Aetius Attila’s Nemesis Page 19

When talking about Roman rule in Africa there is, understandably, sometimes confusion concerning the meaning of the term. Although Africa is now the name for the whole continent, for the Romans Africa was more usually applied to the province created in 146 BC after the defeat of Carthage. Shortly after this the Romans conquered more areas of the North African coast and these became the provinces of Tripolitania, Byzacium, Numidia, Mauretania Sitifensis, Mauretania Caesariensis and Tingitana. Tingitana eventually became part of the Diocese of Hispania, but the rest were included as part of the Diocese of Africa with its capital at Carthage. As a result, it is easy to become confused, so wherever applicable the term ‘Africa’ applies to the whole Diocese, and the term Africa Proconsularis will be applied to the province (see Map 10 for further clarification).

  The province of Africa was known as Africa Proconsularis. Along with Egypt, it was the breadbasket of the early Roman Empire. Grain had been taken, as part of Africa’s tax, to feed the citizens of Rome and Italy. Egypt had also supplied grain, but after the foundation of Constantinople this had been diverted to Constantine’s new city. Since then, Rome had come to rely almost completely on the African grain supply to feed its citizens, and two-thirds of Africa’s annual harvest was exported to Rome. Control of the grain shipments to Rome was vital and from early in the empire’s history the governor of the province – and a few other provinces (see Map 1) – was a proconsul rather than a senator, hence the name Africa Proconsularis.

  Although in the earlier empire the main commodity exported from Africa had been grain, from the late second century olive oil had become important, with the interior of the provinces of Numidia, Byzacena and Tripolitania, and especially the territories of Lepcis Magna, Oea and Sabratha (See Map 11), being used for olive production. In fact, the anonymous author of Expositio totius mundi et rerum noted that Africa was wealthy in all things, including grain, fruit, trees, slaves and textiles, but ‘it virtually exceeds all others in the use of the olive’.1 The other major commodity exported from Africa was African red-slip ware, a distinctive form of pottery that is now used by archaeologists as evidence for trade patterns from Africa to the wider Mediterranean area. However, in the early-fifth century all of these goods were mainly destined for the market of Rome and Italy.

  The fact that the city of Rome was dependent on African grain was of great benefit for the citizens of Africa. Not only did they have a ready market, but the imperial government ensured that all of the transport facilities in Africa and its surrounding provinces were of the highest standard to ensure quick delivery of the grain. This infrastructure was highly beneficial to those wishing to export other goods. Thanks to the favourable lease laws employed in Africa there was a huge production of surpluses and these were transported along government-maintained highways to the Mediterranean for shipment to Rome and throughout the Mediterranean. Apart from agricultural surpluses, traders were also willing to take African red-slip ware on their journeys, stowing these smaller items between the larger loads of foodstuffs.

  A final reason for the prosperity of the African provinces was that they were not exposed to war. Although there may have been local troubles in the area, the troops stationed in Africa were mainly there to control the movement of the local nomadic tribes as they migrated between their winter and summer pastures, ensuring that they did not stray on to settled lands and cause damage.

  Yet Africa was not exempt from the changes being seen in the other parts of the west. In Africa, as elsewhere, the local councillors were becoming reluctant to serve on their local councils since financially the burden was very high. Commercially, in many areas the forum, the centre of towns and cities, had either fallen out of use or at least had become much reduced in size. Furthermore, temples and some bathhouses were starting to fall into ruin. The functions of the forum were now being replaced by buildings connected to churches, signalling the rise in attachment to Christianity and the loss of emphasis of pagan institutions. Additionally, large houses were now beginning to be divided into smaller units and shop fronts were appearing along street frontages, replacing the shopping area of the forum.2

  There were also areas of dispute. The main one of these was Christianity. There was a large community of Donatists in Africa, who were in opposition to the Catholic majority. The disagreement went back to the previous century, when Diocletian (284–305) had ordered a persecution of Christians in the empire between 303 and 305. Many Christian clergymen had been killed in the persecution, but some had surrendered, giving up their copies of the scriptures and in some cases betraying fellow Christians to the authorities. These men were known as traditores (‘the ones who handed over’).

