bihor, Someseni-Cluj, Simleul
Silvaniei [4], and some finds in the fourth century cemeteries. On this base, it could only
be suggested some ideas about the Visigothic social structures.
Also, the literary sources could provide us with some information; unfortunately, these
sources are extremely few, and they are not very reliable, partly because they are biased
by their authors' Roman origin. We have only accidental information from the Roman
side, which concerns events in direct relation with the Roman history, and the Gothic
authors (such as Iordanes) are extremely late for the period in discussion. On the other
side, there are the Germanic legends preserved thorugh Scandinavian tradition, and these
legends could tell us something about the Germanic social structures [5].
 Beginning from these points, we shall try to reconstruct the Visigothic society of the
fourth century. On the top of the social hierarchy there were the members of the
aristocracy. They are in some way archaeologically registered in the cemeteries; for
example, there are rich burials which could reflect a social stratification- M 501, M 507
from Barlad-Valea Seaca [6], M 37, M 65, M 67 from Spantov [7], M 143, M 179, M 195
from Targsor [8], etc. Also, there are registered some "clans" which acquired during the
migrations high social prestige, as a consequence of their leading role: for example, H.
Wolfram recorded the clans of the Amali, the Balthi and the Rosomoni [9].
A characteristic of the Gothic aristocracy was it's multiethnic character. There was not
simply a Visigothic aristocracy, formed on ethnic bases, but rather a "barbarian
aristocracy", which comprised more or less some non-German elements. There is for
example recorded the invasion of Rausimodus, in 323 [10] ; in Zosimos' account,
Rausimodus was a Sarmathian,

-33-
not a Goth; another example is suggested by V. Palade at M 501 from Barlad-Valea
Seaca, where there were discovered a gold medallion, a glass from Roman import, and a
glass pitcher, all these seeming to belong to "an individual of a superior social
condition" [11], but especially M 507, "the wealthiest Santana de Mures burial"[12] , and
which was suggested to belong "surely to a local native chieftain"[13] .
Also, at Viespesti, south-east of Muntenia, in 1926 there was discovered a monetary
treasure dated AD 352- 366, in a Sarmathian context [14] . All these facts seem to
strengthen the idea of a mixed aristocracy, from the ethnic point of view, and this
conducts to the idea that north of the Danube there existed mixed communities living
together, instead of a clear separation on ethnic bases. There are some proves which help
to reinforce the idea of mixed communities: for example, Gheraseni-Cremenea, in the
Buzau county, Sirna (Prahova county), Barlad-Valea Seaca, already mentioned, Falciu-
Bogdanesti, Banca-Gara, Zorleni-Fantanele, and so on. In all these settlements and
cemeteries it was archaeologically proved that there existed mixed communities, because
of the presence of mixed cemeteries, dated in the same period. The mixed living can also
be proved by the presence of the pottery of different types: the pottery of Dacian
tradition, combined with the typically Roman red ware, and the grey pottery, typical to
the Santana de Mures culture. Also, the burial ritual, both inhumation and cremation,
together with the burial inventory, help to strengthen the dea that there are mixed
communities, natives and alogenous populations [15].
From the religious point of view, the introduction of the Arian Christianism proved to
be another major factor of dissonance within the barbarian society [16]. It was suggested
that the Christianism was deliberately introduced by the Romans (the emperor Valens) in
order to divide the barbarian society . As a reaction, there are registered in the literary
sources the persecutions carried on by Athanaric, the "judge" of the Thervingi, against the
Christians [17], and, as a consequence, the Visigothic aristocracy was divided into two
main factions: the pagans, grouped around Athanaric, and the Christians, under the
leadership of Fritigern. Between Fritigern and Athanaric there was a conflict for the
-34-
supreme leadership of the Thervingi, conflict also mentioned by the literary sources [18] ;
more vagueness is in Eunapios' record, because in fr. 60, in the context of the Gothic
revolt after the crossing of the Danube in the Empire (after 376), he registered the
existence of two main factions, one pro-Roman, the other against the Romans.
