Gaiseric: The Vandal Who Sacked Rome

by Ian Hughes

While Gaiseric has not become a household name like other 'barbarian' leaders such as Attila or Genghis Khan, his sack of Rome in AD455 has made his tribe, the Vandals, synonymous with mindless destruction. Gaiseric, however, was no moronic thug, proving himself a highly skilful political and military leader and was one of the dominant forces in Western Mediterranean region for almost half a century. The book starts with a concise history of the Vandals before Gaiseric's reign and analyses the tactics and weaponry with which they carved a path across the Western Roman Empire to Spain. It was in Spain that Gaiseric became their king and he that led the Vandals across the straits of Gibraltar to seize a new home in North Africa, depriving Rome of one of its most important remaining provinces and a key source of grain. Roman attempts at reconquest were defeated and the Balearic Islands, Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia were all added to Gaiseric's kingdom. His son, Huneric, was even betrothed to Eudoxia, daughter of the Emperor Valentinian III and it was her appeal for help after her father's murder that led Gaiseric to invade and sack Rome. He took Eudoxia and the other imperial ladies back to Africa with him, subsequently defeating further attempts by the Eastern Roman Empire to recapture the vital North African territory. Ian Hughes' anaylsis of the Gaiseric as king and general reveals him as the barbarian who did more than anyone else to bring down the Western Roman Empire, but also as a great leader in his own right and one of the most significant men of his age.

Genres: History, Ancient History, Biography, Military History

278 pages, Hardcover

First published July 30, 2017

Reviews

[WarpDrive · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very interesting, academically solid, fairly accurate chronological history of the development of the Vandal political and military structures under the remarkably successful guidance of King Gaiseric.

The author (Ian Hughes) is a well-know and highly regarded historical writer specialized in Late Antiquity, who has written a few excellent books on this endlessly fascinating period.

This book represents, like his other works, a felicitous and eminently successful balance of accessibility, level of detail, conciseness and academical rigour. The typical approach by this author, who carries out a balanced, nuanced and critical analysis of the available primary sources, and who frequently juxtapose and scrutinise the alternative sources and interpretations (all too often partially contradictory, sadly), is praiseworthy. Such a critical approach is especially important when studying this particular historical period, which is characterised by the paucity and fragmentary and ambiguous nature of the few available primary sources.

Like all reputable history writers, the author allocates the initial part of his book to an analysis of the quality of the available primary sources, and of their respective strengths and weaknesses. It is noteworthy, and deeply frustrating, that contemporary sources are fragmentary and driven by a clear political and/or religious agenda, while the more reliable and complete sources (such as the Wars by Procopius), are unfortunately related to later authors (who are still not exempt from bias, like in the case for example of the works by the Bishop Isidore of Seville, which present a clear bias towards the Goths).
The author makes extensive usage, especially with regards to the migration and expansion of the Vandals into Spain, of the Chronicles written by Hydatius (the famous bishop of Aquae Flaviae in the Roman Province of Gallaecia, who was the author of a chronicle of his own times that provides us with our best evidence for the history of Hispania in the 5th century).

In any case, all “Nicaenean” sources are in general to be viewed with particular circumspection, given their the not-so-subtle agenda of vilifying supporters and enforcers of the Arian and Donatist versions of Christianity (an agenda so remarkably successful that it is not so long ago, after all, that the popular image of the Vandal polity was still that of a barbarian group bent on wanton destruction and on religious persecution), but as much of the available information comes from such sources, the best pragmatic approach is to use them critically and cross-reference with any alternative available sources in the few instances when this is possible.

The author also expresses his skepticism towards sources (such as the famous Notitia Dignitatum) whose accuracy is rightfully described by the author as of dubious value (the shortcomings of such document are very often conveniently glossed over even by reputable historians). His skepticism towards sources and interpretations that too closely mirror ever-recurring Roman literary topoi (actually, the right term should be the Latin “loci”, rather than the Greek-derived term used by the author, to be more accurate), is completely warranted and in contrast with so many other authors who all too often relay the primary sources at face value: whenever recurrent themes come to the surface (such as for example when the reason for a roman military defeat is not ascribed to the better performance or simple overwhelming numerical superiority of the barbarian army, but to the perfidy and treacherous behaviour of the barbarian leaders, or the lack of “Roman virtues” demonstrated by the Roman military commander) the highest level of skepticism is definitely warranted. Fake news was not invented by Trump, but has been a constant feature of historical narrative since the most ancient times.
It must also be said though that, while the author tries to analyse, interpret, reconcile and correlate all available sources into a self-consistent and coherent narrative, his honesty in clearly highlighting the potential weaknesses and the highly speculative nature of his own interpretative version of events is praiseworthy and refreshing.

