Jonathan J. Arnold
Introduction
This chapter focuses on the non-Italian lands that were part of the Ostrogothic kingdom, here referred to as ‘provinces’, but not to be confused with the prov-inces that constituted the two dioceses of Italy. Indeed, those Italian lands were at the core of the Ostrogothic realm and so synonymous with it that the term ‘Ostrogothic Italy’ is commonly used. Yet even in its earliest years, the Ostrogothic kingdom included lands that lay beyond the diocesan boundaries of Italy and were thus, strictly speaking, not Italian. Moreover, through military campaigns and acts of annexation, these territories increased, particularly dur-ing the reign of Theoderic (compare Figures 1.1 and 1.2). To the north and east, the Ostrogothic regime claimed the Illyrian provinces of Noricum, Pannonia Savia, and Dalmatia, later capturing Sirmium and re-establishing Italian con-trol over Pannonia Sirmiensis. To the west, it annexed portions of eastern Gaul (Mediterranean Provence), later adding the entirety of the Visigothic kingdom and expanding into Burgundy. A realm of this magnitude had not existed in the West since the mid 5th century, and both the Ostrogothic administration and its Italian subjects, as self-conscious heirs to the western Roman Empire, celebrated these achievements as a bona fide imperial restoration. Theoderic, it was claimed, had conquered the barbarians and returned civilitas and liber-tas to the Gauls; Amalasuentha, likewise, had made the Danube Roman again.
As former imperial territories, the very acquisition of these provinces helped to legitimize contemporary understandings of the Ostrogothic kingdom as a revived Roman Empire. But as reintegrated provinces governed according to a Roman scheme, their possession and administration were also important and lent further legitimacy to the Ostrogothic regime. That Sirmium produced coins associating Theoderic with an unconquered Rome is significant; so, too, the facts that Gaul and Spain were ruled again by a praetorian prefect and a Gallo-Roman served as consul. No less significant were the taxes and resources that provincials were expected to yield to the Ravenna government and its
representatives nor the justice and acts of succour that they were supposed to receive in exchange.1
This chapter, therefore, will provide an overview of these non-Italian lands, focusing on their acquisition and administration, ideological importance, and finally loss. Indeed, though the Ostrogothic kingdom claimed many non-Italian lands and prided itself on their possession, none of these provinces remained within its grasp beyond the opening years of Justinian’s invasion.
In the end, and despite its lofty claims and achievements, this revived Roman Empire remained at its core an ‘Empire of Italy’.2
Provinces from Odovacer to Theoderic
By 476 the western Roman Empire had been greatly reduced in size, becoming essentially a truncated version of the prefecture of Italy. To the south, Africa had been lost to the Vandals, who wrested the islands of Corsica, Sardinia, and possibly Sicily from Italia Suburbicaria. To the north, the Alpine reaches of Raetia and Noricum had been overrun by peoples like the Alamanni and Rugi and were devolving to self-rule. And to the west and east, only a handful of provinces bordering Italy remained, the rest having been lost piece by piece over the course of the 5th century.3
Following his successful coup, Odovacer yielded Italy’s remaining Gallic ter-ritories to the Visigoths, who had overrun Provence in the interim. At the same time he secured a treaty with the Vandals, who relinquished their claims to most of Sicily in exchange for an annual payment of tribute. Odovacer’s deal-ings with the former imperial territories to the north and east of Italy, in the diocese of Western Illyricum, were more complicated. Across the Adriatic, Dalmatia was ruled independently by Julius Nepos, who was still viewed in Constantinople as the legitimate emperor of the West. At the insistence of the eastern emperor Zeno, therefore, Odovacer agreed to rule Italy as Nepos’ sub-ordinate and agent and did so, at least nominally, until the exiled emperor’s
1 For an elaboration: Arnold, Theoderic, especially pp. 231–3.
2 For the term, which was used in reference to the late western empire and the Ostrogothic kingdom: Prostko-Prostyński, Utraeque res publicae, pp. 100–1, and Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 15, 22, 43–4.