What is interesting is the fact that the Visigothic society was developed as an
intermediary society, between the sedentary civilization of the Romans, and the nomadic
cultures of former Scythia. Accordin to this idea, there could be observed some gradual
transformations in the Gothic society. Whilst the Ostrogoths developed a strong military
monarchy, copying the model of "nomadic" monarchies, where the king is an absolute
monarch (for the case of king Ermanarich, see the legend of Hamdir and Sorli [19], as
Attila of the Huns had been some decades later, the Visigoths never succeeded in creating
a strong military kingship. They rather created the "judgeship", a supreme military
command during the war [20]. In any case, the judge was seen rather as a primus inter
pares than an incontestable leader during the war This was an essential feature of the
Germanic way of carrying the war. The Germanic army could be better seen as a coalition
of warbands, than a regular army, under a supreme leader. The chiefs were extremely
independent in their actions, for example, during the times of official peace, the Gothic
raiders (latrunculi) who attacked the Roman provinces [21] . Speaking about raiders, it
must be stressed the fact that raids were an essential part of the barbarian economy; to be
more explicit, the raid was a fundamental mean of strengthening the links between the
chief and his warriors. The chief was in a way obliged to raid the neighbouring territories,
in order to achieve and maintain high status by providing his warriors with supplies and
prestige goods (such as jewellery, gold pieces, fine weapons, etc.).
There has already been mentioned that there were conflicts between Athanaric and
Fritigern, conflicts assumed to be on religious bases; but, as well as religious bases, the
conflict could have on it's origins prestige or status motives, because Socrates informs us
that Fritigern became Arian only after he defeated Athanaric with Roman help [22]. The
Roman policy towards the barbarians seemed clear in this case: to help the weaker part in
the conflict, in order to weaken the barbarian threat over the frontiers of the Empire. But
the entire foreign policy of the Roman state was centred around this point: to divide the
barbarian tribes, in order to secure the Roman frontiers.
-35-

Besides the introduction of Christianism as a state policy, there were some other
cultural fields where the Roman influence was significant. For example, it was suggested
that the wearing of the so-called "Gothic" brooch was inspired by the late Roman
ceremonial [23]. On the other hand, some German kings and chiefs increased their social
status by acquiring Roman military commands, and in this sense there are recorded for
the late fourth century the case of Alaric, both magister militum per Illyricum and rex of
the Goths, or the case of Vadomarius, both dux Phoenices and king of the Alamanni in
361/366 [24], or the best-known case of Gainas, who acted as magister militum and as a
Gothic chief during the events of 399/400 at Constantinople [25]. As Roman
commanders, they were integrated in the Roman social system, which prestige among the
barbarians was huge in the fourth century. According to this fact, the barbarian chiefs
could receive high military honours and even payments for their peoples. Also, the
Roman gifts helped to increase the barbarian chiefs' status among their equals.
In the field of the material culture, there has been discovered plenty of Roman imports,
especially Roman pottery: at Copuzu [26], Ulmeni-Buzau [27], Izvoare-Piatra
Neamt [28], Sirna-Prahova [29], Barlad-Valea Seaca [30] and so on.
What is interesting to observe is the fact that it can also be found Santana de Mures
pottery in the frontier Roman provinces (for example at Dinogetia, Ulmetum, Runcu,
Tropaeum Traiani [31], so there existed along the Danube frontier a space of mixed
populations, both Romans and barbarians. The Roman tendency was to close as much as
possible the frontier, fact proved to be impossible. The Romans also tried to control the
contacts with the barbarians; it is suggestive in this sense the imperial decreee
promulgated by Valentinian, Valens and Gratian, in which the emperors forbade the
transport in the barbarian territories of wine, oil and alcoholic drinks, dated c. a. 370-
375 [32], and the war between Valens and Athanaric in 367-369, when the Romans closed
the frontier to the barbarian commerce, and thus they were forced to ask for peace [33].

-36-
So, the Lower Danube zone could be defined as a frontier zone, where both Romans
and barbarians lived together. It's geographical character also helped rather to unite than
to separate the two banks of the river, and the Roman limes was those which generated a
separation between the two banks of the river. North of the Danube there were mixed
populations, "barbarian" in character, but looking towards the river to the Roman model,
and trying in some way to imitate it. The prestige of the Roman Empire was also an
important factor in the influence over the barbarians. On the other hand, the Roman
society was "barbarised" at certain levels, especially on the military one. There are
registered several Gothic military units who served in the Roman army [34], and some of
the Gothic chiefs raised their status even to the privilege of consulship (i. e. Fravitta,
consul in 401 with Fl. Vincentius [35].
