Crisis 439 Essay Research Paper Vandals take

Crisis 439 Essay, Research Paper Vandals take control of Carthage, North Africa ? problematic as used to feed population of Rome ? test, could Aetius stop fragmentation or

Crisis 439 Essay, Research Paper

Vandals take control of Carthage, North Africa ? problematic

as used to feed population of Rome ? test, could Aetius stop fragmentation or

just slow it down, 441, East and West force ready to go, Huns change position

and stops epeidtion. 440 apotheosis of Hunnic power ? Attila and Belda

centralisation and development ? now not just aiding Romans but launch

invasions across the Danube.? RESULTS:

Vandals given richest provinces in Roman Empire, Aetius legislation shows signs

of financia crisis. Direct Hunnic threat not as important a problem of when they

left ? never came close to defeating either half of the Empire out right. Atilla?s death 453 civil war, groups subject to Huns

reassert their independence, by late 460s remnants of Attila?s Huns seeking

asylum in Eastern Empire, collapse Hunnoic power bought final crisis for the

Roman Empire in Western Europe. Hunnic military power could no longer be used to enforce a

blanket policy of military containment towards immigrants already established

in Western Europe.? Could the Romans

face suing the Huns, or afford them NOT USED after Aetius death ? changes

fundamentals of the political game. Players of previous century still exist: eastern Empire,

Roman Armies, senators : after 450 add major autonomous Barbarian group, esp.

Goths and Burgundians and Vandals ? Huns used previously to contain these

groups and urb their political influence ? with Hunnic power gone only choice

was to include some or all of them in western Empire?s body politic ? post 454. Regime of Avitus ? gets backing from Goths first ? regimes

no longer independent of immigrant groups, direct result of the Huns

disappearance.? Immigrant groups want

some kind of oay back ? involvement in government and the empire, Burgundian

Kings take Roman titles Attraction of the empire to Barbarian leaders ? military

might an overall wealth ? rewards given to new allies after 454, money or land

the basis of power, shrunk an already diminishing base ? Gaul, Spain and

Britain away from Imperial control. Too many groups squabbling over shrinking financial base ?

always enough groups in he cold, afer division of spoils, to undermine

prevailing political config, more and more gifts with each leader ?

concentration on internal relations leads to less resources for the defence

from other, increasingly independent and organised tribes ? Franks in the north

for example. Two most successful rulers Majorian 457 ? 62a and Anthemius

467 ? 72 realised either need to reduce number of political players or increase

central resources, thus we see making reconquest Vandal Africa major priority,

wealth from richest lands and reduction if the number of players. Victory would have extended life of the Empire, support from

Gallic aristocracies, – idea of empire grew meaningless as number of groups

grew, Franks more powerful, and resources declined. ? 460s and 470s each group

realising that Empire no longer prize worth fighting for ? Roman state in Western

Europe now an anachronism. Euric Visigoth launches series of wars on Spain as see no

chance Western Empire regaining ground 475 ? Gallo-Romans transfer allegience

toi Euric at same time ? 474 Eastern Empire gives up on the West by signing


and 405-8 points of single crisis, emergence Hunnic power fringes of

Europe, unity and coherence to 35 years of instability along frontiers. 65

yrs to Romulus Augustlus overthrow ? slow working-out political

consequences of invasions, loss territory, los of revenue, loss of power,

landowners see whose really in charge Attila?s

glory no more than a sideshow in the western collapse, other major effect

is disappearance of assistance in 453 ? West bereft of military

assistance. Sacred Rhetoric internal, soial, psychological factors

explaining imperial collapse, balance of power broking by progressive

enfeeblement of Roman frntier power Not monocausal ? were internal problems ? if sufficiently

large and wealthy population would have fended off Hunnic problems ? appearance

barbarian groups within empire opened up pre-existing fault between imperial

centre and Roman and-owning elite ? arrival Barbarian powers undermines

centre?s ability to reward and constrain loyalt. ? local landowners feud new

ways to guarantee elite status.