78 ....



person to be accepted as a full member of the gens? In terms of the-

ology the answer must be not at all. Vandals did not think of their
Arianism as restricted to the Vandal gens. They considered their
Church the true universal Church, just as the Catholics regarded
theirs as universal. On both sides that was the moral justification for
the coercive proselytising (which its victims called persecution), and
it was that which induced king Huneric to demand the right to unre-
stricted worship for those (mainly Gothic federates) who practise “our
religion” in the provinces of the Eastern emperor.118 Sometimes
Vandals did convert to Catholicism, but this did not mean that they
ceased to be Vandals.119 Numerous Romans certainly converted to
Arianism. They were still in Africa, and in public service (militia),
after the Vandals had been deported.120 From the point of view of
Justinian their conversion had turned these people into heretics,
whom he gave a chance to repent. It had not turned them into
Vandals.
But these qualifications do not affect the basic situation. In prac-
tice the Arian Church in Africa was the Church of the Vandals. It
had its own patriarch of Carthage, and bishops, though probably
only a few. For as far as we can see there was no attempt to set
up a bishop in every city, and the bishops we hear about usually
do not have the name of a city attached to their title.121 The Arian bish-
ops supervised parishes ( parochiae).122 These presumably covered areas
where Vandals were settled, perhaps a number of millenae. The ser-
vices were at least partly in Vandal “German”, otherwise Huneric
would surely not have demanded the right to use their own lan-
guage in services for the Arians in the East.123 It was the Arian bish-
ops and clergy who enforced the anti-Catholic measures. Unlike the
civic bishops of the Empire, and the orthodox bishops in even some
of the successor kingdoms,124 the Arian bishops in Vandal Africa

118
Victor of Vita 2,4.
119
Ibid. 3,33 (the wife of Dagila, cellarita regis); 3,38 (two anonymous wealthy
Vandals); 2,9.
120
Justinian, Novellae 37,10 (335 A.D.), ed. R. Scholl (Berlin 1895): rebaptizatos
autem militiam quidem habere nullo modo concedimus. On deportation of Vandals see below
chapter VIII.
121
But Cyrila was Arian bishop of Tipasa in Mauretania (Victor of Vita 3,29).
122
Ferrandus, Vita Fulgentii 6.
123
Victor of Vita 2,4.
124
Particularly under Ostrogoths and Visigoths.
   79

were not given any secular responsibilities, at least as far as we know.

The Arian Church in Vandal Africa was essentially concerned with
worship for Vandals. We may doubt whether conversion to Arianism,
whether forced or not, would by itself have been enough to trans-
form a Roman provincial into a full member of the Vandalic gens.
But it would surely have been an essential step.125 That may well
be why the Vandals were not content with simple attendance at
Arian worship, but insisted on rebaptism.
We do not know when the Vandals were converted to Christian-
ity. The earliest evidence that the Vandals were Christians comes
from the year 423, when they are reported to have chanted verses from
the Bible during their battle against the Roman general Castinus.126
They, or some of them, might well have already been converted in
the Balkans. The conversion of the king, whenever that happened
will have been decisive. But we are not told when that happened.
Hydatius knew of a report that Geiseric had been converted from
Catholicism to Arianism.127 However that may be, when the Vandals
arrived in Roman North Africa they were Arians, and they very
soon entered into severe conflict with the Catholic bishops.128
At the same time as they confiscated secular estates, the Vandals
confiscated some churches together with their property for use by
their own Arian clergy.129 The clergy who had lost their churches
were exiled. Subsequently relations got worse. The Catholics preached
anti-Arian sermons.130 The Vandals exiled numerous bishops and did
not allow those who died to be replaced. Victor claims that at the
time of writing, that is around 489—sixty years after the arrival of
the Vandals in Africa131—there were no more than three Catholic

125
I am assuming that the Vandals admitted outsiders (e.g. Procopius 3,5,20).
We lack the prosopographical data to even begin to assess the extent to which out-
siders were admitted.
126
Salvian, De Gubernatione Dei 7,11(45).
127
Hydatius, Ol. 301,79 a. 428 A.D., pp. 88–90.
128
I use “Catholic” and orthodox to describe the religion of the Empire as
opposed to the religion of the “Arians”. This usage is conventional, though biased.
Arians of course assumed that their Church was Catholic and orthodox.
129
Victor of Vita 1,9; 1,14–8. On churches confiscated at Carthage see L. Ennabli,
Carthage, une métropole chrétienne du IV e à la fin du VII e siècle (Paris 1997), especially the
summary pp. 150–1.
130
If the sermons attributed to Quodvultdeus of Carthage were really spoken at
this time, see Courtois, Les Vandales et l’Afrique, pp. 166–7.
131
Victor of Vita 1,1.
80 .... 

bishops officiating.132 Moreover while this and related actions were

justified in terms of theology, they had clearly recognisable ethnic
and political components. The Vandal authorities were strongly con-
cerned that there should be no Catholic proselytising among the
Vandals themselves.133 Members of the Vandal gens who were seen
entering a Catholic church—note that such people existed—were
attacked, and if they were women, publicly shamed.134 Moreover
Huneric, the most consistent persecutor, evidently suspected the Cath-
olics of disloyalty, for he tried to make them swear that they would
recognise the succession of his son Hilderic, and also that they would
refrain from sending letters across the sea.135 Presumably he feared
that they would intrigue against himself and his son with the im-
perial government. Throughout the period of Vandal persecution
bishops bore the brunt of the attack.136 In this the Vandal kings’
policy towards Catholics was no different from that of emperors,
whether Catholic or Arian, who took action against what they took
to be heresy. But the Vandals put pressure on individual laymen
as well, and significantly they focused on laymen who served the
Vandals as administrators or entertainers. A regulation was that only
Arians might hold office at the court of the king and those of his
sons, and severe pressure was put on Catholics already serving—
and there must have been many of those—to convert to Arianism
by rebaptism.137
As had been the case when the Christians were persecuted in the
pagan Empire, the discriminatory legislation was irregularly observed.
Numerous Catholics continued to attend the Vandal court,138 and
the pressure on the Catholics was relaxed from time to time; par-
ticularly when the Vandals were seeking to improve relations with
the eastern or the western Empire,139 Persecution reached a climax
under Geiseric’s son Huneric in 484. In the course of this action
severe pressure including exile, torture and confiscation of property

132
Ibid. 1,29.
133
Ibid. 3,4; Ferrandus, Vita Fulgentii 6–7.
134
Victor of Vita 2,9.
135
Ibid. 3,19.
136
N.B. not on monasteries. The period may even have seen an expansion of
monasticism.
137
Victor of Vita 1,19–22; 1,43–48; cf. Prosper of Aquitaine, Epitoma Chronicon
1329 a. 437 A.D., pp. 475–6.
138
Victor of Vita 2,8; 2,10; 2,23.
139
Ibid. 2,4.
   81

was employed against thousands of clerics, as well as against numer-

ous lay people to force them to convert.140 Under Huneric’s succes-
sor the pressure on Catholics to convert was gradually relaxed.141 It
is likely that the sources, by virtue of the kind of texts they are, give
a significantly exaggerated picture of the persecution of the Catholics
by the Arians, as well as of the steadfastness of Catholic resistance
to pressure to conform. It is nevertheless evident that for most of
the history of the Vandal kingdom in North Africa, that is over
something like eighty years,142 the regnum, and the gens of the Vandals
and the Arian form of Christianity were closely linked. This created
a real division between the Vandals and the bulk of the population
among whom they had settled. Paradoxically, after the state of the
Vandals had been overthrown, Arian Christianity was to create a
bond between Vandals and some of the Arian soldiers in the Byzantine
army.143

VIII. The end of the Vandals

In Procopius’ account of Belisarius’ campaign we have an eye wit-

ness report from Vandal North Africa, which even if it is largely
focused on military operations, nevertheless gives us glimpses of the
wider context of the campaigning. According to him Africa was
inhabited by three kinds of inhabitants. There were Libyans, who
had once been Romans,144 but who now were very far from identi-
fying automatically with the imperial army. Their support might go
to either side according to circumstance.145 Both sides made efforts
to win their support.146 Then there were Moors under their own
kings, who were still formally rulers of federates appointed by the

140
Ibid. 2,23 to end. Huneric was married to a daughter of Valentinian III and
at peace with the Empire. The motives of the persecution are not clear.
141
Procopius 3,8,6–91; though contrary to the impression given by Procopius,
Trasamundus (A.D. 496–23) forbade the ordination of Catholic bishops and exiled
those ordained against his command: Ferrandus, Vita Fulgentii 13.
142
Say from the capture of Carthage in 439 to the accession of Hilderic in 523
(Procopius 3,9,1).
143
Procopius 4,14,11–15.
144
Ibid. 3,16,3: Libyans are Romans of old, but now their allegiance depends
on how they are treated. Procopius consistently refers to them as Libyans.
145
Ibid. 4,1,8: “treason” of Carthaginians.
146
Ibid. 3,17,6 (Belisarius); 3,23,1,4 (Gelimer).
82 .... 

emperor,147 but who were in practice independent monarchs. In pre-

vious decades they had been extending their territories at the expense
of the Vandals. When faced with the choice between supporting the
imperial forces or the Vandals they consulted nothing but their own
interest.148 Lastly there were the Vandals themselves. These had their
own nobility.149 But Vandalicity was by no means restricted to nobles.
The Vandals were much more numerous than that. They consti-
tuted a large, ruling minority group, who were clearly distinguish-
able from the Libyans.150 After their defeat they had to seek sanctuary.
They could not just melt into the population.151 It was principally
the Vandals whom Gelimer called up to defend his kingdom.152 They
brought their wives153 and their treasures154 with them into the camp.
Evidently they did not think that these would be safe among their
Libyan neighbours. After his victories Belisarius had the Vandal pris-
oners of war deported.155 The wives of the Vandals were now remar-
ried to Roman soldiers, who expected to become owners of their
wives’ Vandal estates.156 Subsequently too, whenever Belisarius or his
successors came into conflict with Vandals, they had them deported.157
If the Vandals disappeared from history, it is because their gens was
deliberately broken up.

IX. Conclusions

The story of the Vandals in Africa is the story of barbarian con-

querors sharing the country with its native inhabitants. The king-
dom was a kingdom of the Vandals. The gens represented the military
power of the state, and the coercive power of the government. The

147
Ibid. 3,25,5–9.
148
Ibid. 3,25,1–10.
149
Ibid. 3,25, 2; 4,3,14; 4,4,32; 4,6,4.
150
Ibid. 3,17,11: the Vandals and others called on to defend Carthage.
151
Ibid. 3,20,1–2; 3,21,11; 4,4,10–13.
152
Ibid. 3,25,1.
153
Ibid. 4,2,8.
154
Ibid. 4,3,25–28.
155
Ibid. 4,5,1; formed into five cavalry units: 4,14,17–18; some avoided depor-
tation: 4,15,3–4.
156
Ibid. 4,14,8–11: an attempt to reclaim the lands as imperial property led to
mutiny.
157
Ibid. 4,19,3; 4,28,40.
   83

