Talk:Crossing of the Rhine

Theory now retracted
This entire article is based on one paper by Kulikowski, which he has since retracted.

See: Kulikowski, Michael (2007). Rome's Gothic Wars: from the Third century to Alaric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 171 n. 37. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmullaly (talk • contribs) 03:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Has he? So far as I can tell from the Amazon preview, the reference just labels the crossing in 405/406. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've now had confirmation from Dr Kulikowski (which I can provide if anyone wants to see it) that he has reluctantly but definitely retracted his theory that the Rhine crossing took place in 405. The problem now is, what to do about it? It would seem the thing to do is basically delete the second part of this article, but I don't want to take such drastic action without a consensus. Comments anyone? --Jmullaly (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you keep the article. It shows how grand historical edifices can be built on pillars of sand. The problem with this period and earlier is that we just do not have the documentary evidence to make firm assertions even on something as crucial as dates. This is partly due to the sources adopted different dating criteria but it is also due to the paucity of the historical evidence. Also our present dating (BC AD) method only starts being used consistently at a much later date.

Kulikowski's thesis nicely segues the evidence into a coherent package. But this is also its problem. Just because it makes sense does not mean that this is how events unfolded. Human beings are not necessarily logical and do make rational decisions. More importantly we are not in possession of the full range of historical documentation that would give us an insight into the decision making processes of Stilicho, the Roman ruling elite, let alone the germanic peoples that invaded the empire or the Roman troops that mutinied.

It could be that the invasions of 405? 406? and the British mutinies are just unconnected. I think it is foolish to imagine soldiers based in Britain as some kind of internationalist scanning the daily bulletins on the situation in Europe and only rebelling out of an altruistic purpose to save the Empire. More likely considering the lack of coinage in Britain after 402, they had not been paid and were consequently ripe for rebellion. And if British troops had not been paid, I would also suggest the same situation pertained for the troops in Gaul and explains their seemingly inactive response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.6.2 (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Significance
This was the first invasion of barbarians who could not be expelled and could not be coerced into some kind of foederati status, therefore leading to substantial loss of territory within the empire (not just along contested borders, as sometimes had happened previously). The situation of the Visigoths and Ostrogoths after the battle of Adrianople had been somewhat similar, but after 406 it could no longer be papered over with legalisms that areas not along contested borders had completely withdrawn from the empire. Also, whether or not some of the invading peoples were direct and immediate refugees from conflict with the Huns, direct or indirect pressure from the Huns probably had a lot to do with the reasons for the invasion. And the word "Sarmatians" could refer to the Alans... AnonMoos (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Suebi
It is remarkable that many modern writers assume that the Suebi crossed the Rhine along with the Vandals and Alans. The ancient sources do not show that the Suebi crossed the Rhine on the same date; Frigeridus (Summer/Autumn 405/6) and Prosper (31 December 405/6) did not mention them. Even more remarkable is that Jerome in (spring?) 409 did not mention the Suebi in his extensive list (which, according to Kulikowski, is probably a literary exaggeration) of invaded barbarians either. Gregory does not mention them until the Vandals and Alans invade Spain (which, according to Hydatius, happened in September or October 409), and even then the three peoples apparently did not act as one grouping; Gregorius seems to claim not only that 'Alamanni' (by which he probably meant Alans) and 'Suebi' are synonyms for the same people - which is not the case - but also that the Suebi only invaded Spain after the Vandals had already been there for a while: 'The Vandals left their own country and burst into the Gauls under king Gunderic. And when the Gauls had been thoroughly laid waste they made for the Spains. The Suebi, that is, [Alans], following them, seized Gallicia.' It seems likely that something similar happened at the crossing of the Rhine: the Vandals and Alans crossed first, and only a little later the Suebi followed. That may explain why Prosper and Frigeridus didn't mention them; they were simply not part of the very first Rhine crossing. If I find any literature on this, I will try to add that as well. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)