3 Broadly: Stein, Bas-Empire 1, pp. 377–97; also Alföldy, Noricum, pp. 213–24; Heuberger,
“Rätien”, pp. 83–8; Clover, “Bluff”, pp. 236–8; and Drinkwater, Alamanni, pp. 331–44.
assassination in 480. Consequently, Dalmatia was invaded and conquered in 481/2 and its fictive unity with Italy gave way to an actual political union.4
Odovacer’s expansion into Dalmatia, however, may have raised some concerns in Constantinople and contributed to Zeno’s decision to send the neighbouring Rugi against him in 486. The attack, led by King Feletheus, was crushed the following year and met with a counter-attack and invasion of Noricum in 487/8. The region was occupied briefly, but then evacuated of its Roman population and abandoned as indefensible in 488.5 That same year Theoderic and Zeno came to the agreement that the former should invade Italy and depose Odovacer. Save for the Gepids established at Sirmium and some wandering Sarmatians, Theoderic and his Goths encountered little resis-tance in their march through Illyricum, suggesting that Odovacer had tempo-rarily abandoned the region in order to concentrate his forces in Italy.6 Other temporary losses during the ensuing conflict are better evidenced and include Sicily, which the Vandals seized, only to be defeated by Theoderic’s army in 491.
Subsequently, they not only agreed to relinquish all claims to the island but also abandoned their demands for tribute.7
Hence, when Theoderic assumed control over a war-torn Italy in 493, his kingdom consisted of little more than the two dioceses of Italy, minus the Vandal-held islands of Corsica and Sardinia and the Alpine regions of Raetia and Noricum. Dalmatia might or might not have been part of this kingdom, but soon it and other Illyrian territories were added, becoming a staging ground for Theoderic’s first acts of imperial restoration.
Dalmatia and Pannonia Savia
When exactly Theoderic assumed control over Dalmatia and neighbouring Pannonia Savia is uncertain. As a former territory of Odovacer’s kingdom, however, Dalmatia probably fell to Ostrogothic rule shortly after Theoderic’s victory, if not sooner, while expansion into Savia was a logical step, conform-ing to the defensive policy established along the Ostrogothic kconform-ingdom’s other frontiers (discussed below). Both provinces, at any rate, had come under the
4 Stein, Bas-Empire 2, pp. 46–52; Wilkes, Dalmatia, pp. 421–2; Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 9–10;
and Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 61–3.
5 Stein, Bas-Empire 2, pp. 52–4; Alföldy, Noricum, pp. 224–6; Wolfram, Goths, pp. 278–9; and Moorhead, Theoderic, pp. 10–11.
6 See Ennodius, Pan. 28–35, ed. Rohr, with Wolfram, Goths, pp. 279–80.
7 Stein, Bas-Empire 2, p. 57; Clover, “Bluff”, p. 239.
aegis of Ravenna by the opening years of the 6th century, as indicated by the Variae and other sources.8
In terms of administration, Dalmatia and Savia were ruled jointly from Salona, the capital of Dalmatia, and placed under the authority of a single Gothic comes of illustrious rank, known as the comes Dalmatiae et Saviae.
Despite the innovation, the combined provinces appear to have functioned according to the same Roman administrative scheme as elsewhere, with simi-lar civil and military offices.9 Lesser officials are attested at both the regional and urban level and were tasked with defending their spheres of command, ensuring justice, and preventing corruption. These included comites (both Gothic and Roman) at Siscia, Salona, and on the islands of Curitana and Celsina (modern Krk and Cersina), consulares (praesides) and principes, local and itinerant judges, and city-based officials charged with a number of duties, but most notably tax collection.10 At least for a while there was probably also an official mint-master at Siscia, given the minting of early Theoderican coin-age in this city.11
The most prominent of these officials are mentioned by name in a hand-ful of Variae letters, and these in turn reveal the bulk of what is known about Dalmatia-Savia under Ostrogothic rule. Osuin, for example, served as Theoderic’s comes Dalmatiae et Saviae from at least 507/11 until the acces-sion of Athalaric, who renewed his position and praised his prior conduct.12 In an earlier letter, Theoderic instructed him to procure arms for the soldiers at Salona and to ensure that they were drilled, urging that, “the true safety of the Republic is a well-armed defender”.13 A similarly defensive rationale was also, in part, behind Theoderic’s order that Osuin provide assistance to a lesser comes named Simeon, who was directed to Dalmatia in 510/11.14 Simeon had been commanded to investigate the iron mines of Dalmatia, from which “the defence of [our] country is derived” and “both profits are produced for us and
8 Cf. Wozniak, “Illyricum”, pp. 365–70; Wilkes, Dalmatia, p. 424; Wolfram, Goths, p. 320; and Schwarcz, “Westbalkanraum”, pp. 62–3.