effectiveness of the state depended on the cohesion and military spirit

of the Vandal gens, as it had been built up during the migration.
However the administration of the kingdom depended on the old
Roman system of administration. This must have been run mainly
by Romans. The Vandals, the ruling people, were quite distinct from
other inhabitants of their territory. We don’t know the conditions
which had to be fulfilled for somebody to qualify as a Vandal. The
Romans were divided from Vandals by the fact that in the main
they adhered to the Catholic form of Christianity, while Arianism
was the religion of the Vandal gens and kingdom. Religious conflict
was sharper and more persistent in the Vandal kingdom than in any
other of the successor kingdoms. In practice there must have been
a great deal more compromise and co-operation than our sources
imply. The king was king of the Romans as well as the Vandals.
One imagines that many Catholics were prepared to become token
Arians, and thus made themselves acceptable to the king, whether
as members of the court, or of the administration. Culturally too there
was compromise. Romans wore Vandal dress, leading Vandals took
up the way of life of members of the Roman ruling class, including
in some cases at least the higher literacy. Without such compromises
the society could not have worked. Even so plenty of tension remained.
To counteract this required dynastic loyalty, and above all strong
leadership on the part of the king. It is probable that the kingdom
could not have been established without the genius of Geiseric. The
regnum survived under his successors. But the extraordinary dynamism
it had displayed under Geiseric faded fast. The weakening of the
regnum was demonstrated by the ease with which Belisarius overthrew
it. This weakness had become apparent earlier in the inability of the
Vandals to contain the expanding Moorish (i.e. Berber) kingdoms.
It looks as if the Moors were building up gentes and turning gentes
into regna just as the Germanic peoples had been doing before, and
during, their march through the Empire.158 Once the Vandals had
settled, and become accommodated to Roman society, they soon
became as helpless in the face of the gentes evolving along their bor-
ders, as the Romans had been in the face of the Vandals them-
selves. A comparable weakening was experienced by the Visigothic
regnum in Hispania, but not, however, by the regnum of the Franks.

158
E.g. CIL 8,9835 = Courtois, Les Vandales et l’Afrique, Appendix II, no. 95: pro
salute et incolumitate regis Masunae gentium Maurorum et Romanorum.
This page intentionally left blank
 GENS AND REGNUM AMONG THE OSTROGOTHS

Peter Heather

One of the most striking aspects of the career of Theoderic the Amal
is the number of times he was actually made king. He was declared
king first of all in c. 471, after his return from Constantinople, where
he had spent ten years as a hostage, king again upon the death of
his father Thiudimer in c. 475/6, and king still a third time after
his army conquered the forces of Odovacar to take control of Italy.1
Kingship among the Ostrogoths was thus multi-dimensional, involv-
ing the exercise of control not only over the governmental institu-
tions by which the Italian successor state was run, but also, and from
an earlier date, over the military force by whose arms that kingdom
was created. The use of regnum—in the singular—in relationship to
the Ostrogoths is in a sense misleading. Theoderic was king sepa-
rately of his army, and of the Italian kingdom: the fact that both
occupied the same geographical space after 489 should not lead us
to confuse them conceptually.
Whether this still remained the case in Theoderic’s later years,
and under his successors after 526 very much depends upon our
understanding of the military force by which the kingdom was estab-
lished. Did this force replicate itself in the generations after the con-
quest; did it have a sense of its own separate identity which continued
over time? Was it, in short, some kind of a gens, a grouping of peo-
ple with a continuous history which continued even after the settle-
ment in Italy, or was its existence no more than a brief phase in
the history of the rise of the Amal dynasty? It is these demanding
questions that this paper will attempt to address, taking full account
of the now considerable scholarly debate surrounding the whole ques-
tion of identity in the early middle ages.

1
D. Claude, “Zur Königserhebung Theoderichs des Großen”, Geschichtsschreibung und
geistiges Leben im Mittelalter. Festschrift für Heinz Löwe zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. K. Hauck
and H. Mordek (Cologne 1978) pp. 1–13.
86  

A. The Ostrogoths before Italy

The Ostrogoths did not have a long history as a united entity prior
to their entry into Italy in 489. Some of their number, a group of
refugee Rugi fleeing from the destruction of their kingdom by Odovacar
in 487, attached themselves to Theoderic’s train only immediately
before the Italian expedition set out in autumn 488.2 More substan-
tially, Theoderic’s conquering force was composed in large measure
of two militarized groups—both labeled Goths in their own right—
which he had brought together in the Balkans only within half a
decade of their departure for Italy. One of them comprised the army
which Theoderic and his father Thiudimer had brought with them
from Pannonia into East Roman territories in 473/4, so that, by
489, theirs was a history of reasonably well-established loyalty to the
Amal dynasty.3 The same was not true of the other Gothic group,
known to contemporaries as the Thracian Goths. In c. 470, they
appear in Byzantine sources as a force of allied soldiery with a range
of established connections to court circles in Constantinople. The
murder of their preeminent patron Aspar, in 471, led them into
open revolt, and it is very arguable that Theoderic and Thiudimer
brought their Pannonian Goths south in an attempt to convince the
Roman Emperor Leo I that they would make a more trustworthy
set of Gothic allies than their revolting Thracian counterparts.4
Whatever the case, the move initiated a decade of direct competi-
tion, in which the Pannonian and Thracian Goths occasionally con-
fronted each other directly, but more generally tried separately to
convince a sequence of imperial regimes that they were the better
recipients of the one available set of subsidy payments. This rivalry
was brought to an end only in 483/4, when Theoderic the Amal

