Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

the fall of the western empire 19
immigrants who had established themselves in the western empire since
a.d. 400. This policy, though it was the basis of Aetius’ success in the 430s,
had broken down anyway in the 440s, when Hunnic ambitions increased.
After 453, it ceased altogether to be relevant. Not only was Hunnic power
in the process of being extinguished, but the western empire, as we have
seen, was itself chronically short of funds and could perhaps no longer
have afforded to pay for its assistance. It would probably also have raised
political difficulties to re-employ the Huns after the devastation they had
so recently caused. As a result, a fundamental change followed in the nature
of power politics in the western half of the empire.
The traditional players of the power game – at least at first – remained.
The eastern empire continued to play a significant political role; so too did
the western Roman military. The Gallic army was prominent, particularly
under Aegidius in the 460s, 42 the Italian army underlay the influence of
Ricimer, and the forces of Dalmatia provided a solid power base between
450 and 480 for Marcellinus and his nephew Julius Nepos. 43 These western
army groups had all to be reconciled individually to imperial regimes. In the
same way, leading members of the Roman landed élite, especially the senators
of Italy and southern Gaul, remained politically important. In contrast
to fourth-century career patterns, the fifth century was marked by an unprecedented
tendency for Gallic senators to hold the top jobs in Gaul, and Italian
senators those in Italy. Each group also had its own institutional focus. The
senate of Rome and the imperial court at Ravenna continued to function as
centres for élite political activity in Italy. From 418, the refounded Gallic
council did the same for Gallic senatorial élites. 44 There was thus a greater
tendency towards the emergence of regional solidarities in the fifth century,
though this should not be overstressed. Major families north and south of
the Alps remained interrelated, 45 and there is quite as much, if not more, evidence
for dispute within the ranks of Gallic and Italian senators as between
them. Very immediate interests tended to surface, indeed, at moments of
crisis. Sidonius’ resentment that his native Clermont was traded by the
emperor Nepos to the Goths in return for Provence is a famous example. 46
Both the Roman senate and the Gallic council remained as much gatherings
of rich, interrelated and politically powerful landowners as forums through
which genuinely regional views were expressed. 47
From c. 450, however, the major autonomous barbarian groups on
Roman territory also began to demand and play an increasingly active role
42 The comites Nepotianus, Paul and Arbogast also commanded elements of this force between the
450s and the 470s. 43 Cf. Wozniak (1981) 353–63.
44 Jobs: Sundwall (1915) 8–9, 21–2; cf. Matthews (1975) esp. 331ff., 356ff.
45 Matthews (1975) 338ff.; Barnish (1988) 134–5; Mommaerts and Kelly (1992).
46 Sid. Ap. Ep. 7.7: cf. Harries (1995) 236ff.
47 E.g. Max (1979) 225–31; Weber (1989) 491–3. The case for a Gallic–Italian divide as a fundamental
factor in political activity has been made by several: e.g. Twyman (1970) 484–7; Mathisen (1981).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008