- This topic has 5 voices and 9 replies.
-
Posts
-
From Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeisericVandal King Geiseric had a peace deal with Roman Emperor Valentinian III (OK, perhaps not one of the greatest emperors Rome has seen), Valentinian was murdered by Petronius Maximus, who eventually purchased his way to the throne, so the Vandals attacked...but, at the request of Pope Leo I, did not destroy the city. The Vandals did not sack Rome in the old-fashioned sense of "sack" (arson, torture, complete destruction)I'm not saying the Vandals were all good guys or anything, Geiseric's son Huneric severely persecuted the Catholics, but they did eventually integrate and make peace with the Byzantine's, and some of the best Vandal warriors fought for the Byzantine Empire.
I suppose it's going to depend on the historian you read and his or her account of the Vandals. You will find this problem throughout your studies of History. Your professors (if they were intellectually honest) would provide opposing sources to show a more balanced and objective view of the topic at hand.
I suppose it's going to depend on the historian you read and his or her account of the Vandals. You will find this problem throughout your studies of History. Your professors (if they were intellectually honest) would provide opposing sources to show a more balanced and objective view of the topic at hand.
Thanks for that advice. I don't know if I'd consider it a problem, though, because I want both sides. So far so good with the professors and books being balanced, even the students...and if some of the students aren't objective, there's always at leaast one asking those "Well, what about this" type of questions. ;DFrom what I've read so far, the Migration Period from a solely Roman historian perspective has not been balanced, and learning about the 'other side' is interesting.
Are you thinking that they get a “bad rap” because their name is now associated with mindless destruction of another's property? History shows us that negative references at one time or another were in reality pretty weak. Think of the Romans calling the peoples to the north “barbarians” or the Italian humanists calling the Dark Ages the “Dark Ages”, as we have discussed in another thread. I think that negative connotations will persist to a degree but that's where we come in to show people the light. 😀
I think that negative connotations will persist to a degree but that's where we come in to show people the light. 😀
Well, the negativity will probably always persist...to a Roman. But why not call mindless destruction of property Franc-ize or Lombard-ize? 😀
Actually I heard that the Vandals did seem bad – so bad that Justinian felt the need to put them under submission in the 6th century. I wonder – why did the the Vandals go north across the Mediterranean to invade Rome when they could have gone East for conquests?
Distance and harsh conditions made advancement across North Africa toward Egypt untenable. Rome was just accross the Med and in social decay…a far easier target.
Wasn't there also a sort of vendetta against Rome too? Seeing as how they sent a large naval force to crush Gaiseric only to lose to him. Carthage/North Africa was Rome's bread basket. No NA, no bread. On another note, I wanted to name my son Gaiseric, but wife wouldn't let me. 😛
Hi bruneauinfo! Upon re-reading this thread, I think that the reasons why the Vandals didn't go East for conquests, and instead chose Rome, was because barbarians knew that Rome was standing on three legs in the 5th century. It was turning into a shell of its older glory, and the Vandals would have known that it would have been ripe for the taking. Byzantium, on the other hand, was still strong and the Eastern half of the Roman Empire could not have been carved up the way the Western half was.
Vandals are back !A sad story but is it so surprising ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14782948
