Conquerors of the Roman Empire: The Vandals Read online

  Early Vandal Warfare

  By the time they had settled down as a warrior aristocracy in Roman Africa, the Vandals fought on horseback. Many of the eastern Germanic tribes who took up lands on the Eurasian steppe also, quite sensibly, became primarily mounted warriors. Being classed amongst the eastern Germanic peoples, it is usually assumed that the early Vandals had always tended to fight mounted rather than on foot.

  Debating the ethnicity of a tribe he calls the ‘Venedi’, Tacitus says that they had adopted many Sarmatian habits. He then goes on to conclude that they were Germans because they ‘carry shields and are fond of travelling fast on foot, differing in all these respects from the Sarmatians who live in wagons and on horseback.’ For Tacitus, fighting on foot, as opposed to the mounted warfare of the nomadic Sarmatians, seems to have been a hallmark of the Germanic warrior in the early years of their contact with Rome. However, this was not absolute. Describing the Tencteri, whom he says lived by the Rhine, Tacitus asserts that they ‘excel in skilful horsemanship’, adding that even children and old men compete in riding and that horses are passed on to the most skilful warriors when a horse owner dies.

  Mounted warfare naturally develops in open areas such as plains and steppes. Here a horse warrior has a natural advantage by being able to traverse greater distances at greater speed. Open plains also make raising and maintaining a substantial horse herd a relatively easy business. Neither the Vandals’ original Scandinavian homeland, nor the mountainous, forested terrain of their new home in central Europe, would have been particularly suited to developing a horse culture. It is true that early Vandal burials contain horse furniture, but then most of the dead were cremated. Presumably only notable men were interred and the fact that they were the elite does not necessarily mean that all Vandal warriors were horsemen before their entry into the Roman Empire.

  Fine distinctions between cavalry and infantry did not exist amongst the Germanic tribes. Warriors who had horses might fight mounted or dismount to fight on foot. Most of those who lived out on the steppes probably had horses. For others, like the early Vandals who lived in closer terrain, a horse would not have given the same tactical advantage and maintaining a suitable herd would have been much more difficult. Therefore, in the early days of Vandal history it is likely that only the richest men rode into battle and most probably even then dismounted to fight rather than forming a distinct cavalry force.

  There are, however, several sources which seem to indicate a preference for mounted combat by the early Vandals. After their defeat by Aurelian in the 270s, the vanquished Sarmatians and Vandals were to provide 2,000 horsemen to the Roman Army. Probably most of these were Sarmatians but Vandals may have contributed. The Ala VIII Vandilorum previously mentioned was definitely a cavalry unit, which also supports the idea of a Vandal preference for mounted combat.

  The terrain of the Vandal heartland in central Europe argues against the full development of mounted warfare in the early days of their history. Given the archeological evidence, it is likely that those who could afford it did own horses and most likely rode them into battle. The Asdings, who moved south into the Tisza basin, were clearly influenced by the Sarmatians, who were mounted nomads. Fighting alongside the Sarmatians, they would have come to value the strategic advantage that mounted action gave them for hit and run raids into enemy territory. The Hungarian plain would also have allowed them to build up larger horse herds than their Siling cousins to the north. Even if the Asdings had a greater number of mounted warriors than the Silings, it would probably be a mistake to imagine them as fighting exclusively on horseback as their descendants did in Africa several generations later.

  Tacitus gives us some detailed descriptions of how the early Germans may have fought. Although these accounts contain a healthy dollop of poetic licence, they would have been based on first hand accounts of Roman officers who had fought against the Germans:

  ‘Generally speaking, their strength lies in infantry rather than cavalry. So foot soldiers accompany the cavalry into action, their speed on foot being such that they can easily keep up with charging horsemen. The best men are chosen from the whole body of young warriors and placed with the cavalry in front of the main battle line…The battle line is made up of wedge shaped formations. To give ground, provided that you return to the attack, is considered good tactics rather than cowardice.’

  The wedge shaped formations should not be taken too literally. The wedge, or cuneus, as it was called by the Romans, was more like an attack column with the leader front and centre surrounded by his household warriors. As the column surged forward, the leader and his best men would have advanced more quickly while those on the vulnerable flanks held back. By the time they reached the enemy, the formation would have resembled a rough wedge.

  Tacitus says that the main weapons were short, handy spears called frameae. These have ‘short and narrow blades which are sharp and easy to handle so that they can be used, as required, either at close quarters or in long range fighting. Their horsemen are content with a shield and a spear; but the foot soldiers also rain javelins on their foes. Each of them carries several and they hurl them to immense distances.’

  When describing mounted action Tacitus says: ‘Their horses are not remarkable for either their beauty or speed and are not trained to execute various evolutions as ours are. They ride them straight ahead, or with just a single wheel to the right (so the man’s shielded side faces the enemy), keeping their line so well that not a man falls behind the rest.’

