What do you think?
Rate this book
Roman Aristocrats in Barbarian Gaul: Strategies for Survival in an Age of Transition
In this pioneering study, Ralph W. Mathisen examines the "fall" in one part of the western Empire, Gaul, to better understand the shift from Roman to Germanic power that occurred in the region during the fifth century A.D.
293 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1993
23 people are currently reading
51 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
January 18, 2019
I mean I still hold that the reason the Roman Empire ultimately fell is because that one dude couldn't find a pack a Trojans. That's a reference to an amazing Mel Brooks btw, but back to History.
I picked up this book because I was auditing a graduate-level history course about Medieval Europe and it was the first book on the list. Working through Mathisen's prose was not always terribly fun, and to be completely honest this book often felt repetitive as Mathisen made a claim, supplied a quote, and then wrote one or two lines of analysis, and then basically repeated that formula through the entire 149 pages of this book. It's not that his thesis wasn't interesting, and it wasn't that he didn't actually make some interesting conclusions, it's just that by the end of this book I was tired of the same format. Mathisen doesn't seem interested in telling a narrative but rather is focused more on his argument. And since this is an academic text that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Mathisen's book is a wonderful addition to the conversation and discourse about the "Fall of Rome," a story which is often repeated, and too often regurgitated, to readers as a moral story about human failings and faulty morality. Rather than simply dwell on the hedonism, Mathisen gives his reader another interpretation, one where Rome began to implode, not because it was morally corrupt, but simply because it was just steadily becoming irrelevant.
Ancient Roman aristocrats in the region of Gaul, present-day France, began to encounter a new world as the foundations of the Empire began to fade away, and power began to become more and more centralized around barbarian peoples. Rather than fight this transition (though some did) these Gallic-Romans began to create a new culture with these tribes and peoples. Rome didn't fall, it's just faded away, and that in the end simply led to a new story and a new narrative.
Or possibly another argument followed by quotes followed by analysis but I like my ending better.
I picked up this book because I was auditing a graduate-level history course about Medieval Europe and it was the first book on the list. Working through Mathisen's prose was not always terribly fun, and to be completely honest this book often felt repetitive as Mathisen made a claim, supplied a quote, and then wrote one or two lines of analysis, and then basically repeated that formula through the entire 149 pages of this book. It's not that his thesis wasn't interesting, and it wasn't that he didn't actually make some interesting conclusions, it's just that by the end of this book I was tired of the same format. Mathisen doesn't seem interested in telling a narrative but rather is focused more on his argument. And since this is an academic text that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Mathisen's book is a wonderful addition to the conversation and discourse about the "Fall of Rome," a story which is often repeated, and too often regurgitated, to readers as a moral story about human failings and faulty morality. Rather than simply dwell on the hedonism, Mathisen gives his reader another interpretation, one where Rome began to implode, not because it was morally corrupt, but simply because it was just steadily becoming irrelevant.
Ancient Roman aristocrats in the region of Gaul, present-day France, began to encounter a new world as the foundations of the Empire began to fade away, and power began to become more and more centralized around barbarian peoples. Rather than fight this transition (though some did) these Gallic-Romans began to create a new culture with these tribes and peoples. Rome didn't fall, it's just faded away, and that in the end simply led to a new story and a new narrative.
Or possibly another argument followed by quotes followed by analysis but I like my ending better.
November 15, 2024
Everybody knows how Rome fell. After a succession of crises, plagues, civil wars, and especially barbarian invasions, the once illustrious empire ended. Even a perfunctory examination shows some issues. Rome was sacked in 410 by Visigoths under Alaric, sacked again several times, and the last Western Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustus, was deposed in 476. Roman institutions limped along in some form or another for the whole 5th century. How did people at the time experience the fall of Rome?
Fantastic cover design on Gibbon's Decline and Fall, showing a pillar crumbling over time.
Mathisen conducts a close read of available sources for Gaul in the 5th century, focusing primarily on the letters of Sidonius Apollinaris. Mathisen establishes a Gallo-Roman aristocratic identity as one of the "good people", a criteria established by wealth, lineage, office holding, and literary accomplishment, and then discusses how that criteria shifted over time.
Wealth was always the foremost criterion. Aristocrats were distinguished by their estates. Holding on to them became trickier in the 5th century, requiring aggressive legal and physical defenses against barbarian and Roman neighbors. Lineage mattered, and intermarriage with barbarians was discouraged, but of course bloodlines were negotiable for the right price. Offices and careers shifted from the Roman civil service to the Church hierarchy, with some Bishoprics becoming family holdings, as well as ad hoc work for barbarian kings. And finally, literary matters were very important, though this is somewhat self-selecting. Sidonius collected his letters for publication, which was sponsored by his son, and wrote extensively about the importance of cultivating a literary circle.
