27830788

ARIANISM AND THE BYZANTINE ARMY IN AFRICA 533-546
Author(s): WALTER EMIL KAEGI

Source: Traditio, Vol. 21 (1965), pp. 23-53
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27830788
Accessed: 01-10-2016 15:24 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Traditio
This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:24:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ARIANISM AND THE BYZANTINE ARMY

IN AFRICA 533-546*
By WALTER EMIL KAEGI
One of the principal motivations for the Emperor Justinian's reconquest

of Africa from the Vandal king Gelimer (Gelimer reigned from 15 June 530
to 15 September 533), was religious: the desire to liberate the African Catholic
majority of the population from their Arian Vandal persecutors.1 No critical
study exists, however, which assesses the extent to which the Byzantine
* In its original form, this paper was written for the Byzantine History Seminar of
Professor Robert Lee Wolff at Harvard University. I wish to acknowledge my thanks to
Professor Wolff for his careful comments. I have since extensively revised this study and
I am, of course, completely responsible for its contents.
1 For an introduction to the origin and development of Arianism in the fourth century
with extensive references, see A. Fliehe and V. Martin, Histoire de Veglise (Paris 1947) III
69-296. For a general description of the introduction of Arianism to Germanic tribes and
a comparative study of the heresy's role in various tribes, see H.-E. Giesecke, Die Ostger
manen und der Arianismus (Leipzig 1939); the Vandals are discussed, 167-199. For Africa
in general, see C. A. Julien, Histoire de VAfrique du Nord (2nd ed. revised by C. Courtois ;
Paris 1951-52). This work contains an extensive, but not complete, bibliography arranged
by periods. A recent useful and significant addition to scholarship on Roman Africa up to
the Vandal conquest is P. Romanelli's Storia delle province romane dell'Africa (Rome 1959)
which unfortunately is largely limited to political history. For more recent bibliography
on Africa, see the section 'Periode vandale et byzantine' of new books and reviews which
appears annually in Libgca. The best single work on the Vandals is unquestionably G.
Courtois, Les Vandales et VAfrique (Paris 1955) which contains references to all relevant
secondary material ; L. Schmidt, Geschichte der Wandalen (2nd ed. Berlin 1942) is still use
ful. See also: F. Miltner, 'Vandalen,' RE 8A.1 (1955) 298-335. The date of the Vandals'
conversion to Arianism is uncertain, but they had become Arians before they reached Africa.
There are several works on Justinian's reconquest of Africa. A perceptive article by

J. von Pflugk-Harttung still deserves consultation: 'Belisar's Vandalen-krieg,' Historische
Zeitschrift 41 (1889) 69-96. C. Diehl has written the basic work: VAfrique byzantine (Paris
1896). Still useful and readable is J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire (2nd ed.
London 1923) II124-139. E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire (Amsterdam-Brussels-Paris 1949)
II 311-328, 547-560, is an indispensable manual. C. Courtois does not claim to present a
chronological narrative of the conquest, but does provide a few helpful details and observa
tions, Vandales 353. For general observations on Justinian's motives and the ultimate
historical significance of the reconquest: P. Romanelli, 'La riconquista africana di Giusti
niano,' Africa romana (Milan 1935) 123-140, and C. Saumagne, 'Points de vue sur la re
conquete byzantine de l'Afrique au vie siecle,' Cahiers de Tunisie 7 (1959) 281-297. The
second volume of B. Rubin, Das Zeitalter Iustinians, which will cover Justinian's western
wars, has not yet appeared.
24
TRADITIO
expeditionary force of 533 actually treated its invasion of Africa as a Catholi
war against Arianism. Such a study would also provide some informatio
on the obscure problem of the relative significance of Arianism in Nor
Africa after the Byzantine reconquest. Clarification of this question ha
become desirable, for in a recent article C. J. Speel argued that the dis
pearance of Christianity in the wake of the Islamic conquest is explained by

the affinity of Islam and Arianism, which he claims was the religion of th
majority of North Africans after the Byzantine reconquest.2 His thesis
serves to be tested by the Byzantine sources: according to the sources, how
successfully did Arianism in Africa survive the collapse of the Vandal

