Views on the Germanics

[sonic]

Hi all,

 

wondering if you could help?

 

We all know that, in general, 'barbarians' were regarded as inferior by the Roman elites. I also know that there is evidence that the lower classes had a different view: Peter Heather states as much in the preface to 'Goths and Romans 332-489'.

 

However, he also states that he is not going to cover the topic in the book!

 

To save me from ploughing through this book (and others!), is there anybody who can give me original sources for the views of the lower classes to the use of 'barbarians' within the army etc? I've just got hold of Augustine's Letters, but are there any others which can help?

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help

 

Sonic

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'm not an expert on the period that Peter Heather describes, but at least during the republic, barbarian auxiliary were certainly not beloved by their Roman comrades-in-arms. For example, in Caesar's Gallic adventures, there was continual tension between Legio X and the barbarian cavalry auxilia.

[Maty]

How are we defining 'inferior'? Militarily? Culturally?

 

In the later empire, there is some evidence that the upper classes rather admired some aspects of Germanic culture - as indicated by the adoption of Germanic cloaks by military leaders. However, the lower classes were at least ambivalent. When Stilicho (half-German) was killed on the emperor Honarius' orders, this was the signal for an Italy-wide pogrom of Germanic peoples and their families.

 

It did not help that Germanic foederati expected to be paid with a healthy chunk of the land they were defending, and Rome's leaders were often too desperate to care who got dispossessed in the process.

[caldrail]

Traditionally the german allies had been prizd for their physique and loyalty. They were definitely bigger than the average roman, and an elite bodyguard was used during the early empire to offset any risk posed by the praetorians. As a culture the germans would be considered inferior. The romans were entirely convinced theirs was best, the most civilised way to be and to be honest, it certainly attracted german people into their service. Disregarding Arminius and so forth, by the later empire I understand there was a lot of conflict on the german border. I remember seeing a depiction of a roman raid on a german settlement for nstance. It might also be true that the later romans were wary of their german neighbours. A large number had been allowed to settle further south.

 

An important point about the late empire is that armies were no longer purely roman. Foreigners, whole tribes of them them, were employed wholesale as army units and no longer expected to fall under the command of roman officers. There arealso indiations that such allies billetted in private homes weren't entirely well behaved, so you migt well imagie the friction that could result locally.

 

I know there's some source on this - I will delve further.

[sonic]

How are we defining 'inferior'? Militarily? Culturally?

 

When talking about the Roman upper classes, they saw the Empire as both militarily and culturally superior. However, I was asking mainly about the social side of things. Is there evidence for the Roman lower classes' views on the use of Germanic troops? Were they more inclined to accept the Germans as equals/superior, simply because, like the Germans, they didn't have the education in Grammar and Rhetoric?

 

Traditionally the german allies had been prizd for their physique and loyalty. They were definitely bigger than the average roman, and an elite bodyguard was used during the early empire to offset any risk posed by the praetorians. As a culture the germans would be considered inferior. The romans were entirely convinced theirs was best, the most civilised way to be and to be honest, it certainly attracted german people into their service.

 

I know there's some source on this - I will delve further.

 

A source would be useful - thanks.

 

However, when you state that 'As a culture the Germans would be considered inferior. The Romans were entirely convinced theirs was best', isn't this the view of the elite writers throughout the Empire?

 

Is there any evidence that the lower classes thought differently - as suggested by Heather - or that they shared this view? After all, didn't the Romans adopt Germanic dress - hardly likely if the Germans are perceived as being culturally inferior?

Edited March 11, 2008 by sonic

[caldrail]

However, when you state that 'As a culture the Germans would be considered inferior. The Romans were entirely convinced theirs was best', isn't this the view of the elite writers throughout the Empire?

Undoubtedly, but their views influenced their clients and so forth. Its entirely possible that scruffy plebs had different ideas, but I find difficult to see how different they would be. In any case, they generally didn't write books so its difficult to find what they thought as opposed to their better educated social superiors.

 

After all, didn't the Romans adopt Germanic dress - hardly likely if the Germans are perceived as being culturally inferior?

Elements of germanic dress were adopted for fashion or practical reasons. Whats so unusual? Romans always adopted cultural ideas they thought worthwhile. That doesn't mean they were best mates with germans, it means they saw things the liked and copied them.

 

Incidentially, its worth readng Tacitus's account of the germans. You find a very unroman culture and whilst Tacitus is as objective as roman wrters could be, he clearly looks askance at them and sees them as a curiosity. Obviously he had few, if any, dealings with germans himself, but would lower class people belonging to a strong dynamic conquest state see them as instrincally equal? No, but I will accept that romans who dealt with germans on a daily basis had different views as happens on any such frontier. Good or bad, according to circumstance and experience.

Edited March 12, 2008 by caldrail

[sonic]

However, when you state that 'As a culture the Germans would be considered inferior. The Romans were entirely convinced theirs was best', isn't this the view of the elite writers throughout the Empire?

Undoubtedly, but their views influenced their clients and so forth. Its entirely possible that scruffy plebs had different ideas, but I find difficult to see how different they would be. In any case, they generally didn't write books so its difficult to find what they thought as opposed to their better educated social superiors.

 

But would their views have diffused down to the lower/lowest levels, or has this just been asssumed to be the case?

 

After all, didn't the Romans adopt Germanic dress - hardly likely if the Germans are perceived as being culturally inferior?

Elements of germanic dress were adopted for fashion or practical reasons. Whats so unusual? Romans always adopted cultural ideas they thought worthwhile. That doesn't mean they were best mates with germans, it means they saw things the liked and copied them.

 

I accept that the Romans would adopt any form of dress if it proved effective, but would a Roman in Italy really need to wear long trousers to keep the heat in? Isn't it more likely that this was a form of expression rather than utility?

 

Incidentially, its worth readng Tacitus's account of the germans. You find a very unroman culture and whilst Tacitus is as objective as roman wrters could be, he clearly looks askance at them and sees them as a curiosity. Obviously he had few, if any, dealings with germans himself, but would lower class people belonging to a strong dynamic conquest state see them as instrincally equal? No, but I will accept that romans who dealt with germans on a daily basis had different views as happens on any such frontier. Good or bad, according to circumstance and experience.

 

But surely this is a rather simplistic view? Wouldn't the lower classes of Rome have been mingling with 'German' slaves and forming their own impressions? As the treatment of peasants and slaves became more similar, wouldn't they have identified at least in part with the slaves rather than the 'effete and snobbish' landlords who prattle on in 'High' Latin, quoting bits of Homer and Virgil, and showing off their education? As you say, the situation on the frontiers may have been more extreme, with peasants identifying with Germans over absentee landlords, but, although Heather says that there is evidence from the sources from the Balkans about this, I don't know which sources he is using. Can anybody help? Please?

Edited March 12, 2008 by sonic

[M. Porcius Cato]

Wouldn't the lower classes of Rome have been mingling with 'German' slaves and forming their own impressions? As the treatment of peasants and slaves became more similar, wouldn't they have identified at least in part with the slaves rather than the 'effete and snobbish' landlords who prattle on in 'High' Latin, quoting bits of Homer and Virgil, and showing off their education?

 

I don't know of any empirical support for this view. In fact, the whole idea of "class solidarity" with the Germans sounds totally un-Roman.

[sonic]

Wouldn't the lower classes of Rome have been mingling with 'German' slaves and forming their own impressions? As the treatment of peasants and slaves became more similar, wouldn't they have identified at least in part with the slaves rather than the 'effete and snobbish' landlords who prattle on in 'High' Latin, quoting bits of Homer and Virgil, and showing off their education?

 

I don't know of any empirical support for this view. In fact, the whole idea of "class solidarity" with the Germans sounds totally un-Roman.

 

That's why I started this thread! If we are to believe Heather, there is an alternative corpus of evidence showing that the views of the lower classes towards the Germans was different. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to give the sources!

 

Nor am I saying it was 'class solidarity': if you read the post again I suggest it's possible for the peasants to 'have identified at least in part' with the slaves/Germans. As for the idea that this is totally 'un-Roman', isn't this simply a reflection of the aristocratic sources that are repeated 'ad nauseam', giving us an unrealistic 'monolithic' view of the Empire and its inhabitants?

 

What I want to find are the sources mentioned by Heather, as these could give a different viewpoint on Romano-'barbarian' relations to that endlessly repeated in modern histories of the Empire.

 

Any ideas, anyone?

[Maty]

Just a couple of scraps to throw into the pot.

 

Martial (not exactly a pleb I know...) has an epigram in which he protests about being shoved aside from a fountain by a German, and complains that this is a Roman font, not the trough for a 'defeated race.

 

On the other hand, there seems to be considerable evidence that the Italian underclass sided enthusiastically with Spartacus in 70 BC, to the extent that his army was a mixture of slaves - often Germanic - and poorer Italians. Toward the end Spartacus' army got so large he was turning away recruits.

[caldrail]

As with any frontier, some romans made a living trading with germanic tribes. Furs and animals for the arena for instance come to mind - I'm sure there were other resources the germans could sell or barter. However, the germans lived in a totally different enviroment to that of the typical roman pleb. "Fearful forest and stinking bog" according to Tacitus. These were large men, much closer to the average height of modern europeans today than the romans who averaged 5'4". Size matters.

 

In the reign of Julian the Apostate there's a documented raid on german settlements living on islands along the Rhine. There was no provocation for these raids, it was purely a speculative action. Roman troops sneaked in, even swimming aboard their shields at one point, slaughtering the inhabitants and making off with their valuables. Clearly there's an element of contempt here. The germans, although apparently peaceful at that time, are regarded as legitimate targets.

 

Conversely, the german tribes look southward at the roman empire and want their riches for themselves. Some tribes take a legal route and offer services as allies, receiving roman pay for what they enjoy doing. Such men were billetted with their families amongst roman families, and you can imagine the friction that might result in households because of it.

 

These german tribesmen were aggressive warriors. In the time of Caesar his Aedui cavalry were sent packing by a smaller group of german horsemen who threw stones at them. An elite guard is of germans is formed to protect the emperor from the praetorian guard. Varus found out first hand how they could be.

 

I don't think you can assume that the lower classes had a coherent opinion of the germans. Many only knew of them by reputation which often exaggerates things. I can imagine there were some romans who got along with germans like a house on fire - and others who wouldn't touch a smelly barbaric tribesmen if you paid them. They weren't roman, nor did they adopt roman ways (at least not until they overran the place), and therefore in the roman mind - lower class or not - they were typically viewed with either disdain or distrust.

[sonic]

I don't think you can assume that the lower classes had a coherent opinion of the germans. Many only knew of them by reputation which often exaggerates things. I can imagine there were some romans who got along with germans like a house on fire - and others who wouldn't touch a smelly barbaric tribesmen if you paid them. They weren't roman, nor did they adopt roman ways (at least not until they overran the place), and therefore in the roman mind - lower class or not - they were typically viewed with either disdain or distrust.

 

I agree: it's almost certain that the views of Germans varied widely, even amongst the lower classes. What I am after are primary sources showing that the views of some peasants etc differed from that represented by the majority of sources. This is an attempt to show that views towards 'barbarians' are more complex than that usually promoted by Classicists and Historians of Romans regarding the Germans et al as uncouth, uncivilised and unwanted.

[Sequens]

It would be interesting if you can find any sources. Like so many periods in history, very little was recorded by common people. In most cases they were not literate.

 

I looked a bit, but can only find poets and upper class commentary.

 

The only idea I had, was as people have not changed much since ancient roman times, that a commoners attitude would not be much different then people feel today in similiar situations. An example would be how Germans feel about the French, British and American soldiers still stationed there, in theory and practice allies but still foreigners.

