Whether Ammianus Marcellinus Had it Right in the Fall of Rome

One of the biggest debates about classical history during the fourth and fifth centuries focuses on the decline of the Roman Empire. There have been many speculations about the causes of the decline in the Roman Empire including: Romans military, agriculture. famine, politics, religion and economic climate. In the primary source. Documents in World History focusing on the article The Fall of Rome Written by Ammianus Marcellinus, where the main focus is on the battle of Adnanople in The Balkans which emphasizes on the qualities of the Huns and what qualities made them hard to deal With. This is where we need to take into account the credibility of Marceilinus, who originated as a Roman soldier, What reason would Marcellinus hide the real truth for reasons of decline?

What aspects of Marcellinus account seem most accurate? And why would Marcellinus be prone to exaggerate? Widely considered one of the most important sources for the late Roman time period Was Ammianus Marcellinus, a Greek from one of the great cities of Syria, most likely Antioch. Ammianus came from a good family which had been excused from its obligation to serve in the local town council and was instead closely linked to the larger imperial administration. As a young man, Ammianus served as Protector Domesticus, part of an elite group of soldiers who carried out a variety of special functions and often operated in close Vicinity of the emperor himself. These Protectors often went on in life to lead units of active troops.

This is similar to how our society sends bright young soldiers to officer training school. Ammianus Marcellinus often was involved in high-profile missions, and eventually became part of the invasion of Persia, launched in 363 by the pagan emperor Julian. Unlike most of Julians predecessors and successors, Julian rejected Christianity, in turn influencing Ammianus himself to reject the idea of Christianity, Ammianuss military career came to an end following Julian's death in 363. Following his military career, Ammianus dedicated himself to research and documentation, eventually composing a history of the late Roman Empire under the title Res Gestae which literally means deeds done. It is commonly believed that he traveled Widely, and moved from his native area to Rome in 384 almost 21 years after Julians death. Marcellinuss wrote much of the history in Rome.

Order custom essay Whether Ammianus Marcellinus Had it Right in the Fall of Rome with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

Marcellinus Work intermixes With political history and personal recollections Scholars believe that Ammianus may have finished documenting the Roman Empire in the year 390 and died soon thereafter. Most of the narrative is filtered through the understanding of the disaster that Ammianus blames on failure to honor Romes ancient traditions. So when mining for material to help support the credibility of Ammianus we must always ask why does he say what he says? On the other side of the coin Marcelinus is our main source of that time period, so We must take his claims seriously and attempt to evaluate their worth understanding how Roman failures may well have lead directly to barbarian successes. There needs to be some understanding about how the barbarian invasion was so lethal. The barbarians were like Wild beasts Who have acquired the habit of stealing their prey through the negligence of the shepherds. Kulikowski uses this quote to illustrate how classmal people Viewed these barbarians.

GiVing a second View of Ammianus account is the book Romes Gothic Wars written by Michael Kulikowski. In Romes Gothic Wars. there is an explanation of how the Goths came into existence on the boundaries of the Roman world, how different Gothic groups deal With the enormous power of Rome just beyond their lands, The book illustrates how In two upsetting years, thousands of Goths entered the imperial provinces and destroyed the Romans Army. Contrasting other accounts of the same caliber. Romes Gothic Wars demonstrates precisely how and why modern historians understand the Goths the way they do making this commonly debated topic in history even more controversial. Michael Kulikowski is an associate professor of history at the University of Tennessee- Knoxville.

His Scholarly articles have appeared in Early Medieval Europe. Britannia. Phoenix. and Byzantion. and he has appeared on the History Channels Barbarians series. To put a perspective of how crucial it is for historians to pinpoint the plausible facts in Ammianus Marcelines work. it is important to review the important chain of events leading up to the most significant military disaster of the Roman imperial era, one of the worst in Roman history. The Romans Militarys defeat was inflicted by barbarians which makes this topic instantaneously controversial. As observers struggle to understand the reasons for the Roman loss. the fact being the barbarians who defeated the emperor at Adrianople were not unstoppable invaders but they were in fact the same people that were given permission to cross the Danube River two years prior.

The welcoming of the barbarians was no extraordinary innovation, but a well-known process with centuries of achievement behind it. Granted accidents can happen whenever large numbers of people move from one place to another. But the path to Adrianople was no accident. The orderly reception of the Goths broke down through mismanagement along With the imperial government repeatedly exacerbated the problem with a fatal combination of venality and incompetence, And so this crisis continued onward until the inevnable and fatal 9th of August 378. A modern narrative history is entirely at the mercy of the sources that happen to surVive. Up until now, researchers have been able to look at barbarian history in only two ways: first. in a static. analytical overview based on archaeological eVidence: and second in brief flashes of narrative when the brief flashes of narrative when the barbarians impinged heavny enough upon Roman imperial politics for our sources to leave a record of events.

The main sources do not reach a level of precision until the barbarians arrive at the banks of the Danube in 376. and cause a train of events that brought them there. It all begins with the Huns, a mysterious and deadly new people appear and drive the somewhat less savage people the Alans. then drive through the Greuthungian kingdom of Ermanaric, pressing a horde of barbarian refugees forward to the Danube where they plead for entn/ into the Roman Empire. The main objective in evaluating Ammianuss work is caused by his exaggeration of the Huns. He goes on to describe the Huns as uncouth, and so hardy that they neither require fire nor well flavored food. but live on roots such herbs as they get in fields. or half-raw flesh of any animal, which they merely warm rapidly by placing it between their own thighs and the backs of their horses. Ammianus continues to talk about the Huns as if he has seen them for his own eyes in this description.

