What were the various sackings of Rome like? (Gauls, Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths)
What was it like for the civilians living in the city? Was there ever a time when barbarians killed off all the civilians? What was the rest of the empire's reactions?
Anyone here?
bamp
What will it take to get a reply? Or is this board just really slow?
>>419097
Gaul's sack of Rome in the 4th century was the single most pivotal moment in their history.
It was what made them build walls, made them an expansionist military power, made them begin writing things down, made them ultra-nationaists (that means you, Livy!).
There are no references by the Romans to it, I think. None that would answer your questions. Judging by the effect it had on them, though, mentioned above, it would appear to have been a highly traumatic experience.
>>419184
Hey thanks for the bump. What about the other sackings? I'm just curious what it would have been like to live in Rome during one of them. Also, what do we know about Rome before the Gauls sacked it? I know seven kings, seven hills, and Romulus and Remus but that's more mythology.
>>419203
Myths are always real, at least to the people who live by them. Since everyone has a myth they believe in, you can tell what a person values by what their myths are.
The myth of Romus and Remolus show that the romans valued strength over cunning.
>>419209
Ok, do you know anything about the other sackings of Rome?
>>419203
We know basically nothing. Any Roman account of their history before the sack is a nationalist fabrication.
I guess there exist consul lists, so we can construct important families?
Prior to that I guess we can assume they had kings, were for a period under Etruscan control, and then rejected monarchy and Etruscans.
I mean really, other than Livy and consul lists there is nothing that tells us about pre-4th century Rome. The Greeks believed Hercules cleared the site it was founded on, but Rome wasn't even mentioned as a city until after they started conquering Latin states.
>>419222
>Prior to that I guess we can assume they had kings, were for a period under Etruscan control, and then rejected monarchy and Etruscans.
>Romans were the first Americans
Sounds about right :^)
(Just bumping the thread, sorry for the complete shitpost)
>>419229
No, all bumps are helpful for now. I'd like to know more about the later sackings now.
>>419222
We know they expanded by about a square mile every year, and were open to settling wars through battles of champions.
The Goth sack was a last resort attack that was the most civil sack in the history of warfare.
>>419284
Any more info?
>>419302
They Goths desperately wanted to be accepted as citizens within Roman territory.
When sacking the city, the Goths provided rules for the inhabitants on what areas are safe zones et cetera.
It was not an invading force that was going berserk and randomly pillaging and foreign city, the Goths had been in communication with the Romans for nearly a century and both were Christians and respected each others faith.
A year after the sack and the Romans and Goths were allies, the Goths fought against the real invaders, which were the Vandals, Alans, and Suebi.
The Goths also fought against the Huns with Rome, some Alans were also allies with the Romans.
>>419097
Gauls and Vandals were the only ones who really "sacked" Rome and Ravenna (since the latter was the real capital at the end of the 4th century). I think Alaric when he breached Rome kept his men under a tight reins and the looting and plundering was largely contained to taking money and prizes rather then slaughter since he desperately wanted to be officiated into the Western Roman Empire's administration and military circles officially by Honorius.
>>419321
Grammar a little retarded there, I'm fairly sleepy.
>>419337
>Alans
See
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foederati
The Alans were the best cavalry men of the age and are probably the genesis of the French becoming the best cavalry men in the West.
>>419346
Alans and Sarmatians.
>>419822
When you know someone is looking for help with finals, amirite?
>>419337
The Alans were a nomadic group from the steppe north of the Caucasus and part of their group migrated in the early 5th century. In the first wave of migrations they crossed into Gaul and eventually settled on the Seine river I believe as foederati. Another major group travelled with the Vandals and Suevi into Iberia. The Vandal kingdom was technically the Kingdom of the Vandals and Alans, that's how important they were to its success.
The Suebi were a tribe that unlike the Vandals managed to resist being pushed out of Iberia. They were a fairly barbaric Arian lot whom secured the western part of the peninsula for a long time before the Visigoths finally conquered their capital at Braga.