[Ingsoc]

Upon this the Tencteri, a tribe separated by the Rhine from the Colony, sent envoys with orders to make known their instructions to the Senate of the Agrippinenses. These orders the boldest spirit among the ambassadors thus expounded: "For your return into the unity of the German nation and name we give thanks to the Gods whom we worship in common and to Mars, the chief of our divinities, and we congratulate you that at length you will live as free men among the free. Up to this day have the Romans closed river and land and, in a way, the very air, that they may bar our converse and prevent our meetings, or, what is a still worse insult to men born to arms, may force us to assemble unarmed and all but stripped, watched by sentinels, and taxed for the privilege. But that our friendship and union may be established for ever, we require of you to strip your city of its walls, which are the bulwarks of slavery. Even savage animals, if you keep them in confinement, forget their natural courage. We require of you to massacre all Romans within your territory; liberty and a dominant race cannot well exist together. Let the property of the slain come into a common stock, so that no one may be able to secrete anything, or to detach his own interest from ours. Let it be lawful for us and for you to inhabit both banks of the Rhine, as it was of old for our ancestors. As nature has given light and air to all men, so has she thrown open every land to the brave. Resume the manners and customs of your country, renouncing the pleasures, through which, rather than through their arms, the Romans secure their power against subject nations. A pure and untainted race, forgetting your past bondage, you will be the equals of all, or will even rule over others."

 

The inhabitants of the Colony took time for deliberation, and, as dread of the future would not allow them to accept the offered terms, while their actual condition forbade an open and contemptuous rejection, they replied to the following effect: "The very first chance of freedom that presented itself we seized with more eagerness than caution, that we might unite ourselves with you and the other Germans, our kinsmen by blood. With respect to our fortifications, as at this very moment the Roman armies are assembling, it is safer for us to strengthen than to destroy them. All strangers from Italy or the provinces, that may have been in our territory, have either perished in the war, or have fled to their own homes. As for those who in former days settled here, and have been united to us by marriage, and as for their offspring, this is their native land. We cannot think you so unjust as to wish that we should slay our parents, our brothers, and our children. All duties and restrictions on trade we repeal. Let there be a free passage across the river, but let it be during the day-time and for persons unarmed, till the new and recent privileges assume by usage the stability of time. As arbiters between us we will have Civilis and Veleda; under their sanction the treaty shall be ratified." The Tencteri were thus appeased, and ambassadors were sent with presents to Civilis and Veleda, who settled everything to the satisfaction of the inhabitants of the Colony. They were not, however, allowed to approach or address Veleda herself. In order to inspire them with more respect they were prevented from seeing her. She dwelt in a lofty tower, and one of her relatives, chosen for the purpose, conveyed, like the messenger of a divinity, the questions and answers. (Tacitus, History, Book 4, 64-65)

 

From this we learn that some of the Roman coloniests had no problem to inter-merry with the native Germans (this btw was also a factor that advance the Romanification of the provines).

[DecimusCaesar]

Michael Grant devotes a good chapter to anti-Germanic sentiments in his 'Fall of the Roman Empire'. He discusses how the Romans believed that the Germans were a destructive, aggressive and smelly people. Many late Roman writers, especially Claudian, even consider the Germanic foederati serving in the Roman army to be expendable. The Germans could have been assimilated into the Empire, but the Romans often found it difficult to work among them, and the Germans themselves would often take advantages of Rome's weakness. Sidonius, Paulinus of Pella, Ammianus Marcellinus, Orosius and many others wrote very negatively of the Germans. Others like Synesius of Cyrene were very hostile. Prudentius wrote of them:

 

"As Beasts from men, as dumb as those who speak,

As from the good who God's commands seek

Differ the foolish heathen, so Rome stands,

alone in pride among the barbarian lands."

 

Hatred of German settlers had grown so much by the time of Honorious, that around AD 408/9/10 there were pogroms launched against them.

 

Later Church chroniclers of the fifth century write a little more positively about the Germans. Yet the main reason for this was that the Germans were being seen as God's avengers, punishing the wicked Romans for their sins. It was basically an attempt to make a bad situation look good. Afterall, many Pagans argued that since Christianity had become the Empire's official religion, the Empire was struck by invasion and disaster. The Christian answer to this was to claim that the coming of the Barbarians was all in God's plan. This one of the main ideas of Saint Augustine's 'City of God'.