On or around this date in 536, the Roman army of Belisarius stormed the city of Naples and put many to the sword, ending a 21 day siege and opening up the road to the Eternal City. Why such a bloody resolution to this siege? Read on. #Roman#Byzantine#History#Italy 🇮🇹
When Belisarius and the Roman army arrived before Naples, they were riding a string of successes. Cities across Sicily and southern Italy had submitted immediately and willingly to the Roman force, as I described in the quoted tweet below.
In fact, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Belisarius' march from the toe of Italy to Naples must have taken on the character of a victory parade. And yet, here at Naples, the Roman army would encounter its first real resistance.
According to the historian Procopius, the resistance was due to a group of Neapolitans who argued against submitting to Belisarius in a public debate on the subject.
Two orators in particular argued that, should the Goths retake Naples later in the war, they would punish the city for submitting to the Romans at this time. Therefore better to resist the Romans now, they reasoned.
However, it seems that Naples also had a stalwart garrison of Gothic soldiers, and I believe that had as much to do with the decision of the citizens to resist the Romans as any oratory. Imagine what the Goths might do to citizens who suggested submission to the Romans!
So for three weeks, Belisarius and the Roman army encircled Naples, holding it under siege. As part of the siege, the aqueduct which carried water to the city was cut. One Roman soldier climbed into the aqueduct to see how it worked.
In doing so, he discovered that the aqueduct channel was nearly wide enough for a man to squeeze through. With a little chiseling, it could be widened. This was the way into the city. Belisarius ordered the widening of the aqueduct channel.
Then, Procopius informs us, Belisarius gave the Neapolotians one more opportunity to surrender, warning them of dire consequences if they did not. They refused, probably again egged on by the Gothic garrison.
So Beliarius sent 400 soldiers through the aqueduct into Naples. Once inside, they killed the Gothic guards in two towers of the northern side of the city's wall. The rest of the Roman army then scaled that stretch of wall with ladders, and stormed the city.
Procopius says that the Roman soldiers killed men of all ages everywhere they found them, and seized women and children as captives. But the Liber Pontificalis suggests the violence might have been even worse.
The anonymous author of the Liber Pontificalis describes the violence: "he killed both the Goths and all the Neapolitan citizens, and embarked on a sack from which he did not even spare the churches... no one was spared, not priests, not God's servants, not virgin nuns."
Only with difficulty was Belisarius able to restrain his soldiers and bring about peace to the conquered city. Why had they engaged in such an orgy of violence and bloodletting? One general and one specific answer to that question:
First, in general, when an army had conducted a long siege and then taken the besieged city by storm, it was common that this storming would be a bloody affair. Soldiers got more enraged the longer a siege lasted, and when the target was stormed, that rage flowed out.
Second, more specifically to this case, I wonder if the Roman army was particularly enraged because the campaign in Italy had been quite a cakewalk up to this point. Naples was such an aberration that it must have been confounding.
This is especially the case if we place ourselves in the shoes of the Roman army for a moment. They were told, and perhaps believed, that they were conducting a campaign of liberation and restoration. The easy conduct of the campaign so far had probably reinforced that.
If so, the resistance at Naples must have provoked a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. Was this really a campaign of liberation and restoration, or a difficult and drawn out war against a determined foe? In this, Naples was a harbinger: the Roman-Gothic war would be both.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Byzantine history enthusiasts often (with good reason) get irate about the Fourth Crusade. They should also celebrate the many conscientious objectors on the Fourth Crusade that refused to attack fellow Christians. This is an appreciation thread. 🧵
From the moment Enrico Dandolo, the Doge of Venice, proposed that the crusaders should attack the city of Zara, Geoffrey of Villehardouin reports: "There was much opposition."
The most articulate voice against the twisting of the Fourth Crusade is Guy, the Abbot of Vaux, who loudly proclaimed "My lords, on behalf of the Roman Pope I forbid you to lay siege to this city. For it is a Christian city and you are pilgrims."
Have you ever wanted more details about the Fourth Crusade’s attack on Constantinople in 1204? Two eyewitness accounts that are great to read together are Geoffrey of Villehardouin and Nicetas Choniates. Here are a few excerpts. 🧵
Geoffrey of Villehardouin (born around 1150) was a French knight and the Marshal of Champagne. He was one of the ambassadors to Venice who negotiated the deal for Venetian shipping of the crusade and he remained with the crusade until the end.
Nicetas Choniates (born around 1155) was a Roman civil official and governor of Philippopolis. He was an important author and historian in Nicaea, to which he fled after the conquest of Constantinople by the crusaders.
Welcome new followers! 👋 Allow me to introduce myself. I am a historian of the sixth-century Roman world and I post about all things Roman/Byzantine. My interests range from the founding of Rome to the fall of Constantinople.
In addition to posting about my own research, I also occasionally post about the field of Byzantine studies (or as I prefer to think of it, medieval Roman studies) and teaching as a university professor in the USA. Thanks for being here!
If you are new to this account, here are a few of my greatest threads. Was the Byzantine Empire Roman?
To celebrate my book's first birthday (released July 4 last year), I offer up a meditation on a curious little episode: the Vandal King Gelimer quoting the great refrain of Ecclesiastes: "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." #Roman #Byzantine 🧵
Some background: At the command of Justinian (r. 527-565), the general Belisarius led a Roman army to crush the Vandals and restore North Africa and most of its surrounding islands to Roman control in a lightning campaign that lasted just six months (September 533-March 534).
(This is probably underselling the shocking rapidity of this victory, because all major combat operations were complete by December 533 [3 months], and everything after that was claiming far-flung outposts and forcing the besieged Vandal King Gelimer into submission.)
The Count of the Stable (Comes Stabuli, from which we derive "constable") was a late antique officer of the Roman imperial court responsible for levying horses and pack animals for government use. Although it sounds like a humble post, it was held by a number of famous Romans. 🧵
I have been writing on the Comes Stabuli recently and was astonished to learn that occupants of the office included the future emperor Valens (r. 364-378) and the famous generals Stilicho (d. 408) and Aetius (d. 454).
This is of particular interest to me since in the sixth century Belisarius held the title of ἄρχον τῶν βασιλικῶν ἱπποκόμων (Commander of the Imperial Grooms), which was presumably a variant form of the same office.
Over the past few months I engaged in a variety of media (podcasts, blogs, book sites, etc) to get word out about my new book. This thread summarizes all that activity, both to keep it in one place and to give ideas to other academics with new books!
I started with places that would let me write a few words about my book to catch the interest of other bibliophiles. The first was on a humble blog called "The Page 99 Test":