Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy (4 page)

So all-pervasive was the power of Byzantium, said Pirenne, than no Germanic ruler dared assume the imperial purple and declare himself Emperor. Although Constantinople lacked the military resources necessary to establish real control of the western provinces (Justinian’s attempt was only partly successful), her vast wealth gave her effective control. Whilst she could not send her own armies to punish recalcitrant princes, she could hire whatever military assistance she needed from other “barbarian” chiefs. So complete was Constantinople’s control that only once before the seventh century did a Germanic monarch issue coinage with his own image, rather than that of the Emperor. This was in the time of the Frankish king Theodebert I, who found himself at war with Justinian in Italy in 546-8. This singular display of independence on the part of a “barbarian” monarch was, noted Pirenne, bewailed by Procopius, who viewed it as a deplorable sign of decadence and decline. The next time a Germanic king showed such independence was in the 620s, during the reign of Chlothar (or Chlotar) II. Chlothar II was a contemporary of the Emperor Heraclius, in whose time Byzantium first came into conflict with the Arabs. From the time of Chlothar II onwards, no western monarch would ever again mint coins bearing the image of the Byzantine Emperor.

The significance of this fact was stressed at length by Pirenne. Evidently the impact of the Persian and Arab assaults on Byzantium during the first half of the seventh century was so great that the provinces of the west were able to detach themselves both politically and culturally from the Empire. We know that within the few decades between the 620s and 640s, the Empire lost much of Anatolia, all of Syria, and Egypt – by far the richest and most populous of her provinces. Constantinople herself was besieged by an Arab fleet between 674 and 678 and again in 718.

With the Empire now weakened apparently beyond repair, the Germanic kings of the West, said Pirenne, began to assert their independence. This was signaled by the minting of coins bearing their own images; and it was to end in the formal re-establishment of the Western Empire under a Germanic king – Charles the Great, king of the Franks. Thus for Pirenne the detachment of the West from the East, politically, culturally and religiously, was a direct consequence of the arrival on the world stage of Islam. “Without Mohammed,” said Pirenne, “Charlemagne is inconceivable.”

[1]
Hugh Trevor-Roper,
The Rise of Christian Europe
(2nd. ed., London, 1966), p. 27

[2]
Ibid.

[3]
Ibid p. 47

[4]
See eg. William V. Harris, “Child Exposure in the Roman Empire,”
The Journal of Roman Studies
, Vol. 84 (1994)

[5]
Tacitus,
Annals of Imperial Rome
, iii, 25

[6]
Plutarch,
Moralia
, Bk. iv

[7]
Stobaeus, iv, 24, 14

[8]
For a discussion, see Rodney Stark,
The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History
(Harper Collins, 1996), pp. 95-128

[9]
Ibid.

[10]
By the same token, demographic trends in modern post-Christian Europe would suggest that, within another forty years, or perhaps less, Europe will become Muslim, since the latter group is the only one on the continent producing above replacement levels of children. This is a simple demographic fact; yet to even state it in this age of political correctness is to invite a charge of “racism” or “xenophobia” or some other equally inappropriate and frankly idiotic accusation.

P
irenne’s conclusions were the result of many years’ research. As a historian he was well aware of the importance of archaeology, and he did employ archaeological evidence, particularly with regard to coinage and its development. Yet, as a product of his age, he was still more inclined to emphasize written history; and it was primarily from medieval and late classical documentary material that he drew his conclusions. In the century before his time more and more texts of the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries had become available and translated into modern languages, and these are quoted at length throughout
Mohammed and Charlemagne
. Perhaps his most important source is Gregory of Tours (538 - 594), whose description of the social, political and religious life of the period provide a vivid account of the lives and actions of kings, prelates, and private individuals. Pirenne noted the existence of a flourishing artistic and intellectual life in the fifth and sixth centuries, and he quotes the work of Boethius, Cassiodorus, and others as prime examples of the high level of culture at the time.

He notes the enthusiasm with which the “barbarian” Franks, Goths and Vandals adopted Roman culture and institutions. He emphasizes the numerical insignificance of the Germanic peoples, and notes that their languages left virtually no trace on the Latin tongues of Italy and Spain, and very little trace on the Latin language of Gaul.