9 For an elaboration: Bjornlie in this volume; also Ensslin, Theoderich, pp. 172–9, 191–3;
Wolfram, Goths, pp. 290–2; and Lafferty, Law and Society, pp. 103–20.
10 Cassiodorus, Variae 1.40, 3.25–26, 4.49, 5.14–15, 5.24, 7.16, 7.24, and 9.8–9, ed. Mommsen.
11 Demo, Ostrogothic Coinage, pp. 133–6.
12 For the appointments, Variae 1.40 and 9.8. All Variae dates in this chapter have been taken from Mommsen’s MGH edition. For possible revisions: Krautschick, Cassiodor.
13 Variae 1.40.1: “fida rei publicae salus est defensor armatus.”
14 Variae 3.25–26.
death is procured for our enemies”.15 These instructions reveal not only the military importance of the region but also its economic value. Dalmatia was a source of raw materials, like iron, which might be turned into weapons in state-owned factories or, as Theoderic claimed, be manufactured into tools, such as ploughs.16 Other goods produced at this time may have included salt and fish, which would have been consumed at home or traded abroad, and the presence of a mint at Siscia and coin finds along the coast point to the importance of trade and exchange in the region.17 Indeed, beyond looking into mining operations, Simeon himself was enjoined by Theoderic to review the siliquaticum tax owed by Dalmatia for the past three indictions and to correct any abuses, a task that speaks again to the economic value of the province.
Theoderic hoped to “acquire monetary gain” from the audit and to “arrest the behavior of [wicked] subjects”.18
This desire for peace and profits was also expressed to officials stationed in Savia and reiterated to their subjects. Fridibad, for instance, who seems to have been a subordinate of Osuin, was introduced to the population of Siscia and Savia in 507/11 and was supposed to establish law and order in the region by punishing animal rustlers, reducing homicides, and condemn-ing thefts.19 “Live peacefully,” Theoderic told his subjects, “live governed by good customs . . . He who commits depraved acts should be exposed to our vengeance.”20 Lawlessness, as in the past, was seen as a condition of barbarism and not in keeping with Roman rule. And while such behaviour was not a new phenomenon, the Ostrogothic regime claimed that it kept it in check both at home and abroad as part of its programme of just and recognizably Roman governance; civilitas, the rule of law, had to be maintained.21 Severinus, who
15 Variae 3.25.2: “Hinc auxiliante deo patriae defensio venit. . . . per quam et nobis generan-tur lucra et hostibus procurangeneran-tur exitia.”
16 For tools: Variae 3.25.2; state-owned factories: Variae 7.18–19; factories at Salona: Wilkes, Dalmatia, p. 424, and Wozniak, “Illyricum”, p. 367.
17 See Wilkes, Dalmatia, p. 425; for coin-finds: Demo, Ostrogothic Coinage, p. 168–9, and Kos,
“Numismatic Evidence”, p. 113.
18 Variae 3.25.1: “quia non tantum lucra quaerimus, quantum mores subiectorum deprehen-dere festinamus”.
19 Variae 4.49, with Wolfram, Goths, p. 320 and 518 n. 426, and Amory, People and Identity, pp. 375–6.
20 Variae 4.49.1: “Vivite compositi, vivite bonis moribus instituti . . . Necesse est vindictae subiaceat qui pravis moribus obsecundat.”
