It has been my privilege to re-tell the battles and wars of the Roman barbarian age so that the prominent individuals, the people they led and the cultures they hailed from, will not be forgotten. The time frame of the Roman barbarian wars spans over 800 years. This book provides a background of the founding of Rome and chronicles the first four centuries of the Roman barbarian wars. Those wars began in 390 BC, when the Gauls laid waste to Rome. Thereafter followed an era of nearly unrelenting Roman conquest. Only deep within the forests of Germania, four centuries later, was Roman expansion against the barbarians brought to a decisive halt.
The growth of her civilization put Rome at odds with other simultaneously expanding or migrating cultures. Around the Mediterranean, Rome clashed with the civilizations of Greece, Parthia and Carthage. In the Alps and the Balkans, amidst the plains, swamps and forests of Gaul, Britannia and Germania, and in the hills of Spain, the Romans faced a different sort of enemy. Here dwelt the Celts and Germans, Ligurians and Iberians, tribal peoples who are commonly referred to as barbarians.
The term barbarian requires some clarification. The word was coined by the Attican Greeks, who derided anyone else’s tongue as unintelligible chatter, i.e. “bar, bar, bar” or “barbarian”. Both Greek and Roman writers came to use it in reference to any culture outside the Greco-Roman world that they considered uncultured, backward and brutish. Thus the Romans denounced their Carthaginian arch-enemies as barbarians even though the Carthaginians were no less civilized than the Romans. More frequently, the term barbarian was used in reference to the Celts and Germans. Although the Celts reached a state of semi-civilization within their fortified towns, neither they nor the Germans were a literate people. They certainly had nothing to compare to the sprawling cities and the volumes of literature of the civilized Mediterranean world. What they did have, were unique cultures whose histories were as dramatic and enthralling as those of the classical world.
In order to bring the period to life and to avoid reducing the tribes and legions to names and numbers, I have included lively descriptions of the barbarian peoples and their Roman adversaries. The Roman Barbarian Wars reveals how the combatants fought, what they looked like and what the world was like that they lived in. To this end, sections of the text include recreated historical scenarios. The scenarios are based on a montage of information from archaeology and from primary and secondary written sources. For example, a source text written by a Roman or Greek historian may tell us of a battle but omit the weapons used by the combatants. To recreate a fight scene in that battle, I relied on weapons found in archaeological finds, weapons depicted in sculpture, and on weapon descriptions of relevant modern written sources.
Archaeology has revealed a picture of barbarian cultures more closely attuned to the natural world than the civilizations of the Mediterranean; of peaceful traders, farmers, hunters and craftsmen, but also of warriors who became even more warlike as their contact with the Roman world increased. Unfortunately, by its very nature, archaeology is limited in what it can tell us about a people’s history. Since the barbarian peoples had no written word of their own, the major source for their history comes from the reed-pens1 of classical historians. At times classical writers, most notably Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56–117), idolized the primitive innocence of the barbarians, when compared to the corruption and decadence of Rome. “Good morality is more effective in Germany than good laws are elsewhere,” and “no one in Germany finds vice amusing, or calls it ‘up-to-date’ to seduce and be seduced,”2 wrote Tacitus. Even Tacitus, however, stressed the warlike nature and inherent danger of the barbarian tribes, most notably the Germans. Although barbarian tribes were often allies of Rome, for the most part they were portrayed as savage hordes who presented a continual danger to the noble, civilized Romans.
From the Roman viewpoint the image of the warlike barbarians certainly had merit. Barbarians raided the provinces of the Empire and ravaged the countryside. To many tribes, banditry and looting were an honorable way of life. Entire peoples sought entrance into the Empire and if they were denied they readily turned to warfare. Roman soldiers taken prisoner were slaughtered, sacrificed, enslaved or tortured. However, the negative, warlike, Roman portrayal of the barbarians was hypocritical. After all, Roman civilization was based on aggression, conquest and slavery. Rape and massacres of the conquered peoples were the rule rather than the exception for Roman armies. The Romans reveled in violence on an unprecedented scale, even in their favorite social pastimes. Throughout the arenas of the empire, untold thousands of gladiators, war captives and wild animals were regularly killed, executed and tortured for the entertainment of the masses. “Thus love of violence was not simply an unsavory excrescence of the Roman social system; it was the gel which held it together.”3
On the other hand, political reasons often compelled Rome to spare those whom she defeated in battle. Utterly ruthless against her enemies, those that accepted her will were honored with loyalty and favor. If Rome brought oppression to the conquered, in the long term she also brought peace, Pax Romana, to regions once scourged by tribal wars and conflicts. By the same token, the barbarian tribes too could be capable of chivalrous deeds and often sought peaceful relations with Rome.
Not only did the Classical historians create a rather one-sided image of the tribal peoples of Europe, but because modern western civilization inherited so much from the classical world, the barbarians, both in popular culture and even in the academic world, are often not given their due. Even people untutored in classical history may have heard of the Carthaginian general Hannibal and of his crossing of the Alps with elephants to make war on Rome. But how many have heard of the battle of Arausio? Yet at Arausio more Roman soldiers were lost to a Germanic-Celtic army than at Hannibal’s celebrated victory of Cannae.4 “Julius Caesar” is a household name, but relatively few know of Arminius, whose victory over Rome’s legions in the depths of the Teutoburg forest can be considered among the most important battles in the history of the western world. Historians, too, have traditionally slighted the barbarians, being only too ready to accept as factual the impossibly huge barbarian armies presented in the classical sources.5 After all, if not by sheer numbers, how could poorly armed savages in furs defeat the disciplined legions of brilliant civilized Rome? In reality it was Rome, with her much larger population base and superior organization, who could field the larger armies. That being said, for sheer ingenuity, siege craft and tenacity, few armies in history can match the Roman legion in its prime.
The classical sources are usually not only patriotic and moralistic, and anything but unbiased, but they are often highly unclear and contradictory. Different sources can relate contradictory events and even within the same source there are often glaring contradictions. The authors often wrote about events that happened decades, if not centuries, before their own lifetimes so that they themselves may have been unclear on what really happened. Furthermore, the style of classical historians follows the oratory tradition of Greek epic poetry, which embellishes historical events. For example, the authors are fond of partially or wholly fictionalized dramatic speeches. “I have put into each speaker’s mouth,” wrote the 5th century historian Thucydides, “sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them.”6 I have included many such speeches to flesh out the historical narrative, but the reader should bear in mind to take these with a grain of salt. Besides the written inconsistencies and the fictionalized aspects, what the classical historians wrote is not always corroborated by archaeological finds. All these uncertainties necessarily lead to different speculations by modern historians on what really occurred. In order to keep the flow of the narrative, I’ve avoided crowding the text with justifications and alternative explanations and for the most part relegated these to a note section for each chapter.
The history of the barbarian peoples is filled with dramatic wars and migrations, and with charismatic and often farsighted leaders. Inevitably, their greatest challenge was their struggle with the renowned military might of Rome. Although often outnumbered and faced by better equipped and trained Roman legions, the barbarians could inflict devastating defeats upon Rome. Fickle in battle, the barbarian warrior was capable of reckless bravery. The Romans themselves admired the size and strength of the barbarians which, combined with a life of hardship and intertribal warfare, made them dangerous opponents. The barbarian cavalry was especially effective, so much so that Gallic, German, Spanish and Numidian mercenaries often provided the most formidable horsemen fighting under the Roman banner.
This book, however, is as much about Rome as it is about the barbarians. The text begins with the foundation of the city of Rome and follows her growth into a martial empire, complete with its pageantry and glory, its genius, its brutality and its arrogance. References to Rome’s wars with the civilizations of the Mediterranean world allow the reader to appreciate the Roman army’s commitment in multiple theatres of war and to understand Roman history in a larger context.
In the end, it is hoped that this book takes the reader to another time, to be immersed in the world and the battles of a tumultuous age, and to inspire him or her to learn more about the Roman barbarian wars.
L.H. Dyck