  After the persecution, and particularly following Constantine the Great’s edict of toleration, many of these men had been allowed to return to their former positions. A large number of Christians refused to accept their authority, seeing them as traitors to the faith. When a new Bishop of Carthage was consecrated by a traditor, his opponents refused to accept him. Eventually, in 313, a man named Donatus (after whom the movement was named) was elected as bishop and the controversy broadened due to the fact that Donatus was an anti-traditor.

  As Bishop of Carthage, Donatus wielded great power and was able to appeal against the appointment of traditors, but in 313 a commission found against the Donatists. Despite this, the movement continued, especially in Africa, leading to widespread division even after Donatus’ death in 355. This was largely due to the Donatist priests being local men who spoke local languages and dialects, so endearing them to the provincial population outside the big cities. On the other hand, Catholic priests tended to speak only Latin, and so had more of a following in the cities.

  The Donatist cause was not helped by the rise of the Circumcellians. These were groups from the lowest levels of society who developed anti-Roman biases and were prone to rebellion. They were usually Donatists and their infamy resulted in Donatism being associated with rebels and bandits. As a result, in the early-fifth century there began a persecution of the Donatists in Africa, which Saint Augustine thought to be harsh and ill judged.3

  In June 411 in Carthage a conference took place that found against the Donatists. Slowly, under pressure, Donatist adherents began to convert to Catholic Christianity. Yet by the 430s there were still many strong adherents to the cause who were unhappy with the course of events: religious division continued.

  As a final point, although Roman Africa tends to be studied as a single entity, it should be noted that only in Africa Proconsularis was Latin a common language. The other provinces were not the same and there were at least three languages in use in the area. Furthermore, there was a distinct cultural division between Romanized Carthage and the rural countryside.4 These divisions meant that although the Vandals arrived as barbarian outsiders, and are so described by Catholic and aristocratic literature, they may have been seen as ‘saviours’ by those members of the population unhappy with Catholic imperial rule.5

  Despite these changes, the province was peaceful and relatively prosperous, so the Vandal invasion in 430 was doubtless a major shock for the inhabitants. Not only were they under threat of war for the first time in several generations, but the troops in the area were unused to having to fight set-piece battles. Probably as a result of their lack of experience and suitable training, the Roman army in Africa was defeated, first under Boniface, and then under Boniface and Aspar reinforced with the East Roman forces.

  The treaty of 435 was in many ways unwelcome in the area, since it was now clear that the empire was not in a position to evict the Vandals, or defeat them and ensure their compliance with the treaty (see Map 8). However, given the fact that the resources of the West were becoming increasingly strained from both internal and external threats, the treaty had one major advantage: it saved most of Numidia, Byzacena and Africa Proconsularis – including Carthage, the point of export for most African grain – from the Vandals.6 Although there was political and religious confusion following the Van
dal invasion, the actual damage to the economy was limited, and there is little doubt that after 435 grain exports to Rome were resumed.

  Carthage itself was the third-largest city of the empire, only Constantinople and Rome itself having greater populations. By the end of the fourth century it has been estimated that it may have had a population as high as 100,000.7 The main task of Carthage was to act as the administrative centre of Africa Proconsularis and as the main port for the distribution of goods brought from the interior and from smaller ports along the coast. Anyone in control of Carthage would be able to impose taxes on the goods being exported, so becoming fantastically rich.

  The net result of these factors was that the provinces of North Africa had extremely high productivity but were low on maintenance, and so were the major net contributor to the financial stability of the West. Furthermore, surplus revenues from Africa were vital to the maintenance of the armed forces.8 However, this should not be overestimated. The largest estates were owned by relatively few men, who were the most powerful and influential in Italy. These individuals did not want men from their estates being conscripted into the army, nor did they want to pay the taxes necessary to furnish new recruits. Although Africa was vital to the economy, the political power of the major landowners was a source of constant friction between the emperor, the magister militum and the Senate.