21 See Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 126–32; also Heydemann in this volume. Whether the regime was successful is another matter altogether. Cf. Castritius, “Korruption”, and Lafferty, Law and Society, pp. 154–5.
was sent to Savia late in Theoderic’s reign, provides another case in point.22 His instructions included a list of local abuses that were of long-standing duration.
In particular, the machinery of tax collection in the region was corrupt, with many paying less than they should, funds embezzled, rates applied unevenly, records doctored, and false exemptions offered, all to the injury of the fisc and the increasingly overburdened provincials. In addition, itinerant judges, who were supposed to be a source of Roman law and order, were extorting resources and overstaying their welcome. Not only was this a violation of Roman law, according to Theoderic, but also it was unjust and patently un-Roman: “Our ancestors,” he explained, and by this he meant Roman ancestors, “wanted the travels of judges to exist not for the burden of provincials but for their profit.”23
Ostrogothic rule in Dalmatia-Savia, therefore, was idealized as a continua-tion or restoracontinua-tion of Roman rule, as a source of proteccontinua-tion and justice, both essential to civilized life. As the possessores of Savia were told, even Theoderic’s court in Italy was available to all, much like the emperors’ of old, and some of these provincials appealed directly to it.24 Yet, as Theoderic also claimed, his
“innate piety” (an imperial quality) endeavoured to “provide remedies to the oppressed” and “take away the fatigue of a long journey”.25 Hence, agents like Severinus and Osuin were critical to the Ostrogothic position in this double province; they served as both administrators for and representatives of a dis-tant regime and in the process hopefully lived up to the assertion that they were “gifted in arms and glorious in justice”.26 Beyond these details, however, little more can be said about Ostrogothic rule in the region.
Noricum
When and to what extent Theoderic assumed control over Noricum is a mat-ter of some debate, as the sources are quite meagre.27 Like Dalmatia-Savia, the earliest administrative records demonstrate an Ostrogothic claim to the region
22 Variae 5.14–15 and 9.9.
23 Variae 5.14.7: “Maiores enim nostri discursus iudicum non oneri, sed compendio provin-cialibus esse voluerunt.”
24 For possessores, Variae 5.15; Dalmatians appealing to court, Variae 3.7, 5.24, and 8.12.
25 Variae 5.15.1–2: “ingeniosa pietate repperimus . . . fatigationem longi itineris abrogare . . . speret remedium qualibet pressus iniuria.”
26 Variae 9.9.1: “qui sunt armis praediti et iustitia gloriosi.”
27 See Wolfram, Goths, pp. 315–16; idem, “Westillyrien”, p. 316; and Heuberger, “Rätien”, pp. 77–82.
by the opening years of the 6th century. An earlier date, however, is likely, given the importance of Noricum to the greater Alpine frontier, which protected the Ostrogothic kingdom’s north Italian core and was the object of extensive attention following Theoderic’s victory over Odovacer.28 Forts on the Italian side of this frontier were described as the “gates” and “bulwarks” of Italy, pro-tecting its provinces from “hostile tribes” and “barbarians whose oaths could not be trusted”.29 To their north were the two provinces of Raetia, the date of Ostrogothic annexation again unknown, but part of the diocese of Italia Annonaria and ruled by a dux with the rank of spectabilis.30 His forts were seen as the “barriers for Italy”, while his soldiers, perhaps local recruits rather than Goths, were “stationed against fierce and very savage peoples” and “guarded the tranquility of the kingdom”.31
Unfortunately, letters like these to an official in command of the frontier in Ostrogothic Noricum do not survive, and so it is largely on inference from Raetia that a similar ducatus of Noricum has been posited. In the case of the former, its duces were charged with more than just defending their region (and thus Italy) from external aggressors. As elsewhere, they were supposed to assure peaceful conditions and the rule of Roman law. One such dux, Servatus, was even charged by Theoderic in 507/11 with looking into the petition of a certain provincial, who claimed that local tribesmen had taken his slaves. The appeal to Theoderic’s justice is revealing, so, too, Theoderic’s response: “Suffer there to be no violence in the province over which you rule, but compel all to the justice by which our Empire flourishes.”32 As for Servatus’ Norican ana-logue, whose responsibilities would have been comparable, many have found him in a vir spectabilis named Ursus, who is known from a series of ornate mosaics that he and his wife, Ursina, dedicated in a church in Teurnia (the capital of Noricum Mediterraneum) sometime in the early 500s.33 The recon-struction is speculative, since Ursus’ official capacity in Noricum (if any) and