The events of 376 and after, well-konwn by the historiography, marked a new stage in
Romano-Gothic relations' evolution, especially the foedus of 382. The foedus marked the
recognition, for the first time by the Romans, of a barbarian political unit inside the
Roman frontiers. From this time on, the Goths appear as foederates of the Roman
Empire, but a special kind of foederates. If in the previous period the Romans never dealt
with barbarians inside the Roman frontiers, from this time on, a new relationship had to
be developed, marking de facto the weakness of the Roman state; the Roman authorities
were faced with the first German "state" on Roman soil.
Footnotes:
1. See Iordanes, Getica, 74.
Return to text
2. H. Wolfram, History of the Goths, Berkeley, 1990, p. 8
Return to text
3. Philostorgius, HE, II. 5.
Return to text
4. See for bibliography R. Harhoiu, SCIVA, tom 43, 1992, 4, pp. 425- 431.
Return to text
5. See for example the legend about Hamdir and Sorli, and their fight against the king
Ermanarich, or the Viking sagas, quoted by H. Wolfram, op. cit., p. 34.
Return to text
6. V. Palade, in Materiale si cercetari arheologice, 13, Oradea, 1979, pp. 255-256.
Return to text
7. B. Mitrea, C. Preda, Necropole din secolul al IV-lea in Muntenia, Bucuresti, 1966.
Return to text
8. Gh. Diaconu, Targsor. Necropola din secolele III-IV e. n., Bucuresti, 1965.
Return to text
9. Wolfram, op. cit., pp. 32-35.
Return to text
10. Zosimus, II. 21. 1-3, 22. 1, Anon. Val. 5. 21.
Return to text
11. V. Palade, op. cit. p. 269.
Return to text
12. Ibidem.
Return to text
13. V. Palade, op. cit., p. 270.
Return to text
14. M. Butoi, A. Minca, in Materiale si cercetari arheologice, 13, Oradea, 1979, p. 273.
Return to text
15. See V. Palade, Carpica, XX, 1989; M. Alexianu, L. Ellis, Memoria Antiquitatis, XV-
XVII, 1987, p. 136.
Return to text
16. Paulus Orosius, VII. 33. 19.
Return to text
17. Auxentius, Epistula de fide, vita et obitu Ulfilae, in Fontes Historiae Daco- Romanae,
vol. II, Bucuresti, 1970; Augustinus, De civ. Dei, XVIII. 52; Socrates, HE, IV. 33. 1-7;
Passio s. Nicetae, 4.
Return to text
18. Socrates, HE, IV. 33. 1-7; Passio s. Nicetae, 3.
Return to text
19. Quoted by Wolfram, op. cit., p. 34.
Return to text
20. For the description of the judgeship, see Wolfram, op. cit., p. 95.
Return to text
21. For example, the inscription from Carcaliu, near Troesmis, in CIL, III, 12483=
Dessau, 724, dated c. 337-340.
Return to text
22. Socrates, HE, IV. 33. 1-7.
Return to text
23. See R. Harhoiu, op. cit., pp. 427-428.
Return to text
24. Amm. XVIII. 2. 16, XXI. 3. 5: "Ex duce et rege Alamannorum"; PLRE, I, 1971, p.
928.
Return to text
25. For the description of the events see Socrates, HE, VI. 6. 1 ff., Philost. XI. 8, Theod.
Cyr., HE, V. 32-3, Zosimus, V. 21. 9- 22. 2, Sozomenos, HE, 4. 1 ff., Joh. Ant. Fr. 190,
Eun. Fr. 82.
Return to text
26. C. Museteanu, Cultura si civilizatie la Dunarea de Jos, II, 1986, pp. 209- 221.
Return to text
27. M. Constantinescu, in Materiale si cercetari arheologice, 17, Bucuresti, 1993, pp.
315- 319.
Return to text
28. M. Alexianu, L. Ellis, op. cit.
Return to text
29. St. Olteanu, V. Teodorescu, M. Neagu, in Materiale si cercetari arheologice, 13,
Oradea, 1979, pp. 277- 279.
Return to text
30. V. Palade, Materiale si cercetari arheologice, 13, Oradea, 1979, pp. 265- 270.
Return to text
31. See M. Comsa, Pontica, 5, 1972, pp. 223- 234.
Return to text
32. Corpus Iuris Civilis, Codex Iustinianus, IV. 41. 4.
Return to text
33. See Amm. XXVII. 5. 7.
Return to text
34. See ND Or. V. 26. 31, VI. 26. 61, XXXIII. 15. 32, Occ. VI. 41. 59, VII. 166. 205.
Return to text
35. PLRE, I, 1971, s. v. Fravitta.
Return to text