  THE VANDALS

  The Vandals had now achieved a position superior even to that of the Goths in Gaul. Gaiseric had a military position, his followers were settled in some of the most prosperous areas of the West and, most importantly, the main armies left in the West were focused upon the defence of Gaul rather than on opposing the Vandals in Africa. The improvement in the fortunes of Gaiseric’s people since the attack of the Goths in 416 was immeasurable. Yet as has already been noted, Gaiseric does not appear to have been content with this new-found security. From 437 he began to test the preparedness of Aetius to face the Vandals. The piracy of ‘barbarian deserters’ implies that Gaiseric was looking at the possibility of extending his influence in Africa, a theory reinforced by the fact that he began to persecute Catholic priests and the local nobility.9 Both of these actions suggest that Gaiseric had not fulfilled his ultimate ambition, especially since the persecution of clergy and nobles suggests that he was aiming at removing all of those individuals who could lead indigenous resistance to his aims. He replaced the departing Roman nobles and clergymen with Vandal nobles and Arian clergymen.10

  THE FALL OF CARTHAGE

  When it was clear to Gaiseric that Aetius’ attention was focused upon the war against the Goths in Gaul, Gaiseric decided that, if he did not act whilst the Roman army was occupied, he might never again get the chance. He had twice defeated the army of Africa, once when it had been reinforced by troops from the East, so confidence would have been high. It is almost certain that by 439 the Eastern troops had returned home with Aspar. Furthermore, it is unknown whether the troops Boniface took to Italy to face Aetius in 432 were ever returned to Africa. Consequently, it is clear that Gaiseric was facing a very weak army in Africa, but one that could be reinforced from Italy should the war against the Goths be won. With these considerations in mind, he now took the last, fateful step on the journey of the Vandals. In an act of supreme political daring, he led his army out of the areas allotted to them and advanced towards Carthage, breaking the treaty of friendship he had agreed with Rome.11

  On 19 October 439 Geiseric arrived outside the walls of Carthage.12 There is little primary information for the manner of Geiseric’s attack on the city, the main evidence being that he took it by a ‘stratagem’ or ‘trickery’.13 As a military official of the empire, there can be little doubt that he could easily gain entry to the city with a small bodyguard, after which the opening of the gates would have been a simple matter.

  Whatever method he used, once inside he unleashed the Vandals. The Vandal sack of Carthage is usually seen as being a vicious episode. Prosper claims that Gaiseric:

  Put its citizens to various kinds of torture and took all their wealth as his own. Nor did he refrain from spoiling the churches. Emptying them of their sacred vessels, and depriving them of the attention of their priests, he ordered that they no longer be places of divine worship but quarters for his people. He was harsh towards the entire captive population but particularly hostile to the nobility and clergy so that no one could tell whether he was waging war more against man or God.

  Prosper s.a. 439

  This passage is illuminating, if interpreted correctly. It is clear that the aristocracy were targeted by Gaiseric in order to remove them and replace them with his own nobles.14 Many of the landowners fled to Italy. Those who left had their lands confiscated by the Vandals.15 The events are similarly described by Victor of Vita, who notes that the ‘old class of freemen, freeborn, and noble’ were condemned to slavery.16

  Prosper also states that Gaiseric wanted his people to settle in abandoned churches. In this context it is likely that the phrase ‘his people’ should really refer to the Vandal Arian clergy. The claim is reinforced by Hydatius, who claims that Gaiseric immediately began a persecution of the ‘Catholics’.17

  These accounts combine to paint a picture of a violent sack of the city, yet this may be misleading. The dual attack on the Catholic Christian church and the aristocracy probably had three aims. One was to remove the leading clergy and aristocrats who could lead resistance to Gaiseric’s takeover. A second was to release lands that could then be used to reward Gaiseric’s loyal followers, including the Arian priests. Thirdly, the persecution of Catholic clergy would result in the Donatists, and other Christian sects who had been recently persecuted, transferring their loyalty to Gaiseric.

  Consequently, it is probably far better to accept that on the whole the ‘sack’ of Carthage was more of an exercise in evicting the clergymen and the aristocracy – the potential leaders of resistance – from Carthage rather than a wholesale destruction of the city, although the Vandal warriors were no doubt let loose to enter the city and spread terror and disruption, so ensuring that there would be no attempt at defence by the population.