Yet at the same time as Mathisen makes a convincing case for the ductility of Gallo-Roman aristocratic identity, it is impossible to deny its diminishment over time. Many aristocrats sought exile. Travel essentially stopped, first between Gaul and other provinces, and then within Gaul, as various barbarian kings divided up the region. Sidonius writing that letters were the best form of friendship seems to have been sour grapes for a man who clearly did not feel comfortable embarking on even moderate journeys. While courts continued to function for some decades, ultimately justice became a matter of helping oneself, contributing to cycles of feuds.
While Sidonius was recognizably a Roman aristocratic writer in a lineage we would recognize with Cicero and Pliny, no one followed him. By the 6th century, the time of his grandchildren, genealogical records show Roman and German names in the same century. The fall of Rome was perhaps less violent than we remember, but it was definitely comprehensive.
Fantastic cover design on Gibbon's Decline and Fall, showing a pillar crumbling over time.
Mathisen conducts a close read of available sources for Gaul in the 5th century, focusing primarily on the letters of Sidonius Apollinaris. Mathisen establishes a Gallo-Roman aristocratic identity as one of the "good people", a criteria established by wealth, lineage, office holding, and literary accomplishment, and then discusses how that criteria shifted over time.
Wealth was always the foremost criterion. Aristocrats were distinguished by their estates. Holding on to them became trickier in the 5th century, requiring aggressive legal and physical defenses against barbarian and Roman neighbors. Lineage mattered, and intermarriage with barbarians was discouraged, but of course bloodlines were negotiable for the right price. Offices and careers shifted from the Roman civil service to the Church hierarchy, with some Bishoprics becoming family holdings, as well as ad hoc work for barbarian kings. And finally, literary matters were very important, though this is somewhat self-selecting. Sidonius collected his letters for publication, which was sponsored by his son, and wrote extensively about the importance of cultivating a literary circle.
Yet at the same time as Mathisen makes a convincing case for the ductility of Gallo-Roman aristocratic identity, it is impossible to deny its diminishment over time. Many aristocrats sought exile. Travel essentially stopped, first between Gaul and other provinces, and then within Gaul, as various barbarian kings divided up the region. Sidonius writing that letters were the best form of friendship seems to have been sour grapes for a man who clearly did not feel comfortable embarking on even moderate journeys. While courts continued to function for some decades, ultimately justice became a matter of helping oneself, contributing to cycles of feuds.
While Sidonius was recognizably a Roman aristocratic writer in a lineage we would recognize with Cicero and Pliny, no one followed him. By the 6th century, the time of his grandchildren, genealogical records show Roman and German names in the same century. The fall of Rome was perhaps less violent than we remember, but it was definitely comprehensive.
January 8, 2023
For a while I have wondered: "what happened to the Roman leaders after being conquered?" It was not clear to me where they all went; after all you tend to hear about barbarian, German kings in the post-Roman era rather than new Latin leadership. Mathisen hones in on the region of Gaul (modern France) and gives a well-researched answer. Gaul is useful because it is both relatively rich in source material and also because it provides evidence of successful persistence at the top of society as barbarians assumed political sovereignty.
As it happens, there were a wide range of strategies to cope with the presence of newcomers and invaders. Demonstrating loyalty to the new leaders, becoming more parochial, playing the imperial and barbarian leaders against each other, leveraging unique skills like understanding Roman law, and even retreating into high culture all happened. Of course, many also fled and many also died. It was a violent and turbulent age. Above all, perhaps the most important response was the integration of leading Romans into the Church. Even today it maintains a legacy of Latin culture in a way that seems fitting for the last Romans' favored refuge.
As it happens, there were a wide range of strategies to cope with the presence of newcomers and invaders. Demonstrating loyalty to the new leaders, becoming more parochial, playing the imperial and barbarian leaders against each other, leveraging unique skills like understanding Roman law, and even retreating into high culture all happened. Of course, many also fled and many also died. It was a violent and turbulent age. Above all, perhaps the most important response was the integration of leading Romans into the Church. Even today it maintains a legacy of Latin culture in a way that seems fitting for the last Romans' favored refuge.
December 17, 2020
Enlightening. I was first skeptical about there being anything really new but I was wrong.
March 5, 2025
Very difficult to follow
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews