A Refuge in the Roman
Empire
The large-scale movement of people into the European Union reflects
movements in past eras; numbers were smaller, but so were the numbers of people
on earth.
The Romans were never like the Greeks in the classical
period. The Citizenship Law of Pericles, approved in Athens in 451BC, required
that an Athenian citizen had to be the son of an Athenian citizen and of a
woman who was the daughter of an Athenian citizen; women did not have
citizenship, but could convey it to a son. Scorn was placed on Thebes, whose
kings it was claimed were from Asia Minor. Herodotus speculates that the
Spartans were part Egyptian, but then Herodotus had a mother with a Persian
name. Alexander I, king of Macedon (ancestor of Alexander the Great) took a
delegation of Macedonians to the Olympic Games, but while he was admitted,
because he could prove he was a Greek, the others were turned away because they
couldn’t. Any Athenian resident of non-Athenian ancestry who did not match up
was categorised as a ‘metic’, and any Athenian man who had not completed the
course as an ephebe was excluded from citienship, as were men who owed certain
debts, or whose ancestor had. They still had to pay taxes, however.
Rome was always different; they believed that they were
descended from a group of Trojan refugees, and had themselves been founded by
immigrants. Being a Roman citizen was always a juridcal matter, not one of
birth. They were told that Romulus had offered to protect on the Capitolium any
man who would follow his rule; Emma Dench of Harvard calls it ‘Romulus’ Asylum’.
The earliest Rome featured thre different groups with differing languages – including
a bunch of Sabines who spoke Oscan, not Latin; Rome’s second king, Numa
Pompilius, was a Sabine, and of course the incomers had already married Sabine
wives. Later, not only was Attius Clausus Romanised as Appius Claudius, he was
made a patrician and a senator.
The secession of the Plebians in 494BC to the Mons Sacer (Sacred
Hill) three miles away in protest again debt imprisonment and bondage showed
even at the early date how people were prepared to quit Rome if the conditions
weren’t right. It took Rome a long times to achieve suitable conditions, for
there were secessions in 449BC, 445, 342 and as late as 287BC, when they moved
to the Janiculum. Removing the labour of the lower orders could remove
agricultural production and manufactures.
The settlement of Germanic and other groups within the
empire is known by two contradictory names in different languages: the French
refer to les invasions barbares, the
barbarian invasions, whilst the Germans call the process the Völkerwanderungen, the wandering of the
people. Such titles are modern and reflect political differences centuries
after the events. But the movements were now new, even in the fourth century.
The first settlement clash was with Germanic tribes who were
moving south. This resembles the sort of movement we see today when a modern
calamity strikes a particular region. In the case of the Cimbri and Teutones,
it was a tsunami which hit northern Jutland around 130-120 BC. We know this
because one of them gave an eye-witness description to Posidonius, a Greek
geographer (fl.100BC), who was told that the sea retreated and then the tide
came in faster than a horse could run. That’s clearly a tsunami, for all that
Strabo poo-pooed the idea, because Mediterranean tides aren’t so powerful
(Strabo 7.2.1).
The reason for the tsunami is unknown, but might have been
due to a shift in the rocks on the bed of the North Sea, known as the Storegga
Slide. It flooded nothern Jutland and broke of the northern tip into islands,
flooding good farm land with salt water. The loss of their land seems to have
set the Cimbri and their neighbours the Teutones on the move. It is unlikely
that they marched all the way down the peninsula; perhaps they were transported
by boat (by the Aviones, the ancestors of the Saxons) to the mouths of the
Rhine. At the foot of the Jutland peninsula was (and is) the Danwerk, a large
earthwork which it would not have been possible to cross without permission, so
that route is unlikely.
The Cimbri and Teutones probably walked up the Rhine towards
its source and then down the Danube. Given the confused accounts of Cimbri
turning up in wht are now central France and Spain, it is feasible that all
movement of unknown people was counted as them. The Romans had never
encountered Germans before. They thought they were Gauls, and compared them to
the attack on Rome by Gauls in the early fourth century. Given that Gauls had
taken over northern Italy c.500BC, the displacement probably affected the Roman
kingdom.
As the Cimbri made their way up the Rhine, they seem to have
left some members behind: the Atuatuci, who lived in the Meuse valley near
Namur, claimed to descend from those Cimbri and Teutones who stopped there.
Since what is now southern Germany was populated by Gaulish speakers first, there
were probably many such stopovers which turned out to be permanent.
Did the Cimbri and associated groups even know who the
Romans were? They must have heard tales about a big and rich land down south,
and severely misjudged what that meant. For them, a big country was viewed in Iron
Age terms, maybe twenty miles across. They would have no idea that a realm
could be hundreds of miles across. This is similar to the viewpoint attributed
to Prince Jugurtha, the north Asfrican price who said he would never have
attacked the Roman Republic had he known how big it was.
The Roman involvement began in 113BC, when the wandering
Cimbri made it down the Danube as far as Vindobona, modern Vienna, where the
king of Noricum, a Celtic kingdom in the eastern Alps, roughly modern Austria,
called on his allies, Rome, and were forced to retreat, but turned and defeated
a Roman army that had underestimated them. A further attempt to reach the
Mediterranean by means of the Rhone must have involved retreating to western
Switzerland, where the sources of Rhine Danube and Rhone are very close.
This must have taken years to complete, because they next
met a badly-led Roman army at Arausio (modern Orange in the middle Rhone) in
105BC; the Romans commanders could not agree on tactics and the Romans were
defeated. A battle against Germnaic people at Burdigala (Bordeaux) in 107BC was
probably a quite separate group, but assigned to the Cimbri.
In 103BC, the Romans defeated the Cimbri at the Isère in
Gaul and captured their king, Teutobod. The rest of the Cimbri entered Gallia
Cisalpina, where in 101 they were completely defeated at Vercellae and those
who survived were enslaved.
As a result of several bad decisions and drastic
underestimation, the Romans had been defeated by ‘barbarians’ in their own neck
of the woods for the first time since Hannibal. Henceforth all northern
invaders – if that’s what they were – were to be regarded as hostile.
The Cimbri seem to have attracted incomers – possibly given
inferior rank below that of the warrior elite which can only have developed as
they encountered obstacles. Young men inspired by a spirit of adventure and
young women fancying available Cimbri will have joined them as they moved
across the land, taking what they wanted. The destruction of their heimat (homelad) would have meant the
Cimbri had nowhere to return to.
This was a Völkerwanderung in the true sense. They did not
set out to attack the Roman world, and probably had little or no awareness that
it existed, but had nothing to lose by pressing forward. A lesson should have
been learnt that inbound settlers will fight when they have to, but if given a
reason not to could be turned into settlers, eventually into taxpayers.
One reason for Roman weakness here could have been the fact that
the armies were loyal to their general providing he won and they could earnt a
living out of it. There was nothing to be made by fighting off armed settlers,
so there was nothing to motivate the soldiers.
No comments:
Post a Comment