  After the first attack was over the troops at large gained at least some of its booty for themselves, but not too much: Gaiseric was able to pass a decree ordering ‘that each person [citizen of Carthage] was to bring forward whatever gold, silver, gems and items of costly clothing he had’, hardly necessary or successful if the city had been ransacked as described since the vast majority of these goods would otherwise have been taken by the Vandal troops.18

  Many of the Catholic clergy and Roman aristocracy fled from Africa and arrived in Italy as refugees.19 No doubt their horror stories heavily influenced Prosper’s account of the capture of Carthage. In the meantime, the lands in Africa Proconsularis owned by absentee landlords who had always lived in Italy were also seized by Gaiseric and divided as he thought best fit.20 However, there is little evidence that once the initial conquest was over Gaiseric ordered a full persecution of Catholics.21

  RAVENNA

  The capture of Carthage was a major blow to the empire. In one fell swoop Gaiseric had stripped the West, and especially Italy, of its major grain supplies and a large part of its tax base. Since the capture of Carthage took place on 19 October 439, it is unlikely that news of the event reached Ravenna until early in 440, and a novel issued by Valentinian concerning the employment of decurions (city officials) in January 440 makes no mention of the loss of Africa.22

  Although unrecorded, there can be little doubt that panic swept Rome when the news of the Vandal success arrived. Aetius and Valentinian now had to secure alternative sources of grain for the imperial city. The likelihood is that in the first instance Aetius followed the example set by Stilicho during the ‘Revolt of Gildo’ in Africa by arranging for emergency supplies of grain to be transported to Rome from Gaul and Spain.23 However, a series of novellae were now issued in order to prepare the west for the emergency.

  The first of
those still extant is dated to 2 March 440 and was concerned specifically with the military aspects of the crisis, as it ordered a conscription of troops to meet the emergency. With the Vandals at large in the Mediterranean, there was a need to enlarge the number of troops at the empire’s disposal, and in an attempt to strengthen the army a simultaneous novel was issued, entitled De Tironibus et de Occultatoribus Desertorum (Concerning Recruits and those Hiding Deserters), announcing that all landowners should furnish the correct number of recruits for the army and declaring the punishment for those who did not do so and instead harboured these deserters.24 It is also possible that a lost novel calling for a new conscription of troops, which is referred to in a novel of 444, also dates to this period.25

  The further novel was concerned with the logistical aspect of the loss of Africa.26 Up to this time Greek merchants had been allowed to trade only under severe restriction in the West, no doubt in an attempt to protect the economy in the face of strong Eastern competition. With the loss of Africa the markets of Rome were opened to Greek merchants, and an attempt was made to fix the price of goods, no doubt especially grain, to ensure that prices remained stable. The need to avoid fluctuating prices was made even more important by the fact that the West had lost the most important tax base for its financial stability.

  As has already been noted, the surplus revenues from Africa were a major factor in the maintenance of the armed forces. Without Africa, the west would struggle to maintain its army. To make matters worse, tax collectors were collecting double the amount of taxes required by law and keeping the surplus half. This was obviously causing huge levels of resentment and also destroying the tax base. In an attempt to stop the practice, a law was passed specifically ordering tax collectors to stop, although the law appears to have had little effect.27

  In the same novel in which Greek merchants were allowed into Italy it was ordered that the walls of Rome were to be repaired to defend against any attack by the Vandals.28 At the same time it would appear that attempts were made to repair and upgrade the fortifications of Naples.29 These measures to defend the West were necessary. Prior to the seizure of Carthage the Vandals had captured a small fleet when they had moved into the south of Spain, probably the one based at Cartagena. Although this had allowed them to begin raiding the western Mediterranean, the West still had enough ships to pose a threat to them if they attempted to raid either Sicily or Italy. With their rapid seizure of Carthage the Vandals had captured the Roman fleet that was permanently stationed there. Although the fleet was most likely transport ships rather than warships, this instantly made the Vandals a naval force to be reckoned with as it allowed Gaiseric to transport a much larger force anywhere in the Mediterranean. Moreover, it simultaneously reduced the ships available to the West, so making it harder for Valentinian and Aetius to counter Vandal moves. Gaiseric now determined to use his newly won fleet.