  We have no way of knowing how much of this may have been applicable to the ancestors of the Vandals, of whom Tacitus had no knowledge. He does tell of tactical variations between certain tribes, one of whom were the Harii. This people were a sub-group of the Lugi who may have been later absorbed by the Vandals:

  ‘The Harii are not only superior in strength to the other peoples I have mentioned, but they minister to their savage instincts by trickery and clever timing. They black their shields, dye their bodies, and choose pitch dark nights for their battles. The shadowy, awe-inspiring appearance of such a ghoulish army inspires mortal panic, for no enemy can endure a sight so strange and hellish. Defeat in battle starts always with the eyes.’

  We cannot make any firm conclusions about the composition of early Vandal armies or their tactics. Probably they started off as mainly foot warriors like other Germans, but as terrain and circumstances permitted they increasingly mounted up. Notable warriors probably always rode into battle, even if they dismounted to fight on foot. As their wealth and power grew, Vandal warriors increasingly took to fighting on horseback, but at the time of the Rhine crossing many or most probably still fought on foot.

  Whether on foot or mounted, the early Vandal warriors were much more likely to be involved in raids and skirmishes against their neighbours than large set piece battles. Most warbands would have numbered in the hundreds rather than thousands, and the objectives of a campaign would be to increase prestige and material wealth of that particular band as they jostled and competed for resources with other similar bands. If we were to take a modern comparison, it would be closer to rival street gangs fighting continuous turf wars rather than life or death conflicts between competing nations or ideologies.

  Those warriors who fought dismounted may well have used a looser formation than the tight shieldwall typical of later Germanic warriors and the Romans. If hit-and-run raids were the most usual form of combat, relatively lightly-equipped men with the short handy spears and javelins described by Tacitus would have been most suited for it. Such men would have been able to operate easily in the close terrain of the Vandal homelands as well as keeping up with mounted warriors in the open. There is some archeological evidence to suggest that the Germans of the early migration period may have had a looser fighting style than their later descendants. Shields were small, round and with prominent central bosses. This seems to indicate that the warrior’s shield was used offensively and for parrying blows. Roman shields,
and those of later Germans, were larger and better designed for defence in a close formation.

  If Tacitus is correct, mounted action by the early Germans seems to have been rather unsophisticated. Romans, Sarmatians and Huns used a mix of skirmish and shock tactics. They would harass their opponents with missile weapons, avoiding contact until their enemy was worn down and then close in for the kill. Tacitus’ statements that the Germans were ‘not trained to execute various evolutions as ours are’, and that, ‘their horsemen are content with a shield and a spear (without javelins)’, indicates a preference for close combat only. Later, when the Vandals fought the Moors and Romans in Africa, they seem to have been hampered by an inability to skirmish as well as fight hand-to-hand. It may be that Vandal mounted tactics did not evolve much over the centuries that followed.

  Although there is a popular view that Germanic warriors shunned the use of missile weapons in favour of hand-to-hand combat only, there is plenty of evidence that this was not the case. Tacitus speaks of javelins being used by men on foot, their ability to fight at both close quarters or long range and the fact that a tactical withdrawal was not regarded as a sign of cowardice. The later Ostrogoths and Lombards fielded a large number of bow-armed men and several excavated Alamannic graves reveal that poorer warriors were buried with bows while richer ones had spears, swords and throwing axes.

  As less prominent men amongst the early Vandals were cremated, we cannot know if the same was true for them. There is, however, no evidence for long-range missile weapons being used by the later Vandals, despite the influence of the Alans and Sarmatians who generally carried bows as well as lances. It may be that the Vandals never adopted archery. Perhaps, as they were so suddenly propelled from relatively minor tribes to a powerful warrior aristocracy, there was never a time when they had any significant number of less well-off men who had to make do with bows rather than the full panoply of the archetypical Germanic hand-to-hand fighter.

  Amongst the early Germans, most free men carried arms and were able to fight. Even women and children might pitch in, taking care of the wounded and encouraging their menfolk:

  ‘Close by them are their nearest and dearest, so that they can hear the shrieks of their women and the wailing of their children. These are the witnesses whom each man reverences most highly, whose praise he most desires. It is to their mothers and wives that they go to have their wounds treated and the women are not afraid to compare gashes. They also carry supplies of food to the combatants and encourage them.’ (Tacitus)

  Culture, Leadership and Society

  Procopius, who wrote in the sixth century and was familiar with the later African Kingdom, tells us that the Vandals were closely related in language and laws to the Goths and Gepids:

  ‘There were many Gothic nations in earlier times, just as also at the present, but the greatest and most important of all are the Goths, Vandals, Visigoths, and Gepids. In ancient times, however, they were named Sarmatians and Melanchlaeni [black cloaks – possibly a reference to Tacitus’ Harii] and there were some too who called these nations Getic. All these, while they are distinguished from one another by their names, as has been said, do not differ in anything else at all. For they all have white bodies and fair hair, and are tall and handsome to look upon, and they use the same laws and practise a common religion. For they are all of the Arian faith, and have one language called Gothic; and, as it seems to me, they all came originally from one tribe, and were distinguished later by the names of those who led each group.’