He cites the archaeology, as it was then known. The major monuments left by the Goths, Franks and Vandals are called to the witness-stand.

The evidence of coinage is quoted at some length. Pirenne noted that the Germanic kings of the fifth and sixth centuries employed gold currency emblazoned with the image of the Emperor in Constantinople, and he contrasts this with the debased currency of the late seventh to eleventh centuries. Indeed, as he emphasized, from the middle of the seventh century, coinage largely disappears from Europe and is replaced by a barter economy.

* * *

Pirenne begins by emphasizing an important point: The barbarians did not simply march into the Empire and appropriate territories; they were invited in as
foederati
, as allies, and very often this is exactly how they behaved – even during the most disturbed century, the fifth. Thirty years after Wallia defeated the Vandals and Alans, the Visigoths again, this time along with the Franks and Burgundians, proved themselves loyal allies of Rome by helping Atius overcome the Huns: thus saving Western Europe from Attila’s tyranny. In Pirenne’s words, “The military art of the Romans and the valour of the Germans collaborated. Theodoric I, king of the Visigoths, in fulfilling Ataulf’s ambition to become the restorer of the Empire, was slain.”
[1]
Crucially, he notes that in these years, “if the Barbarians had wished to destroy the Empire they had only to agree among themselves, and they must have succeeded. But they did not wish to destroy it.”
[2]

When, about three decades later, the Western Empire was actually abolished, it was not, as some have imagined, an earth-shattering event. In fact, the abolition went almost unnoticed and was merely, in the words of Trevor-Roper, “a political event.”
[3]
This, said Pirenne, was an internal
coup d’état
; not the destruction of an empire. Odoacer, who now became king of Italy, was a barbarian, it is true, but he was not the ruler of a separate tribe or people, he was a commander of the Imperial forces. And it was as commander of those forces that he dismissed Romulus Augustulus and sent the Imperial insignia back to Constantinople. Zeno, the Emperor of the East, “went so far as to recognize Odoacer as a patrician of the Empire.” The simple fact is, “nothing was changed; Odoacer was an Imperial functionary.”
[4]
To those who, in spite of all the evidence, continued to insist that the abolition of the Western Empire was an epoch-making event, Pirenne noted that just over a decade later, the Eastern Emperor contrived to have Odoacer himself removed from office. He sent Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, into Italy, after granting him the title of patrician of Rome. Finally, in 493, when Odoacer was captured and assassinated, Theodoric, being “duly authorized” by Zeno, took over the government of Italy. He remained king of his own people, the Ostrogoths, but not of the Italians. These he governed as a functionary of the Emperor.

It is true, of course, that by the end of the fifth century the whole of the territory of the Western Empire was de facto ruled by barbarian kings: Ostrogoths in Italy; Vandals in Africa; Seuves in Galicia; Visigoths in Spain and Gaul south of the Loire; Burgundians in the valley of the Rhone, and Franks in the rest of Gaul. If they had really wished to extirpate Roman society, culture and tradition, they were now in a position to do so. But, as Pirenne emphasized again and again, they did not. On the contrary, over the next century and a half they did everything in their power to preserve Roman civilization, fostering its language, art, law, custom, architecture and learning. Indeed, the cultural impact of the newcomers upon the lands of the Western Empire was, with the exception of some outlying regions such as Britain, the Rhineland and Bavaria, where the Roman or Romanized population was largely replaced, was minimal. In the other regions, in Italy, Gaul, Spain and North Africa, the Barbarians formed a tiny ruling minority, which depended on the vastly superior indigenous population for almost everything. And by the middle of the sixth century intermarriage between the numerically superior Romans and the Barbarians became common, with the result that in a very short time the Germans began to lose all that made them distinct from the great mass of the Romans. Pirenne stressed the extreme superficiality of their cultural impact upon western Europe. Their languages left no trace at all in the Latin-based languages of Italy or Spain, and a paltry 300 words in French.
[5]
And the fact that any trace was left in French is perchance explained by the common border Gaul shared with the German homelands – a border many hundreds of miles long. Even without a Germanic invasion, the peoples of Gaul would have picked up some German words.