thority which had established it?
The Vandals had penetrated North Africa in 429 and, after their captu
of Carthage in 439, had firmly established themselves as rulers of Afri
Proconsularis, Byzacium, Tripolitania, Caesarian and Sitifian Mauretania, and
Numidia. Outside of Africa, the Vandals had taken partial or complete p
session of the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily.3 Over the years
these heretics' persecutions of the native Catholic population, who were the
descendants of the Romans whom the Vandals had conquered, had becom
increasingly severe. Justinian (527-565), a devout Catholic who vigorous
combatted heresy within the Byzantine or Roman Empire, regarded th
indignities to which the heretical Vandals had subjected the African Cathol
Church as unendurable. Incensed because the Vandals had forcibly rebap
tized Catholics into the Arian church, had tortured the faithful, had desecrat
sacred edifices, and considering himself as God's lowest servant and the Van
dals as 'the enemies both of souls and bodies', he felt compelled to aveng
these injuries to the Catholic Church and to free the African populace from
their yoke of servitude.4
2 C. J. Speel, 'The Disappearance of Christianity from North Africa in the Wake of

the Rise of Islam,' Church History 29 (1960) 379-397.
3 For an excellent discussion of the geographical characteristics of the Vandal kingdom
Courtois, 'Structure g^ographique,' Vandales 155-214.
4 The African clergy endeavored to publicize their sufferings under the Vandals. On
book written with this purpose was Victor of Vita, Historia persecutionis africanae provi
ciae sub Geiserico et Hunirico regibus Wandalorum (ed. C. Halm MGH Auct. Antiq. 3.1-58)
The persecution under King Huneric (477-484) was the most notorious. For a more pea
ful picture of the Vandal kingdom, see G.-G. Lapeyre's edition of La Vie de Saint Fulgenc
de R?spe (Paris 1929) and id., Saint Fulgence de R?spe (Paris 1929) ; this work describe
the early fifth century. It is questionable, of course, how serious the Arian-Catholic tensio
in Africa really were. The important fact, however, is that Justinian considered the situ
tion of Catholics in Afica as intolerable. On the problem of Arian-Catholic relations in Africa
see Courtois, Vandales 287, 310-324; cf. also C. Saumagne, 'La paix vandale,' Revue Tun
sienne N.S. 1 (1930) 174-75. On Victor of Vita, see Courtois, Victor de Vita et son ceuv
(Algiers 1954). For the piety of Justinian, see C. Diehl, Justinien et la civilisation byz
ARIANISM AND BYZANTINE ARMY
25
There were, of course, additional reasons for Justinian's decision to order

an invasion of Africa. He hoped to restore the former limits of the Roman
Empire.6 African landowners of Roman origin, moreover, urged the emperor
to reconquer Africa because of its great wealth;6 among its treasures were
the Roman imperial ornaments which the Vandal king Geiseric had plundered
from Rome in 455.7 Eastern merchants who traded in the Vandal kingdom
also encouraged JustirTian to embark on this enterprise.8 Finally, Gelimer's
usurpation of the Vandal throne from Justinian's friend, King Hilderic, 15
June 530, was both a blow to the emperor's prestige and a pretext for hostili
ties: Justinian could now pretend to be overthrowing Gelimer in the name
of the legitimate ruling house of Hilderic.9 These factors, however, were

apparently not convincing enough to overcome the opposition of the em
peror's advisers to any invasion of Africa. According to Procopius, even
Justinian checked his eagerness for the war after listening to the frank pro
tests of the pretorian prefect, John of Cappadocia.10 Religious considerations,
however, finally overcame the emperor's reservations. An unidentified eastern
bishop, according to Procopius, persuaded Justinian to undertake the expe

dition by recounting a dream:
tine au vie siecle (Paris 1901) 315; Stein Hist, du Bas-Empire II 279; Rubin, Das Zeitalter
Iustinians (Berlin 1960) I 128-29. On the emperor's desire to unite the Church under Catho
licism, and consequently his persecution of heresy: H. Geizer, ' Das Verh?ltnis von Staat und
Kirche in Byzanz,' Ausgew?hlte kleine Schriften (Leipzig 1907) 70-76; and A. Knecht, Die
Religions-politik Kaiser Justinians I (W?rzburg 1896) 24-25. For a very exaggerated pic
ture of the emperor's piety, see: B. Biondo, Giustiniano Primo, principe e legislatore catto
lico (Milan 1936) , 1-10, 27-63. Justinian expressed his views on the reconquest of Africa
in a law promulgated during April 534: Codex Justinianus 1.27.1.1-5 (ed. P. Krueger, Corpus
Juris Civilis 2.77).

