The Vandal Sack of Rome
The Vandal sack of Rome is one of the most notorious events in history, by which the Vandals gained a lasting, but wrongful reputation. Thus I wanted to present a few thoughts on it.
The story so far…
By 455 the Vandal Kingdom in Africa had been established as major power of the Mediterranean. King Gaiseric, an old man born near Balaton in Pannonia, had led his people and various others on a perilous march through the old Roman Empire, and created a new powerful kingdom in Africa. The naval power of the Vandals – or the lack of a proper Roman military fleet – ensured Gaiseric raids on the Italian shores were soon felt at the Imperial court.
However with immanent threats and internal quarrels, there was little choice left but to accept Vandal rule over Africa. In 442 a treaty affirmed the Vandal possessions, but more important a dynastic alliance had been formed. Gaiseric’s son Huneric was betrothed to Theodosius’ granddaughter Eudocia, daughter of Valentinian and Eudoxia. The alliance lasted, and indeed Vandal fleet operations supported Flavius Aetius’ actions in 447, but the stage for the sack of Rome was set.
It was not long after Aetius was murdered that Valentinian was murdered by Maximus too. His murderer took Eudoxia as his wife. And here the story begins, or at least, what ancient texts tell us:
And as soon as day came, she sent to Carthage entreating Gizeric to avenge Valentinian […] and to deliver her […].And she impressed it upon Gizeric that, since he was a friend and ally and so great a calamity had befallen the imperial house, it was not a holy thing to fail to become an avenger. For from Byzantium she thought no vengeance would come, since Theodosius had already departed from the world and Marcian had taken over the empire.
And Gizeric, for no other reason than that he suspected that much money would come to him, set sail for Italy with a great fleet.
(Procopius Bella 3,4,38 – 3,5,1)
The story of Eudocia calling for deliverance is repeated in a lot of texts such as Johannes Malalas, Priscus, or Hydatius. If it was a rumor or a lie or a propagandistic pretence, it was nevertheless a contemporary rumor, lie, or pretence, because there is a reference to this story as early as 456 (Sidonius Apollinaris carmina 5,61).
As for Gaiseric, he certainly did not need money, he was affirmed ruler over the richest provinces of the west, and had a lot better reason to go: Should a new Imperial dynasty arise in Rome, Gaiseric’s position in Africa and his treaty itself were in severe danger.
The Sack of Rome
What the Vandals did was a very controlled show of force. Appearing, Maximus fled without attempting to fight and was killed. There was no fighting whatsoever, no slaughter, and no fire. Christian authors attributed this to the power of Pope Leo:
Post hunc Maximi exitum, confestim secuta east multis dignas lacrymis Romana captivitas, et Urbem omni praesidio vacuum Gensericus [another form of the name Gaiseric] obtinuit, occurente sibi extra portas sancto Leone episcopo: cujus supplication ita eum, Deo agente, lenivit …
(Prosper of Aquitaine, Chronicle; I don’t have an English translation at home, but Latin will do)
Pope Leo seemed to have a habit of negotiating with invaders; it does not take much to see this story parallels the meeting of Leo and Attila a few years earlier:
Therefore while Attila's spirit was wavering in doubt between going and not going, and he still lingered to ponder the matter, an embassy came to him from Rome to seek peace. Pope Leo himself came to meet him in the Ambuleian district of the Veneti at the well-travelled ford of the river Mincius. Then Attila quickly put aside his usual fury, turned back on the way he had advanced from beyond the Danube and departed with the promise of peace.
(Jordanes Getica 223)
As much as Attila had good military reason to turn back, Gaiseric had political reason not to slaughter. Remember he came as avenger of the just ruling dynasty and saviour of Eudoxia and her family. He had nothing to win and a lot to lose by senselessly killing and destroying.
What he ordered was the opposite of ‘Vandalism’ – the Vandals plundered Rome, but did not destroy any cultural goods; they carefully loaded them on their ships and sailed home with the treasures. The extent of the plundering was massive, still felt long after it was done:
Our predecessors did not deserve this favor of God, as they were not only not permitted to liberate Africa, but even saw Rome itself captured by the Vandals, and all the Imperial insignia taken from thence to Africa.
(Codex Iustinianus 1,27)
However all of the booty was still intact and not damaged, as Procopius proudly recounts their ‘return’ to Constantinople:
And there was booty,—first of all, whatever articles are wont to be set apart for the royal service,—thrones of gold and carriages in which it is customary for a king's consort to ride, and much jewelry made of precious stones, and golden drinking cups, and all the other things which are useful for the royal table. And there was also silver weighing many thousands of talents and all the royal treasure amounting to an exceedingly great sum (for Gizeric had despoiled the Palatium in Rome, as has been said in the preceding narrative), and among these were the treasures of the Jews, which Titus, the son of Vespasian, together with certain others, had brought to Rome after the capture of Jerusalem.
(Bella 4,9,4-5)
The careful reader has noticed the ‘Roman’ treasures very well included the booty of earlier Roman conquests.
The Aftermath
While concentrating on the treasures and the money, people forget the large number of hostages taken by Gaiseric – in good Roman tradition, not in ‘barbarian’, just to be clear in this matter. Placidia, another daughter of Eudoxia was already betrothed to Anicius Olybrius, which Gaiseric honored.
It was a political failure. In a long term he could not prevent a hostile Roman government coming to power, so the war between Rome and the Vandals had not ended with the sack of Rome, it had just begun.
Called the fourth Punic War by Sidonius Apollinaris, major combat operations were conducted between 455 and 462. Taking Corsica and Sardinia, but unable to hold much of Sicily, the turning point was marked by a failed invasion of Africa attempted by Majorian.
Well aware of his vulnerable position, Gaiseric concluded a new treaty with Leo, the Eastern Emperor, returning Eudoxia and Placidia. It did little to improve the relations with the WRE though. As Gaiseric’s favorite Olybrius was not appointed Emperor of the West but the candidate of Ricimer, his arch-rival in the recent years, Gaiseric intensified naval operations against Italy. The political favor of the east turned once more, and so both Emperors launched a joint amphibious operation against Gaiseric.
The given number of 100.000 soldiers (Procopius Bella 3,6,1) is certainly inflated , but the scale of the Roman defeat in 468 was huge.
Gaiseric died some ten years later, coming from almost nothing he secured his people a home in Africa. However he never really managed to secure a firm position within the Roman world by Roman style diplomacy. Roman court intrigues as well as his own ambitions stood in the way of Gaiseric’s long term goals. The sack of Rome is part of this failure; nevertheless the reputation the Vandals gained is not justified.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by FliegerAD
)