  Given the paucity of evidence it is difficult to identify any unique characteristics of early Vandal society beyond that which they shared with other German tribes. Archeology has identified cultural similarities amongst the peoples who lived in central Europe which differed from the Goths to the east, Marcomanni and Quadi to the south, and the Franks and Alamanni to the west. Although the early Vandals lived in central Europe, it is likely that their culture (known as ‘Przeworsk’ from the town in modern Poland where the first discoveries were made) was shared by several similar groups which included the Vandals. It was not necessarily exclusively theirs, and the fact that a common way of life extended over a wide area does not mean that the early Vandals were already a powerful confederacy in the years before the Rhine crossing.

  What the archeology tells us is that the ancestors of the Vandals lived in small, highly-dispersed, short-lived communities based on subsistence farming. Their houses, made of wood, wicker and mud, were simple structures with one or two rooms. In contrast, those areas dominated by the Goths and Alamanni show signs of much larger permanent settlements with more advanced agricultural techniques and greater material wealth. This was no doubt a direct result of war and trade with Rome.

  Trade with Rome would have been vitally important to the Vandals as it provided them with better quality goods and gave local leaders the ability to increase their power and influence. Although the Vandals were one step removed from the Imperial frontiers, their settlements straddled the so-called ‘amber trail’ so the Vandals did have something to offer in exchange for Roman luxury goods. Living deep in central Europe, most trade with Rome in the early years probably went through Marcomannic, Sarmatian or Gothic middlemen. As a result, the Vandals remained relatively poor and weak compared to their neighbours who bordered the Rhine and Danube.

  Pre-migration Germanic leadership was fragile and fragmented. A successful warrior would offer material wealth and protection to his extended household and therefore attract more followers. Such Germanic leaders are usually called ‘kings’ by the Romans but they were not kings as we now understand the term. At best, such men were probably village headmen who, through prowess in war, were able to maintain a small number of household warriors and extend their influence over neighbouring settlements. There was no sense of a Vandal nation, nor even a Siling or Asding nation. In the same way that various South London gangs today can all be called Londoners, this does not mean that they automatically have some kind of greater allegiance to an overall London gang leader. Later, larger more coherent political groupings came about through military and economic interaction with Rome, but this did not come to pass for the Vandals until well after the Rhine crossing.

  Interestingly, most primary sources mention two leaders when they describe the early Vandals. We have already heard how Ybor and Agio of the Lombards fought against Ambri and Assi of the Vandals; and how Raus and Raptus led their Asding followers into Dacia. This has led some historians to conclude that there was some kind of ‘twin kingship’ amongst the early Vandals and many other Germans. Tacitus seems to imply that this dual leadership was quite common, with one giving spiritual guidance while the other led warriors into battle. Dual leadership is also found in other cultures. After the death of King Rua, Attila and Bleda ruled the Huns jointly for several years until Attila did away with his brother to assume sole command. Given the fragmented nature of early Vandal political structures, it is probably wrong to assume that just because two leaders are often mentioned that this was always some sort of formal arrangement. It may well be that the two names were more symbolic than accurate. Tacitus, for example, links the dual kingship to the Roman divinities of Castor and Pollux, and the names ‘Raus’ and ‘Raptus’ may mean ‘pole’ and ‘beam’.

  As a single Vandal leader could probably only muster a few hundred men, only by joining up with another they could have had an impact that made a difference. As these ‘kings’ acquired greater wealth, often through their dealings with Rome, they were able to maintain larger groups of full-time retainers who were bound by formal oaths of loyalty and a code of honour. They fought for him to increase his power while he provided them with gifts, prestige and high standing within the community. In order to take on the might of Rome, several such leaders and their followings had to band together, at least temporarily, if they were to have any chance of success.

  The Wrong Sort of Christians

  If much of the early history of the Vandals will alw
ays remain shrouded in the mists of time, one event that is certain and had a lasting impact on their later history was their conversion to Christianity. This was significant less for the fact that they became Christians than that they adopted the Arian version of Christianity that was later deemed heretical by the Roman Church.

  In 341 a Goth by the name of Ulfilas (Little Wolf) was consecrated Bishop at the Council of Antioch and was sent north of the Danube to bring his people around to Christianity. To say he was a Goth is true, but he is a good example of how ethnicity amongst the Germans was not necessarily based on race. He was descended from Roman captives taken by the Gothic Tervingi clan in the late-third century. He grew up as a Goth, had a Gothic name and spoke Gothic as his first language, but he was also fluent in Latin and Greek, and he retained his parents’ Christian beliefs.

  Ulfilas translated the Bible into Gothic and gradually converted his people to Christianity. His work, and that of his followers, influenced other Germanic tribes as the word spread beyond Gothic territory. As neighbours of the Goths, the Vandals probably converted to Christianity towards the end of the fourth century as an indirect result of Ulfilas’ mission.

  The fifth-century Spanish chronicler Orosius says that the Vandals were still heathens when they crossed the Rhine in 406-7, but this is highly unlikely. By the time they arrived in Spain, the Vandals were almost certainly Christians. Conversion needs time to contemplate spiritual matters and this is not easily done while you are marauding through enemy territory. Given their proximity to the Goths and similar dialect, it is far more likely that the Vandals became Christians before the Rhine crossing. Had it happened later they would have taken on the Catholic version of Christianity of the Hispano-Romans rather than following the Arian teachings of Ulfilas.