5 Justinian, Nov. 30.11.2 (ed. R. Schoell, Corpus Juris Civilis 3.234).
6 Zachariah of Mitylene, Chronicle 9.17 (tr. Hamilton and Brooks 262).
7 Cod. Just. 1.27.1,6 (77 Krueger); Procopius, De hello vandalico 1.5.3 (2nd ed. J. Haury
and G. Wirth, Leipzig 1962, 331-32).
8 Procop., bell. vand. 1.20.5 (397 Haury-Wirth).
9 Procop., bell. vand. 1.9 (351-55 Haury-Wirth) discusses the deposition of Hilderic;
Justinian's protest to Gelimer; Gelimer's reaction of the protest; and Justinian's angry de
cision to go to war and the emperor's summons to Belisarius to come from the eastern fron
tier and prepare for an invasion of Africa. Justinian's endeavor to split the Vandals by
claiming that he had sent Belisarius and an army only to depose Gelimer and 'free' the Van
dals is obvious in the emperor's open letter to the Vandal nation: Procop., bell. vand. 1.16
13-14 (384 Haury-Wirth).
10 For the fears of the magistrates, Procop. bell. vand. 1.10.2-6 (355-56 Haury-Wirth).
The magistrates were too afraid of the emperor to speak out, but John the Cappadocian
frankly exposed his misgivings, ibid. 1.10.7-17 (356-58 Haury-Wirth). See also Procop.,
De aedificiis 6.5.6 (ed. J. Haury 180). For the office of praetorian perfect in late antiquity,
W. Ensslin, 'Praefectus praetorio,' RE 22.2 (1954) 2426-2502.
26 TRADITIO
He said that God had visited him in a dream and bidden him go to the
emperor and rebuke him, because, after undertaking the task of protecting
the Christians in Libya from tyrants, he had for no good reason become
afraid. 'And yet/ He had said, 'I will Myself join him in fighting and
I will make him lord of Libya.ai
The African bishop Victor of Tonnenna offers a somewhat different reli

