Barbarians and Romans, A.D. 418-584: The Techniques of Accommodation

By Walter A. Goffart and Walter Goffart

Book Overview

Despite intermittent turbulence and destruction, much of the Roman West came under barbarian control in an orderly fashion. Goths, Burgundians, and other aliens were accommodated within the provinces without disrupting the settled population or overturning the patterns of landownership. Walter Goffart examines these arrangements and shows that they were based on the procedures of Roman taxation, rather than on those of military billeting (the so-called hospitalitas system), as has long been thought. Resident proprietors could be left in undisturbed possession of their lands because the proceeds of taxation, rather than land itself, were awarded to the barbarian troops and their leaders.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0691102317
• ISBN13: 9780691102313
• Release Date: October 1987
• Publisher: Princeton University Press
• Length: 296 Pages
• Weight: 0.78 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 5.5" x 8.5"

Customer Reviews

Hospitalitas - and where do I get some; a review of Goffart's "Barbarians and Romans"

Alas for those of us who are enamored of the visages of hordes of barbarians invading the Roman west. Walter Goffart has produced a pin to pop our bubbles. In this book Prof. Goffart makes a very interesting argument against the popular notion that hordes of rampaging barbarians invaded the Roman west in the 4th and 5th centuries. He argues that the Germanic tribes were not in fact all that numerous and that they were provisioned, not with land ripped from the terrified fingers of its rightful citizen-owners; but rather that they were supported with the results of taxes. To support his argument Goffart looks at a diverse evidence: Everything from the homey reports of Sidonius, to legal records, archeology, and linguistic analysis. Sidonius, Goffart notes, complained that he couldn't write because there were 10 bulky barbarians billeted in his home, cooking their foul smelling meals to his discomfort. The archaeological and linguistic evidence, he adds, does not support the notion that the Visigoths were given land. With land holdings one would expect the Visigoths to become entrenched within their surrounding communities. And if that were so, one would not expect them, en masse, to suddenly arise one day and decide to move elsewhere. Five Stars. [A-]. Academic work. Expect tons of long, useful footnotes; and thought-provoking Appendices. Important rethinking of primary sources and archaeological data. Includes comprehensive consideration of recent historical thinking - i.e. a look at Dopsch, Pirenne, Lot and their ilk; what they thought and why. Fantastic Bibliography. The use of Latin is rather extensive in the Appendices. And while less prevalent in the main text, you probably won't be overly happy with this book as a purchase if you aren't a little comfortable with seeing Latin terms in print. Words such as praetor, mancipia, and terrae abound - although it is important to note that they are defined for you. (I don't want to give you the idea that you have to come to the book already knowing them) Pam T.

If you think you understood the Dark Ages, think again

Goffart takes issue not only with the common misperception of a violent and massive barbarian invasion of the Roman West, but also with the more prosaic picture which has been drawn in 19th and 20th century historical scholarship of the period--one in which the Goths, Burgundians, etc., were basically granted a third of all the useful lands in Gaul, Spain and Bavaria, causing a monumental upheaval in power and property. He feels this consensus springs from faulty assumptions and misinterpretations of the primary sources particularly those pertaining to Roman tax law. Instead of actual lands, he concludes that the barbarians were granted the proceeds from a third of the assessed properties that were taxed, and that little or no property changed hands as a result. The Empire, in effect, was dealing itself out of the military payroll game, letting the local (barbarian) militias collect their own damn pay. Although Goffart deduces this mostly from a close examination of the documentary evidence, he also feels it helps explain the anomalous paucity of barbarian archaeological finds from this period, and the usually urban nature of what little is found. There are several ramifications of this picture. Instead of painful disruption of Gallo-Roman property owners, we see instead a sort of book-keeping maneuver designed to minimize the impact of barbarian settlement. We see the opportunistic devolution of Roman taxation and bureaucracy, ingeniously devised to smoothly incorporate barbarian power, without reducing imperial revenues (the empire still received its customary third, the remaining third was for local govt). And, on a larger scale, Goffart believes that one can trace in all this the embryonic stages of early-Middle Ages seignurial arrangements. I can't begin to do his careful analysis justice, and urge you to read the book for yourself.I used the phrase "apparently hard-to-argue-with" because whenever I have encountered a reference to his work in seemingly authoritative sources (e.! g., Wolfram's learned but atrociously written "History of the Goths"), it is praised for its value (while, perhaps, puzzled over for its implications).

Careful revision of the "invasion" myth.

Goffart challenges the widely held perception that the "barbarians" (Goths, Lombards, Alans, etc.) were an invading horde that established themselves in Europe like marauding motorcycle gangs. Rather, their settlement in the West took place as an expediency of the Imperial system. What has commonly been viewed as grants (or capitulations) of land, involving major upheavals for the inhabitants, Goffart convincingly recasts as the transfer of units of taxation. In other words, barbarian warlords and their followers were not given land per se, but the right to the assessed tax proceeds from certain parcels. In a way, then, the Imperial government simply removed itself as the middleman between taxpayer and soldier. This, Goffart argues, entailed much less demographic and political turbulence than has commonly been thought, and explains (to a degree) the rather sparse and urban character of barbarian archaelogical evidence from this period. The legal and social roots of the later feudal system are also revealed. Extensive footnotes and appendices drill down into the details of late-Roman taxation and troop-billeting practices, supporting his conclusions. Very well done scholarship which has, judging from its citations, caused researchers in this field to stop and think.