There are a few interesting facts that not all traditional histories of the last decades of the Western Roman Empire tend to highlight, some of which I selected here as deserving particular mention:
- as by now accepted by the majority of historians of Late Antiquity, the notion of a “people” being a relatively homogeneous body with a specific ethnic identity and a shared language and culture are a potentially misleading anachronism, if considered uncritically from our modern viewpoint. The group of “barbarians” that crossed into Africa in 429 were actually a conglomerate of Asdings Vandals, Siling Vandals, Alans, and even Goths and “Roman” inhabitants of Gallia and Hispania. Political identity and even ethnic affiliation were in Late Antiquity a more fluid concept than what is perceived nowadays (even though it must be said that the concept of “Romanitas” retained its fundamental importance)
- the almost negligible political power, and the less than impressive military strength of the Vandals up to the crossing into Africa, contrast quite sharply with the contemporary (and even modern, in some cases) popular vision of a massive horde of barbarians overwhelming the defensive structures of the Empire. In reality the Vandals really emerged as a substantial political force only with the consolidation in the Roman provinces of Africa (after the treaty of 435 but especially after the treaty of 442 (when the Vandal settlements in the richest provinces such as Africa Proconsularis and Byzacium were officially recognised by the Empire). It is interesting to note for example that, even after the treaty of 412, the Vandal settlements in Hispania were quite small and definitely not its richest areas. It is well known how the Goths, under instigation by the Empire (Constantius, in particular) easily defeated and almost annihilated the Siling Vandals in 417. From a military perspective, the watershed (as correctly highlighted by the author) is actually the little-known defeat of Castinus (Roman military commander in Hispania) in 422.
- The figure of Gaiseric, as masterfully portrayed by the author, is quite remarkable and thoroughly intriguing. While other barbarian tribes and leaders (such as Attila) have historically been considered as the main external contributors to the eventual demise of the Western Roman Empire, it is actually Gaiseric who proved to be the most damaging, as the loss of Africa to the Vandals was a financially crippling loss that effectively ended up being a main contributor to the bankruptcy of the Empire. Gaiseric himself proved to be a very astute and successful political and military leader, who knew how to probe for weaknesses of his enemies and when to act decisively. He proved quite sophisticated and cunning in playing Roman politics and in frequently dividing the East from the West (ironically mastering the very Roman rule “divide et impera” better than the Roman themselves – actually this rule probably originated with Philip II of Macedon, but it was the Romans who in their history really mastered it)”. He knew very well how to play the dynastic card (consistently insisting on the marriage of his son to the daughter of Valentinian III, Eudocia, and its recognition by the Empire, and even attacking Roman provinces under the the pretence of supporting Olybrius as a potential Emperor).
- The critical but very complex and ever-fluid relationship between the two halves of the Roman Empire is analysed with competent accuracy and nuance. On one side, the two halves of the Empire still saw themselves at least as closed allies with significant common interests (even if not, strictly speaking, part of the same polity): this is proved, for example, by the intervention of Aspar in 432 (second battle of Hippo Regius), and most importantly by the invasion of 468. On the other hand, Gaiseric managed more than once to strike separate treaties with the separate halves of the Empire, and there were a few instances were the Eastern Emperor refused to recognise the Western Emperor (like in the case of Libius Severus, Olybrius, Glycerius and Romulus Augustu(lu)s) and to provide assistance to the West, thus damaging its legitimacy and indirectly promoting further internal unrest. In some cases (like in 424, when Theodosius II sent his army to crush the Western "usurper" John) "dynastic disagreement" evolved into open conflict.
- contrarily to much popular opinion, the Western Roman Empire was not mortally wounded and terminally ill at the beginning of the 5th century (it has been quite fashionable to see the crossing of the Rhine in 406AD as a catastrophe). Actually, it did show remarkable resilience up to the middle of the 5th century, as the massive expedition against the Vandals by the western Emperor Majorian in 460AD (with the associated massive investment in a significant army and an important fleet) can clearly demonstrate.

It is important to note that, while the book is well-written, academically solid and definitely a very rewarding read, it does tend to approach the subject from a chronological standpoint (a year-by-year narration of events) rather than trying to analyse in depth the social, economical and cultural aspects of the polities being analysed, be they the Vandal Kingdom or the Western Roman Empire. It is therefore more suitable to be characterised as an accessible work of popular history rather than a comprehensive treatment of the period in question. There are also a couple of mistakes (in the introduction, the date of the division of the Empire between the brothers Valentinian and Valens is incorrectly written as 464, while it actually was 364, and on page 168 all the reference to Pulcheria are incorrect, as the daughter of Valentinian III who married Olybrius was actually Placidia, not Pulcheria).
On the positive side, the book narrative is supported by a good timeline (which is very handy in a period characterised by a fast succession of Emperors and pretenders, military readers, change of alliances, and intermittent civil wars), and by a decent and up-to-date bibliography.

Overall, it is an enjoyable and informative book, rigorous but accessible and recommended to all readers interested in this fascinating period. 4 stars.

[Gavin O'Brien · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent study on an often overlooked figure of the 5th Century. Ian Hughes provides Gaiseric, King of the Vandals & Alans, the treatment he deserves, bringing his story and legacy to a more general audience interested in the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and the many interesting characters that abound in teh 5th Century.

Often overlooked in favour of more imagination provoking/romanitc individuals like Attila the Hun who cowed the Roman world with his armies, or the tragic hero's embodied in the likes of Stilico and Aetius, slain through treachery in their patriotic duty to Rome, Gaiseric's story is no less interesting and awe inspiring. Born outside the boundried of the Empire around the middle Danube, Gaiseric's exceptionally long life of 80+ years would see him witness the collapse of the formerly powerful Western Roman Empire, the cowing of the Eastern Empire, the migration of the Vandal tribe from the Danube across western Europe to North Africa and the solidification of a Vandal State in what was the richest province of the West. It would see his rise from a lowly son of a noble to King of the Vandals and Alans, a relative of the Theodosian Dynasty, and the bequeather of a powerful and prosperous kingdom to his sons.

In keeping with his other works on the 5th Century Roman world, Hughs presents a chronologial narrative of events, in this case starting just before the birth of Gaiseric with a brief discussionon the formation of the Vandals as a tribal unit and their early migrations. His goal there after is to attempt a conciese biography of Gaiseric and his motives from as close a point of view from the Vandals and Gaiseric as possible. In this he very much succeeds. He presents Gaisaric, not as a ruthless, blood thirsty barbarian basking in his goal of the ruination of the Roman Empire, but rather as a brilliant military leader, a shrewed politician, a pious king and a charasmatic leader with a clear grand strategy for his people and family.

His wars in Spain and North Africa, both defensive and offensive, especially against the combined might of the Roman Empire, demonstrated his military brilliance. His political acumen and ability to recognise when it was best to take advantage of Roman weakness and division allowed him to forge a kingdom in Africa and almost always leave the negotiating table with terms favourable to him and his people. He was a devout Arian Christian and saw to this version of Christianity being established in his domains and among his people. His ability as a charasmatic leader with a grand plan, formulated and adapted over time, is clear from his forging of a Vandal state in Africa on the 430s and his peoples loyalty to him throughout his reign in the good and bad times.

Hughes consdiers Gaisaeric to be the most successful of all the Barbarian leaders and Kings. He argues Gaisarics goal as being, not a deliberate policy of seeking the destruction of the Western Empire, but rather, exploiting its weakness, in the form of raids, to extract conessions, and most importantly, the recognition of a permanent Vandal state in North Africa. This is further highlighted by his desire to have his son married into the imperial family, the placing of his own candidate, eventually realised, on the throne, and his many treaties formulated with both halves of the Empire for a lasting peace. Some of his actions, the sack of Rome in 455, capture of the imperial family and yearly raids on Italy, could all be regarded as undertaken in the name of the Theodosian Dynasty against illigitimate Western Emperors. In the end Hughes assessment is that it is Gaiseric was perhaps the one Germanic warlord that deserves the most credit for the collapse of the Western Empire, though this was a bi-product of Gaisaerics actions and was never an intended goal.

In terms of sources, Hughes is well accquainted with all that the 5th and 4th centuries have to offer and he makes excellent use of them. Where sources are lacking he does his best to make up for it with secondary literature, though in most cases he concides that his arguement is merely a hypothesis and open to debate, thus welcoming the reader into the discussion. Never the less I find even these hypotheses convincing arguments in their presentation for the most part.

The only major issue which I have with the book is its lack of use of other archaeological or cultural examinations. Being a biography, and in keeping with Hughes other works, the focus rests on the individuals and primarily military history. Though in some cases a mild cultural context is given, it would have been interesting if Hughes could have provided more social, economic and cultural information about the 5th century Roman world and especially Roman Africa and the fledgling Vandal Kingdom. But these are mild shor comings and merely encourages further study by the reader.

Overall it is an excellent edition to the bookshelf and I highly recommend!

[Andrew Dockrill · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having taken a few Roman history classes during my undergrad I was vaguely familiar with the story of Gaiseric the Vandal, who sacked Rome. During this period of time I was further introduced to him by the History channel show "Barbarian's Rising" which was a largely British acted retelling of the many "barbarians" who challenged Rome's superiority. Among these characters was Hannibal - arguably the most famous, then of course Arminius, Fritigern, Attila and Gaiseric. I had always been under the impression that Attila had one of the larger impacts on the end of the Western Empire until having watched this. Having completed the episode on Gaiseric, I knew I had to get my hands on a biography about him. I had just finished reading his book on Stilicho and to my surprise he had also written a biography on Gaiseric.

