I wanted to do a thread on the complex relationship between civil wars and barbarian invasions in the last decades of the Western Roman Empire. I decided to illustrate this through the life of one man: Aegidius, a Roman general who made himself an independent ruler:
Aegidius began as a loyal supporter of Majorian, one of the last capable western emperors, who took power in 457. The two men had served together in the army, and Aegidius was made Magister Militum per Gallias - commander of Roman forces in Gaul.
They had their work cut out for them. By this point, Rome had lost control of much of its territory to semi-independent barbarian kingdoms, including the critical breadbasket of North Africa. They had to force these rulers to submit to imperial authority.
On paper, Aegidius had 32,000 professional soldiers, along with units of border guards. By the 450s, however, decades of war had reduced this the a fraction of its former size. Although he still had some professionals, he was forced to rely heavily on mercenaries and allies.
Fortunately, he was a brilliant commander. While the emperor reformed the government and prepared an invasion of Africa, Aegidius defeated the Burgundians and the Visigoths, forcing both to submit to Rome.
However, the invasion of Africa was betrayed to the Vandals by a traitor and defeated. Majorian was unpopular with the senate, who he taxed heavily to rebuild the army. In 461, he was killed by a conspiracy involving them and his barbarian general, Ricimer.
Ricimer put a puppet emperor on the throne, Libius Severus, but Aegidius refused to recognize him, breaking Gaul away and preparing to invade Italy.
We don't know what Aegidius called his new regime. The Frankish historian Gregory of Tours calls him "king of the Romans;" other sources just call him general or tyrant. Whatever he called himself, he persuaded the Gallic field army and the Gallo-Roman aristocracy to follow him.
Curiously, Gregory also says that when the Salian Franks exiled their king, Childeric I, for sexual indiscretion, they elected Aegidius as king of the Franks until he returned. Whatever the truth of this, Aegidius used his close relationship with the Franks to great effect.
Ricimer lacked the resources to invade Gaul, but he got the Visigoths to do so on his behalf. Aegidius put his military skills to great use, however, and with the old Gallic professionals and his Frankish allies crushed them at Orleans in 463, killing their commander.
Aegidius died under mysterious circumstances shortly afterwards, leaving his territory to his son, Syagrius, who established a capital at Soissons and maintained an independent realm that survived the overthrow of the last Western Emperor in 476.
We don't have many sources for this "Domain of Soissons," but it it was powerful enough to send ambassadors to Constantinople and finds of Frankish artifacts drop off sharply at its borders. It remained powerful enough to hold off the Germanic kingdoms surrounding it.
Unfortunately, Syagrius' luck ran out. Under Childeric's son, Clovis, the peace with the Franks ended and he invaded Soissons in 486. Syagrius was confident enough that he marched out of the city walls to face Clovis in open battle, but was decisively defeated.
He fled to the court of the Visigoths, but they handed him over to Clovis, who had him executed. Despite this, Clovis allowed Syagrius' family to keep both their lives and probably their lands, incorporating Soissons into his Frankish kingdom.
Clovis ultimately converted to Catholicism and preserved many old Roman institutions. The Byzantine historian Procopius, writing in the mid 6th century, records the descendants of Roman troops fighting for the Franks in their old uniforms under their old standards.
Although it was ultimately short-lived, Aegidius and Syagrius built the last enclave of the Western Roman Empire, surviving its final emperor, that held off numerous barbarian attacks. My sources for this thread are Late Roman Warlords by Penny McGeorge, Patricians and Emperors
by Ian Hughes, The History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours and the Wars of Justinian by Procopius. Good day and God bless!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I feel like I haven't done a good book thread in a while. A thread with excerpts from The Sinews of Power: War, Money, and the English State, 1688-1783 by John Brewer:
The English state was remarkably centralized as far back as Anglo-Saxon times, with a national system of law and strong monarchy. Opposition was channeled through a single parliament, and therefore took on a national character as well.
Contrast this with the far more decentralized France, where the great political conflict was between the monarchy and regional elites and where the estates-general was unable to become a unified political force.
A thread with excerpts from Napoleon's Other War: Bandits, Rebels and their Pursuers in the Age of Revolutions by Michael Broers:
Banditry-cum-guerilla warfare was endemic to Corsica, where local notables waged blood feuds and maintained networks of armed men. As a young man, Napoleon and his family had far more exposure to this kind of war than to "conventional" fighting of artillery and big battalions.
Napoleon and the various factions of revolutionary radicals had their differences, but they paled in comparison to the gulf between them and the peasant counter-revolutionaries, who they viewed as backwards hicks whipped into banditry by their priests.
Machiavelli (in Discourses on Livy) on how difficult it is to change political institutions that have outlived their purpose. They can't be changed through normal politics (they *are* the normal politics) and someone willing to bypass them rarely has the public good in mind.
A major challenge to a state moving from authoritarianism to republican government -- all of the hacks who "were prevailing under the tyrannical state" feel obligated to it, while those who prosper under freedom simply believe they are getting what they deserve.
If the people of a republic turn to one man to defend them against the rich and powerful, "it will always happen that he will make himself tyrant of the city." He will eliminate the elite first and then turn on the people once there is no one else to stop him.
Richard Pipes describes the Kievan Rus as initially resembling "the East India or Hudson's Bay companies, founded to make money but compelled by the absence of any administration in the area of their operations to assume quasi-governmental responsibilities."
Mongol influence has etched itself into the Russian language. It is the origin of numerous Russian words relating to administration or brutality, from money (деньги) to shackles (кандалы).
Russian had somewhat distinct terms for private and public lordship, and Muscovite Tsars adopted the former to describe their rule.
The NDS, the former Afghan government's intelligence agency, was actually quite good at infiltrating the Taliban, running agents inside Pakistan, and compiling evidence that the Taliban was backed by the ISI as part of a deliberate plot to destabilize Afghanistan.
The US dismissed this as an excuse to cover for the Afghan government's weakness and corruption.
"The American diplomat will be in your valley tomorrow if you want to kidnap them."
Thread with excerpts from Phoenix and the Birds of Prey: Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism in Vietnam by Mark Moyar:
Local support for the Viet Cong was not motivated by nationalism or communism (which even many party members had a weak understanding of) but by village level grievances, especially support for land reform and lower rents and interest rates.
The areas where support for the VC was weakest, on the other hand, where those populated by ethnic minorities or by well organized religious groups like Roman Catholics or the Hoa Hao and Cao Dai Buddhists.