2
Eugippius, Vita Sancti Severini 44,3–4, ed. R. Noll and E. Vetter, Schriften und
Quellen der Alten Welt 11 (Berlin 1963); Procopius, Wars 7,2,1–2, ed. J. Haury,
transl. H.B. Dewing, 7 vols., Loeb Classical Library (London-Cambridge Mass.
1914–28).
3
There are many modern discussions of the Pannonian history of the Amal-led
Goths; two recent ones are H. Wolfram, History of the Goths (Berkeley 1988) pp.
258–68; P.J. Heather, Goths and Romans 332–489 (Oxford 1991) pp. 240–51.
4
The history of the Thracian Goths needs to be reconstructed from more frag-
mentary references in a range of Byzantine sources, especially but not solely from
the Chronicles of Malalas and Theophanes, and the surviving fragments of the his-
tories of Malchus and John of Antioch. Fuller discussion and argument: Heather,
Goths and Romans, pp. 251–63.
   87

organized the assassination of the newly appointed leader of the

Thracian Goths, Recitach son of Theoderic Strabo (the Amal’s main
rival over the previous decade), and united the bulk of the Thracians
behind him.5 Indications in Byzantine sources suggest that both the
Pannonian and Thracian Goths numbered around 10,000 fighting
men each, and the general course of the narrative certainly confirms
that they were of a similar order of magnitude to one another.
Otherwise direct rivalry would never have continued for an entire
decade; one would have quickly been defeated, or swallowed up, by
the other.6 The Ostrogoths who set off for Italy in 488 were thus
the product of a very recent unification between two groups of more
or less equal size, who had not only not been united in recent past,
but had an immediate history of competition.
Moreover, while the sources make the details impossible to recover
in full, both the Thracian and the Pannonian Goths were themselves
the products of further processes of unification which had occurred
within what was, in c. 490, still living memory. The Thracian Goths
suddenly vault into documented history already fully formed as a
unit, as it were, with Theoderic Strabo as their king in one of the
earliest surviving fragments of the history of Malchus of Philadelphia,
which is clearly relating events of the year 473. Goths are a pres-
ence in Byzantine sources of the 450s and 460s, as army officers
allied to Aspar politically and matrimonially, and a major part of
the imperial palace guard, but there is no sign that at that point
they formed a united force under a single designated leader. No
individual is so labeled in sources prior to the 470s, and instead one
meets a whole series of prominent military officers with Gothic names,
some of whom are explicitly linked to the Thracian military. One
Anagastes, for instance, had been first a military comes in Thrace in

5
Assassination: John of Antioch, Fragmenta 214,3, ed. C. Müller, Fragmenta
Historicorum Graecorum, vols. 4 and 5 (Paris 1868/70). That this caused Gothic
unification has to be argued, but, although some Goths clearly preferred to retain
a Byzantine allegiance (e.g. Bessas and Godigisclus: Procopius, Wars 1,8,3; cf. Heather,
Goths and Romans, p. 302, for other possible examples), no large and distinct body
of Gothic soldiery remained in the Balkans after 489 and it is generally accepted
that unification did follow the assassination: e.g. Heather, Goths and Romans, pp.
300–3 (with further argumentation); Wolfram, Goths, p. 276; L. Schmidt, Geschichte
der deutschen Stämme bis zum Ausgang der Völkerwanderung: Die Ostgermanen (2nd edn.,
Munich 1933) pp. 267–8.
6
Pannonians: Heather, Goths and Romans, pp. 248–9; Thracians: ibid., pp. 253–4.