The Germans, Pirenne noted, were as swift to embrace Roman law as they were the Latin language. By the start of the sixth century, no trace of Germanic law survived anywhere in western Europe, except among the Anglo-Saxons in Britain and those Germans who remained east of the Rhine.
[6]

As well as sharing in the language and culture, Pirenne found that the Germans seem to have participated in the general moral laxity which is said to have characterized Roman society in late antiquity.
[7]

The virtually complete Romanization is perhaps illustrated most graphically in the case of Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths and ruler of Italy between 493 and 526. At the age of seven, his father gave him as hostage to the Emperor,
[8]
and he was educated in Constantinople until he was eighteen years of age. “Zeno made him magister militum and patrician, and in 474 even went so far as to adopt him. He married an imperial princess. In 484 the Emperor made him consul. Then, after a campaign in Asia Minor, a statue was raised to him in Constantinople. His sister was lady-in-waiting to the Empress.”
[9]

In 536 Evermud, his son-in-law, surrendered without even token resistance to Belisarius, preferring to live as a patrician in Constantinople rather than defend the cause of his fellow Barbarians.
[10]
His daughter Amalasuntha was completely Romanized.
[11]
Theodahat, his son-in-law, boasted that he was a follower of Plato.
[12]

Other “Barbarian” rulers were comparable. Thus Pirenne found that among the Burgundians the noble figure of Gondebaud (480-516), who “in 472, after the death of Ricimer, succeeded to him as patrician of the Emperor Olybrius, and on the death of the latter had Glycerius made Emperor. … According to Schmidt, he was highly cultivated, eloquent, and learned, was interested in theological questions, and was constantly in touch with Saint Avitus.”

“It was the same among the Vandal kings. And among the Visigoths, the same development may be remarked. Sidonius praises the culture of Theodoric II. Among his courtiers he mentions the minister Leo, historian, jurist and poet, and Lampridius, professor of rhetoric and poet. It was Theodoric II who in 455 made Avitus Emperor. These kings were entirely divorced from the old traditions of their peoples…

“And among the Franks there was the royal poet Chilperic.

“As time went on the process of Romanization became accentuated. Gautier remarks that after Genseric the Vandal kings re-entered the orbit of the Empire. Among the Visigoths, Romanization made constant progress. By the end of the 6th century Arianism had everywhere disappeared.”
[13]

* * *

Pirenne stressed that the Germanic kings were national kings only to their own peoples. Their Roman subjects, who were nominally at least still subjects of the Emperor in Constantinople, were ruled by Roman law and by their own institutions. “For the Romans they [the Germanic kings] were Roman generals to whom the Emperor had abandoned the government of the civil population. It was as Roman generals that they approached the Romans, and they were proud to bear the title on such occasions: we have only to recall the cavalcade of Clovis when he was created honorary consul. Under Theodoric an even simpler state of affairs prevailed. He was really a Roman viceroy. He promulgated not laws but edicts only.

“The Goths constituted the army merely. All the civil magistrates were Roman, and as far as possible the entire Roman administration was preserved. The Senate still existed. But all the power was concentrated in the king and his court … Theodoric assumed merely the title of rex, as though he wished his Barbarian origin to be forgotten. Like the Empress, he lived in Ravenna. The division of the provinces was retained, with their duces, rectores, praesides, and the municipal constitution with its curiales and defensores, and the fiscal organization. Theodoric struck coins, but in the name of the Emperor. He adopted the name of Flavius, a sign that he had adopted the Roman nationality. Inscriptions call him semper Augustus, propagator Romani nominis. The king’s guard was organized on the Byzantine model, and so was all the ceremonial of the court. The organization of the judiciary was entirely Roman, even for the Goths; and the Edict of Theodoric was thoroughly Roman. There were no special laws for the Goths. As a matter of fact, Theodoric opposed the private wars of the Goths, and their Germanic barbarism. The king did not protect the national law of his people.”
[14]

And so it goes on. Pirenne notes that under Theodoric the Goths constituted the garrisons of the cities, who were in receipt of a salary, and they were forbidden to undertake civil employment. “They could not exert the slightest influence upon the Government, apart from those who, with the Romans, constituted the king’s entourage.” They were, notwithstanding the fact that their king was the ruler of the land, “in reality foreigners, though well-paid foreigners.” They were a military caste, whose profession furnished them with a comfortable livelihood.

Even among the Vandals of North Africa, the only Germanic people – apart from the Anglo-Saxons of England – who entered the empire as real invaders, the Roman system of government prevailed. Genseric was not a Roman official like Theodoric, but his entire governmental system was Roman, or became Roman. “He struck coins with the image of Honorius. The inscriptions were Roman. Genseric’s establishment at Carthage was like Theodoric’s in Ravenna: there was a
palatium
. …”
[15]
It seems that the Vandal kings even continued to send presentations of oil to Rome and Constantinople.
[16]
Cultural life was unchanged. “Under Genseric the
termi
of Tunis was constructed. Literature was still practiced. Victor Tonnennensis still believed in the immortality of the Empire.”
[17]

Spain and Gaul presented a similar picture. “Among the Visigoths, before the conquest of Clovis, the kings lived in Roman fashion in their capital of Toulouse, and later, in Toledo. The Visigoths established in accordance with the rules of ‘hospitality’ were not regarded as juridically superior to the Romans. The king addressed his subjects as a whole as
populus noster
.”
[18]
Everything about the Visigothic kingship was Roman. “The king appointed all his agents. There were both Germanic and Roman dignitaries at his court, but the latter were by far the more numerous. The prime minister of Euric and Alaric II, Leo of Narbonne, combined the functions of
quaestor sacri palatii
and
magister officiorum
of the Imperial court. The king had no bodyguard of warriors, but
domestici
of the Roman type. The dukes of the provinces and the
comites
of the cities were mainly Romans.”

“In the cities the
curia
was retained, with a
defensor
ratified by the king. … For a time the Visigoths appear to have had, in the
millenarius
, a separate magistrate, like the Ostrogoths. But under Euric they were already amenable to the jurisdiction of the
comes
, who presided in the Roman fashion with the assistance of
assessores
, who were legists. There was not the faintest trace of Germanism in the organization of the tribunal.”
[19]

Pirenne goes on to note that the Code of Euric, drawn up in 475 with the purpose of regulating relations between the Goths and the Romans, was “completely Romanized,” whilst the Breviary of Alaric (507), which affected the Romans, was “an example of almost purely Roman law.” “The Roman taxes were still collected, and the monetary system was also Roman.”
[20]
Yet this was not all, for, “As time went on, the Romanization became more marked.” Whilst, “At first the royal insignia were Germanic … these were later replaced by Roman insignia. … The old military character of the Barbarians was disappearing.”
[21]
Not only were the Germans under the influence of the Romans with whom they lived, they were constantly under fresh influences deriving from Constantinople. All the signs, Pirenne notes, were that the Visigoth monarchy “was evolving in the direction of the Byzantine system.”
[22]

So it was too among the Burgundians. After obtaining possession of Lyons, they were on the best of terms with the Empire. Their kings were completely Romanized. “Their courts were full of poets and rhetoricians. King Sigismond boasted that he was a soldier of the Empire, and declared that his country was part of the Empire.”
[23]
These kings had a
quaestor Palatii
and
domesticii
. Sigismond was a tool of Byzantium, who received the title of patrician from the Emperor Anastasius. The Burgundi fought against the Visigoths as soldiers of the Emperor.

“Thus, they regarded themselves as belonging to the Empire. They reckoned their dates from the accession of the consul – that is to say, of the Emperor; the king was magister militum in the Emperor’s name.

“In other respects the royal power was absolute and unique. It was not divided; when the king had several sons he made them viceroys. The court was peopled mainly by Romans. There was not a trace of warrior bands; there were pagi or civitates, with a
comes
over them. He had beside him, in order to administer justice, a
judex deputatus
, who was likewise appointed by the king, and who dispensed justice in accordance with the Roman usages.”
[24]