The book was phenomenal! It was so easy to read, making the 5th century confusion easy to follow and really breaking down the progression and migration of the Vandals and the divisions within the tribe. It occurred to me during this reading that had it not been for Attila, the Vandals may have never even attacked Rome to begin with, as the Huns were running rampant across Europe and making their way eventually to Gaul.

Despite the fact that there is very little written on Gaiseric himself, Ian Hughes did a fantastic job making this book still feel interesting and approaching his narrative from many different angles. When he did not have facts he would often offer the most likely explanation or theory, such as when Valentinian III had died, and Gaiseric realized that if he were going to attack Rome, Valentinians death offered the best window as it was not well defended. While there is no explanation for why he chose to do so, he presented the reader with 3-4 very compelling arguments as to why he may have decided to attack.

All in all I adored the book, I won't go into too much spoilers - if you can even really call it that, I mean it is history. But to anyone interested in Roman history, this is definitely worth your time and Ian Hughes continues to deliver, I have almost all of his work, including his newly released Attila.

[Alex Helling · Rating 3 out of 5]

Who destroyed the Western Roman Empire? Most will draw a blank, following Gibbon they might suggest Christianity, or Barbarians. If pressed for a person then Atilla the Hun is probably who will come up, and possibly Alaric the Goth. Has anyone heard of Gaiseric the Vandal? Not well known but Ian Hughes in this book argues that actually Gaiseric was much more responsible than any other external enemy of Rome. He conquered Rome’s breadbasket, and previously safest provinces, in North Africa, he sacked Rome, and defeated a major counter attack. Gaiseric’s was also a long life – he lived to his mid eighties – he was thus the thorn in the side of the Empire through much of its collapse.

Pros
Interesting biography of an unknown but significant leader
Ties together a decent narrative from thin sources

Cons
Quite a lot is a bit generic
Some things not well explained

As he becomes King of the Vandals and the leader who causes so much damage to the Roman Empire Gaiseric is a significant figure but largely unknown, so therefore in sore need of a biography like this. This should make for an interesting perspective; not from the Roman’s side of their fall, but from the outsider ‘barbarian’ viewpoint. Hughes on this is mixed, he does consider the Vandals viewpoint, and how localised perspectives in the Roman Empire were, but the sources are unfortunately all from Roman (or later Eastern Roman) writers – particularly monks, so it will always be difficult to tease out.

As a biography this is mostly reasonably easy to follow. The writing is clearly meant for a more general audience and not just academics. Hughes points to where there is debate about an event or issue but does not go into too much detail, instead favouring one narrative thread rather than multiple possibilities which can be confusing. As this is history from 1500 years ago the sources are often distinctly patchy, biased, and open to interpretation but Hughes draws together what we know and gives good argumentation for his interpretations.

Unfortunately, I also think the sources are what lead to the undoing of this book. Hughes includes an immense amount about what is going on elsewhere in the Roman Empire, particularly across the west that has very little significance to Gaiseric and the Vandals. This is especially true early on – before Gaiseric is King. It can be seen as context, but it also mostly feels like padding (in a pretty short book), putting in what we know elsewhere to fill gaps when it might be better to stick closely to what is directly impacting the Vandals. And it is probably those patchy sources that result in elements of Gaiseric’s life not being well explained, even down to the big decision to go to Africa is mostly educated guesswork.

All in all, an interesting short biography. Worth reading for someone interested in the Roman empire or the early Middle Ages that follow its fall. Gaiseric is a key figure in the change from one world to the other and deserves a biography.

[Rudi Opperman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting account of a man and a tribe I didn’t know much about at all and his substantial contribution to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The book provides an insight into how the leaders of the time thought and approached politics. Not a book to read before bedtime, though, you have the concentrate, it’s written like an academic book.

[Alberto · Rating 4 out of 5]

I knew about Gaiseric of course but was unaware of the extent to which he was directly responsible for the final collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Only the presence of Hughes' usual writing flaws prevent this interesting and insightful book from earning the 5th star.

[David Blake · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enjoyed it -- but I thought Calculus was tough to follow!

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a very good read. I particularly appreciate that the author provides a nice neat chronological timeline in as much as possible. Although most of the primary sources for this period of history is either scant or biased the author makes it very clear that in many instances the information is based primarily on either conjecture or opinion.
If one is looking for how the Vandal people lived and details concerning kinship, culture and society this may not be your book. As the title suggests this is a book primarily about Gaiseric and Vandal military campaigns although the author does do a superb job of giving background and details about what is the central point of the book. Which is Gaiseric’s military genius and why he deserves credit as being one of the main personalities responsible for the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

[Calvin Coulter]

Really interesting story that I hadn't heard before. Dangerous time to be alive.