gious explanation for Justinian's decision to invade the Vandal kingdom:
bishop Laetus, an African Catholic martyred by the Vandals in the 480s,
had appeared in a dream to the emperor and induced him to undertake the
enterprise.12
Justinian placed the able Belisarius in command of the entire expedition,
comprising some 18,000 troops and 500 ships.18 This brilliant soldier, invested
with unlimited powers by the emperor, was born about 500 in Germania
(between Thrace and Illyricum) and had been serving against the Persians.14
Belisarius appears to have been a good Catholic, but mainly a good soldier,
more concerned with completion of military tasks than with political or reli
gious questions.15 Around the spring equinox of 533, the ceremony of depar
11 Procop., bell. vand. 1.10.18-21 (358-59 Haury-Wirth). Courtois, Les Vandales et
VAfrique 288, believes this bishop was acting as an agent for the African Catholic clergy.
12 Victor of Tonnenna, Chronica an. 534 (ed. T. Mommsen, MGH Auct. Antiq. 11.198).
A possible explanation of this discrepancy between the accounts of Procopius and Victor,
in my opinion, is the role of Byzantine propaganda; spreading the word of pious African
Catholics that the emperor at Constantinople had been moved to liberate them because
of the visit of one of their own martyrs whom the Arian Vandals had killed, would be an
excellent way to win the Africans' good will and support. Such a tale would convince them
of God's blessing upon the new regime. Procopius, who had access to high officials such
as Belisarius, would understand that the real pressures were being exerted by the clergy.
Moreover, reports of African martyrs' visits to Justinian would make less of an impression
upon the Greek population of the East than upon Africans themselves. If my supposition
is correct, this story of Laetus' visit to Justinian would only have been circulated among
Africans. Zachariah of Mitylene was aware that the Vandals were Arians, but he did not
explain how their religious beliefs affected Justinian's decision to invade Africa, Chronicle
11.17 (263 Hamilton and Brooks).
13 For the appointment of Belisarius: Procop., bell. vand. 1.11.18 (363 Haury-Wirth);
the number of troops: ibid. 1.11.2-16 (360-63, Haury-Wirth); cf. Stein, Hist, du Bas-Empire
II 312-13; for the number of ships: Procop., bell. vand. 1.11.13 (362 Haury-Wirth).
14 For Belisarius' unlimited powers: Procop., bell. vand. 1.11.18.20 (363 Haury-Wirth);
his birthplace: ibid. 1.11.21 (363 Haury-Wirth). For Belisarius' life: an old work by Lord
Mahon, The Life of Belisarius (London 1829); Hartmann, 'Belisarios,' RE 5(1897) 209-240;
the biography by Gen. L. M. Chassin which contains little original research, but includes
insights by a fellow soldier, Belisaire: generalissime byzantin, 504-565 (Paris 1957).
15 Gen. Chassin, in an annex on 'Les temps des heresies,' notes that Belisarius seems
to have been a pious Catholic, but was mainly interested in doing his military duty, ibid.
240. Belisarius' speeches, as recorded by Procopius, are filled with references to God. Most
of these allusions, however, are to Tyche or Fortune, rather than the Christian God in partic
27
ture for the enterprise took place at Constantinople. This formality had
a pronounced religious tone; Belisarius' ship anchored in front of the imperial
palace and was blessed by the Patriarch Epiphanius.16 The historian Pro
copius was on board as Belisarius' assessor.17 To sanctify and further em
phasize the sacred mission of the expedition, the Patriarch placed on
board the general's ship a soldier who had recently been baptized and had
assumed a Christian name.18 Officially, at least, the struggle against heresy
was an important motif in the reconquest of Africa; Charles Diehl has gone
so far as to term this enterprise 'a sort of Crusade.'19 E. L. Woodward has

called it a 'holy war against Arians.'20
Regardless of what official statements and ceremonies might proclaim
to the world, it was principally for the general Belisarius to decide just how
important he would allow the doctrinal opposition of Arian and Catholic to
become in his actual military operations in Africa. Four factors seem to have
been relevant to his treatment of the religious differences between Byzan
tines and Vandals. In the first place, as has been pointed out, Belisarius
was exclusively a soldier and appears to have kept military considerations
ular. These speeches were composed by Procopius in imitation of classical models rather
than as reproductions of the general's words. But for two real instances of Belisarius'
piety during the African campaign, see the general's baptism and adoption of the former
heretical Eunomian, Theodosius: Procop., Historia arcana 1.16 (2nd ed. J. Haury and G.
Wirth, Leipzig 1963, 8); and his prayer before the battle of Ad Decimum: Procop., bell,
vand. 1.19.11 (393 Haury-Wirth). These of course are instances of conventional piety. For
his narrow interest in military affairs to the exclusion of other concerns: Hartmann, 'Beli
sarios,' 238; and Stein, Hist, du Bas-Empire II 285.
16 For the place and date of the ceremony: Procop., bell. vand. 1.12.1 (365 Haury-Wirth);
for the Patriarch's blessing, ibid. 1.12.2 (365 Haury-Wirth). Epiphanius was enthroned as
Patriarch 25 February 520 and died 5 June 535.
17 The most recent general study of Procopius is the extensive article 'Prokopios von
Kaisaraia' by Berthold Rubin, RE 23.1 (1957) 273-599. The classic work on Procopius
by F. Dahn, Procopius von Caesarea (Berlin 1865) is still useful. G. Soyter's article, 'Pro
kop als Geschichtschreiber des Vandalen-und Gotenkrieges,' Neue Jahrb?cher f?r Antike
und Deutsche Bildung (1939) 97-108, is mainly an evaluation of Procopius' utility for the
student of German tribal history. For the presence of Procopius on the expedition: bell,
vand. 1.12.3 (365 Haury-Wirth); 1.14.3 (373 Haury-Wirth).]
18 The newly-baptized and renamed 'Christian,' ibid. 1.12.2 (365 Haury-Wirth), is
thought to be the former Eunomian adopted by Belisarius and his wife Antonia. This con
vert took the name of Theodosius: Procop., Hist. arc. 1.16 (8 Haury-Wirth). For the iden
tification: Rubin, 'Prokopios,' 410. For the significance of the Patriarch's placing the
new convert on board: J. Pargoire, L'Eg Use byzantine de 527 ? 847 (3rd ed. Paris 1923)
24-25, who considers it a sanctification; C. Jenkins, ' Procopiana,' Journal of Roman Studies
37 (1947) 75, regards it as a favorable omen.