28 See Christie, Constantine to Charlemagne, pp. 357–64; also Arnold, Theoderic, pp. 241–2.
29 Variae 2.5.2: “porta provinciae . . . in procinctu semper erit, qui barbaros prohibere con-tendit . . . quos fides promissa non retinet”; and 3.48.2: “claustra provinciae . . . quia feris gentibus constat obiectum.”
30 See n. 27 (above). The territorial extent of both Raetian provinces is unknown.
31 Variae 7.4.2–3: “Raetiae namque munimina sunt Italiae . . . contra feras et agrestissimas gentes . . . disponuntur. . . . tranquillitas regni nostri tua creditur sollicitudine custodiri,”
with Wolfram, Goths, p. 316.
32 Variae 1.11.1: “per provinciam, cui praesides, nulla fieri violenta patiaris, sed totum cogatur ad iustum, unde nostrum floret imperium.”
33 Cf. Alföldy, Noricum, p. 216, with pl. 58; Wolfram, Goths, pp. 316–17; Heuberger, “Rätien”, p. 81; and Prostko-Prostyński, “Ostgotischer Statthalter”.
the origin of his rank are not stated in the dedication. But if not Ursus, some-one still commanded this region on behalf of the Ravenna government. And if not an independent dux along the model of Raetia, perhaps this individual was the subordinate of an official elsewhere, as was the case in nearby Savia.
Regardless, the inhabitants of Noricum did receive orders from the Ostrogothic king. The sole surviving example comes from around 507, when these provincials were ordered to trade cattle with refugee Alamanni travelling through the region.34 A threatening letter directed to the Frankish king Clovis around the same time demonstrates that Theoderic had welcomed these refugees into his territory following their annihilation by the Franks, while a later source suggests that they were settled within the Alpine frontier, likely in Raetia, Noricum, and possibly Savia.35 Ennodius also treated the event in his panegyric, focusing on its ideological significance. Here Theoderic was cast in the role of a Roman emperor and the Alamanni as new federates, former bar-barians who would defend the empire from its aggressors. “How is it possible,”
he asked, “that you enclosed the multitude of Alamannia within the boundar-ies of Italy without any damage to Roman possessions? Having always run riot with their plundering of our lands, they have been transformed into guardians of the Latin Empire.”36
Ennodius’ words, therefore, speak as much to the perceived Romanness of
‘Ostrogothic Italy’ as to the defensive value of Alpine lands like Noricum to it.
Beyond these notices, however, little more can be said about this province.
Pannonia Sirmiensis
While the details surrounding Theoderic’s expansion into Dalmatia-Savia and Noricum are shadowy, those for Pannonia Sirmiensis are far clearer. The region had fallen to the Gepids after the Goths’ own departure in 474, and rela-tions with their king, Thraseric, grew strained by the opening years of the 6th century. Fear of a Gepid offensive against neighbouring Savia might have pro-voked Theoderic’s decision to invade, but in keeping with current ideologies of
While the details surrounding Theoderic’s expansion into Dalmatia-Savia and Noricum are shadowy, those for Pannonia Sirmiensis are far clearer. The region had fallen to the Gepids after the Goths’ own departure in 474, and rela-tions with their king, Thraseric, grew strained by the opening years of the 6th century. Fear of a Gepid offensive against neighbouring Savia might have pro-voked Theoderic’s decision to invade, but in keeping with current ideologies of