They never shelter themselves under roofed houses, but avoid them as people ordinarily avoid sepulchers as things not fit for common use, nor is there even to be found among them a cabin thatched with reeds: but they wander about and hunger and thirst from there very cradles There is not a person who cannot remain on his horse day and night. On horseback they buy and sell, they taken their meat and drink, and there they recline on the narrow neck of their steed, and yield to sleep so deep as to indulge in every variety of dreams. Ammianus lists several unusual characteristics that set the Huns so far from being tangible its no wonder that the Romans fell short of victory over the barbarians invasion.

The fact being the Romans had the man power and ability to overcome them in a multitude of ways, Ammianus account needs to be handled carefully given the eVidence of Ammianus description which can be traced to older ethnographic traditions and often traced as far as Herodotus. 800 years earlier. KulikoWski points out that there is a common belief IhatAmmianus Marcellinus had never even seen a Hun. Without this knowledge passed to the readier prior to reading Ammianus account; the statements about the Huns being so savage as tworlegged beasts may not seem so farfetched. As readers Its easy to believe the knowledge passed on. especially when an author writes as if they were really on hand to Witness the reality. Ammianus draws a vivrd description into the minds of the readers. On top of the Vibrant account its easy to indulge into the story. Without taking into consideration of Ammianuss loyalty to his previous employer.

Its an even more difficult task to fathom how a group of barbarians could have possibly overtaken one of the most advanced civilizations to date. Taking a closer look at the style. Ammianus narrates the simple chain reaction between the different groups of barbarians leading to the eventual mass converging at the banks of the Danube; there is no chronological time period from where historians can have a more exact profile View of history. Without a more precise timeline credibility of the topic can most certainly be questioned. What Ammranus gives us is more of a birds eye View only satisfying broad accounts of the cause and effect that take place. This also draws certain questions about whether or not Ammianus account on the Battle of Adrianople was a mere retelling of rumors that were retold by the Romans.

This can draw speculation on the time it took for the conflicts among the Huns. Alans and Goths giving an obvious ideal that the event was spread over a much longer time period than implied by Ammianus. Giving a prime example of how inaccurate Ammianus perception of time can be easily demonstrated by the way he paints the picture of thousands of barbarians crossing the Danube River over night. With all of the speculations being broadcasted. I would like to touch on a couple key points that seemed most accurate about Ammianus retelling of the events that unfolded. With the fact on hand that Ammianus was a direct observer of Roman decline. and he also understood how Roman failures could have lead to barbarian successes. This leads historians to look at What items of Ammianus account could be plausible.

One of the main pomts brought to my attention during my delve into The Fall of Rome was that the Simple opinions thatAmmianus accredits for the Romans is how the people still hold their head up high even during the downturn of their civilization as if they are clueless to what is taking place. The affair now seemed a cause of joy rather than of fear. according to the skillful flatterers who were always extolling and exaggerating the good fonune of the emperor. They congratulated him that an embassy had come from the farthest corners of the earth. unexpectedly offering him a large body of recruits: and that, have an army absolutely invincible. This example helps solidify the blindness of the Romans even after being warned by governor of Cappadocia and the famous historian of Alexander when the tactical manual the Order of Battle against the Alans explaining how a Roman army should be disposed in order to repel the charge of Alans.

Instead of the Romans keeping their guard upAmmianus shows how they welcome these people Without question to their ultimate existence. In addition to the use of Ammianus documentation and interpretation, he does a respectable job of describing the impression of people coming over the Danube River. It is a plausible that there could have been an excess of 100.000 barbarians. As Ammianus describes the sheer number by using this example The man who would Wish to ascertain the number might as well attempt to count the waves in the African sea. or the grains of sand tossed about by the zephyrs. There is great belief that the scale of later fighting implies that the Goths admitted to the empire at least in the tens of thousands. and possibly more. Another example putting an emphasis on the barbarians sheer size refers back to this passage At that period. moreover the defenses of our provinces were much exposed. and the armies of barbarians spread over them like the lava of Mount Etna.

There is no doubt that some of the claims of the barbarians size are exaggerated. but it is Widely accepted that the barbarians empire was excessive. Proof that Ammianus could have had a good insight of how many people who crossed is the simple skills he acquired as a military man, having being trained to count people of vast proportion. even if through the entire account of his work he exaggerates the size to help hide the simple mistakes of the Romans in order to bandage the bruised ego. In conclusion having exhausted the vast majority of Ammianus main points throughout the primary source, its very plausible that most of the points made from Ammianus documentation of the barbarians specifically the Huns were mere accounts from Romans and werent formulated from direct contact. Ammianus may pose as one of the main sources from this era In Roman History, but lacks several key points including specrfic dates and numbers to help generate a profile View of the actions that took place leading up to the Battle of Adrianople.

Ammianus does bring some valuable information by leaving an attitude or tone set by the Romans of sheer insecurity that contributed to Romans failure. Ammianus seems to overlook several points for reasons that only assumptions can be made. With all key points being brought up, it is important to take into account Ammianus military background. his pride for his Roman and possible lack of other common knowledge or oversight. If you reflect on whatAmmianus does to protect the Romans place in history its really not quite far off what other civilizations in history have done to protect their own account. With this being said its plausible that the events that lead to Adrianople are simply outlined by human error and that the Huns were not an unstoppable group of people.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer