On this day in history: Belisarius smashes the retreating Goths: End of the siege of Rome, AD 538

Gloria Romanorum ^ | 3/12/18 | Florentius

[Antoninus]

Of all Belisarius’s victories, the defeat of the great Gothic host under King Vittiges which had besieged Rome from February of AD 537 through March of AD 538 must rank as his greatest feat. In this, he was able to defend successfully a gigantic city that had been considered indefensible against a siege while outnumbered at least 20 to 1 – and maybe more.

March 12 is the date commonly given for the break-up of the siege, when the remnants of the great Gothic army pulled up stakes and retreated for Ravenna. For the previous few months, they had sat quietly before Rome parlaying with Belisarius and looking to negotiate a face-saving treaty. However, time was not on their side. Pestilence was rampant in the Gothic camps and provisions were becoming harder and harder to extract from the devastated countryside around Rome.

Plus, Belisarius had sent a sizable portion of his cavalry under the command of John, the nephew of Vitalian (otherwise known as Bloody John), around the Gothic flank to occupy key cities along the route to Ravenna, the capital of the Gothic kingdom. Worse, rumors were rampant that the disgruntled queen of the Goths, Matasuntha, had made favorable overtures to John to betray Ravenna into his hands. When word of this maneuver reached Vittiges, he acted quickly, fearing that his escape route might be cut off, and his capital and treasure might fall into the hands of his enemies.

Here is how Procopius, an eyewitness to events, described what happened next:

Now it was about the spring equinox, and one year had been spent in the siege and nine days in addition, when the Goths, having burned all their camps, set out at daybreak.

[The entry on Pope Silverius in the Liber Pontificalis gives a date for the beginning of the Siege as February 21, AD 537. Thus, it seems from Procopius’s reckoning that the siege broke up some time in early-to-mid March in AD 538. Procopius continues:]

And the Romans, seeing their opponents in flight, were at a loss how to deal with the situation. For it so happened that the majority of the horsemen were not present at the time, since they had been sent to various places as has been stated by me above, and they did not think that by themselves, the were a match for so great a multitude of the enemy. However, Belisarius armed all the infantry and cavalry. And when he saw that more than half of the enemy had crossed the bridge, he led the army out through the small Pincian Gate, and the hand-to-hand battle which ensued proved to be equal to any that preceded it.

At the beginning, the barbarians [that is, the Goths] withstood their enemy vigorously, and many on both sides fell in the first encounter. But afterwards the Goths turned to flight and brought upon themselves a great and overwhelming calamity; for each man for himself was rushing to cross the [Milvian] bridge first. As a result of this they became very much crowded and suffered most cruelly, for they were being killed both by each other and by the enemy. Many, too, fell off the bridge on either side into the Tiber, sank with all their arms, and perished.

Finally, after losing in this way the most of their number, the remainder joined those who had crossed before. And Longinus the Isaurian and Mudilas, the guards of Belisarius, made themselves conspicuous for their valor in the battle. But while Mundilas, after engaging with four barbarians in turn and killing them all, was himself saved, Longinus having proved himself the chief cause of the rout of the enemy, fell where he fought, leaving the Roman army great regret for his loss. [Taken from: Procopius: History of the Wars, Book VI, Chapter X].

It is notable that Belisarius used tactics similar to those of Constantine the Great some 200 years before when he defeated the armies of Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge. In both cases, the victorious army was able to stampede their retreating enemies toward the bridge and use it as a choke-point. Once the rout was on, the defeated troops trampled their own comrades and pushed them off the bridge in their haste to cross the Tiber and reach safety on the other side. Given that Belisarius seemed a student of military history, it would be no surprise if he were cognizant of Constantine's victory when planning his attack on the fleeing Goths.

[Antoninus]

An excellent read though somewhat questionable in its historical accuracy is the Robert Grave’s novel “Count Belisarius”.

Count Belisarius is a good book and close to the history, but lacking to the extent that Graves couldn't bring himself to explore the religious dimensions of the man's life--and if you read Procopius, they're pretty obvious even though Procopius himself was a strictly classicizing (that is, secular) historian.

[Verginius Rufus]

Interesting theory about the authorship of the Anekdota. I will have to take another look at it.

Do you know if any scholar has ever argued in print that the Secret History was not really written by Procopius?

[Antoninus]

Do you know if any scholar has ever argued in print that the Secret History was not really written by Procopius?

Yes. It's quite an old debate, though more recent scholars seem to have settled on the 'yes' side. J. B. Bury felt it was not written by Procopius when he first published his History of the Later Roman Empire in 1889, but changed his mind by 1923.

My amateur opinion is that it was a forgery written by a faction in Constantinople who hated Justinian, penned specifically in the Procopian style with his name attached for the purpose of maximum impact.

[SunkenCiv]

This topic was posted 3/12/2019, thanks Antoninus.