Barbarians crossing frozen Rhine: Why no response

[guy]

There have been many discussions about the controversies surrounding the barbarian crossing the “frozen” Rhine in 405/406.

Quote

“On New Year’s Eve, of either AD 405 or 406, a confederation of Vandals, Alans, and Sueves crossed the Rhine River and entered Roman Gaul. Then, according to Christian historian Paulus Orosius, ‘with a forward rush [they] reached as far as the Pyrenees, by the interjection of which they were temporarily repulsed and were poured back over the surrounding provinces.’ These invaders initially faced no opposition from Roman forces, destroying several major Gallic cities and devastating large parts of the countryside.”

 

Here is an in-depth discussion of why the military failed to meet the challenge:
 

Quote

 

Three alternative explanations for where the Rhine Army (or a critical mass of its fighting strength) was in 406:

1) it was in Italy, where it had been summoned to fight off Radagasius in 405-6;

2) it had moved west from the Rhine frontier defenses due to the threat posed by the usurpation in Britain,

3) the problem was not a recent withdrawal of troops from the Rhine, but rather the general weakness of the Rhine Army due to losses from civil wars and frontier neglect, and therefore there is no absence to explain.

 

 

https://www.yalehistoricalreview.org/barbarians-at-the-open-gates/amp/

 

Here is an interesting video on the events surrounding the barbarian crossing of 406:

 

This is interesting article that asserts that the crossing occurred in 405 AD (and not the widely accepted 406). This would also explain Stilicho’s seeming inaction to the Barbarian crossing. In 405 Stilicho was preoccupied with fighting the Gothic forces of Radagaisus.

 

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Crossing_of_the_Rhine

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_of_the_Rhine

Edited February 13, 2022 by guy

[caldrail]

I might suggest other reasons - A lack of initiative from the assigned army leader, or that the soldiers were in no mood to fight (that sort of thing happened in the late empire), or the lack of pay had caused men to wander off seeking civilian jobs, or that the Roman Empire had not actually realised how large the threat was, or that they expected a response from elsewhere for whatever reason.

[sonic]

On 2/13/2022 at 4:04 PM, guy said:

There have been many discussions about the controversies surrounding the barbarian crossing the “frozen” Rhine in 405/406.

 

Here is an in-depth discussion of why the military failed to meet the challenge:
 

 

https://www.yalehistoricalreview.org/barbarians-at-the-open-gates/amp/

 

Here is an interesting video on the events surrounding the barbarian crossing of 406:

 

This is interesting article that asserts that the crossing occurred in 405 AD (and not the widely accepted 406). This would also explain Stilicho’s seeming inaction to the Barbarian crossing. In 405 Stilicho was preoccupied with fighting the Gothic forces of Radagaisus.

 

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Crossing_of_the_Rhine

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_of_the_Rhine

Stilicho's seeming inaction in 406 is also explained by his proposed campaign in Illyricum, as part of which Alaric would be dispatched.

[guy]

4 hours ago, sonic said:

Stilicho's seeming inaction in 406 is also explained by his proposed campaign in Illyricum, as part of which Alaric would be dispatched.

Thanks for reading my post.

I wanted to ask you (since you wrote the book) if you think the relationship between Stilicho and Alaric portrayed in this documentary was as respectful (almost friendly) as depicted. This was an otherwise interesting documentary when it didn't try to force a modern narrative.

 

 

[sonic]

17 hours ago, guy said:

Thanks for reading my post.

I wanted to ask you (since you wrote the book) if you think the relationship between Stilicho and Alaric portrayed in this documentary was as respectful (almost friendly) as depicted. This was an otherwise interesting documentary when it didn't try to force a modern narrative.

 

 

To put it mildly, and this is not a criticism - it's impossible to cover so long a period in a short video - the video is simplistic, leaves out

many cogent details, and the maps with arrows plus those with large areas settled by the barbarians can be very confusing.  The video has some areas where I disagree, but have to accept that other interpretations are possible.

Specifically,  although I agree with the assumption that the Battle of the Frigidus was a major factor, and Stilicho almost certainly withdrew troops from the frontier to defend Italy, there are other factors either attributed without evidence, overlooked or skipped over.

For example, the Romans were never seen as 'invincible', but were acknowledged as extremely dangerous and an attack was likely  to provoke a response.  At least until later.  If seen as invincible, no one would have dared to attack.  And there are several defeats throughout the period (upcoming: Hughes, probably late 2022/early 2023, but covering Rome's existence).  Also, there is no contemporary evidence that the Rhine was frozen (although this is acknowledged in the video).

However, overlooked is the fact that the numbers of people crossing the Rhine was probably far smaller than previously thought, and although there is the acceptance that the loss at the Frigidus was a major factor,  the video covers neither the loss of the Illyrian recruiting grounds to the Eastern half of the Empire, nor Stilicho's plan to use  Alaric in an Invasion to recover Illyricum, which would also account for the focus being away from the Rhine.

In my opinion, these are just a few things that should be borne in mind.

(Other opinions are available!!)

 

[sonic]

Oh, and I'm almost certain that Stilicho and  Alaric were not 'friends'.  They probably saw each  other as individuals who could help them reach their personal goals, but as their goals were not the same, it would be more of a political balance rather than a friendship.  Alaric was twice defeated by Stilicho, and Stilicho wanted to use Alaric for his own agenda.  I don't think Alaric, twice defeated and with his own ambitions stymied by Stilicho, would count Stilicho as a friend.  They both wanted the Roman senate to accede to their demands, so it's probably better to see them both as thinking 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'  in this case.

But I could be wrong!