19 Diehl, L'Afrique byzantine 15.
20 E. L. Woodward, Christianity and Nationalism in the Later Roman Empire (London
1916) 89.
28
TRADITIO
uppermost in his policy-making.21 Secondly, the presence of 'no less than
1,000 soldiers of the Arian creed,' mostly foederati (barbarian troops, mainly
horse, serving in the Byzantine army), in the expeditionary force tended
to blur the religious distinctions between Byzantines and Vandals.22 Although

Justinian had enacted legislation against various heresies within the Byzan
tine Empire, he had found it necessary to give limited toleration to Arian

Gothic foederati in a law of 527 because, among other reasons, of these here
tics' valuable military contribution to the defense of the empire.23 Clearly,
any attempt to fan the Byzantine soldiers' hatred against the Vandals' Arian
ism would probably create a serious division along confessional lines within
Justinian's own army. These Arian troops, to be sure, were only a small
fraction of Belisarius' total military forces, but as subsequent events dem
onstrated, these heretics could wield great influence over the entire army
in a critical situation. Perhaps the most important incentive for Belisarius to
avoid exciting religious feelings was Justinian's hope of encouraging the
Vandals to desert Gelimer. The emperor intended to try to weaken the Van
dals' will to resist, and, if possible, induce them to join the Byzantine forces
by his assertion that he had sent an army to free the Vandals from Gelimer'
'tyranny.'24 If this strategy were to have any chance for success, Belisarius
could not have afforded to conduct a war which aroused religious emotions.
A religious war would probably only have provoked fanatical resistance.

Against these three arguments, however, Belisarius had to weigh the potential
value of the African Catholic majority's support; would it be measurably

increased if he made the campaign a conflict between opposing religious faiths ?25
Belisarius' army disembarked 30 or 31 August, 533 at Caput Vada (Ras
Kapudia) on the African coast.26 The general did not refer to the Arian-Catholi
21 See n. 15, supra.

22 For the number of Arians: Procop., bell. vand. 2.14.12 (484 Haury-Wirth). Procopius
discusses the contemporary meaning of foederati, ibid. 1.11.3-5 (361 Haury-Wirth). Most
of the Arians were barbarians, some were Herulians. There were 400 Herulians on the expe
dition commanded by Pharas, ibid. 1.11.11 (362 Haury-Wirth). The Herulians were bar
barians who dwelled in Slovakia and later moved southwestward: Stein, Hist, du Bas-Em
pire II 150-51, 305-06.
23 Cod. Just. 1.5.12.17 (54 Krueger); for a discussion of this provision: J. Sundwall,
Abhandlungen zur Geschichte des ausgehenden R?mertums (Helsingfors 1919) 252-57; King
Theoderic of the Arian Ostrogoths had threatened to make reprisals against Italy's Catholics
if Justinian persecuted Arians within the Byzantine empire. For Theoderic's relative tolera
tion of Catholicism: W. Ensslin, Theoderich der Grosse (2nd ed., Munich 1959) 93-106.
24 Procop., bell. vand. 1.16.13-14 (384 Haury-Wirth).
25 Belisarius could already count on the refugee African landowners who had been urging
Justinian to reconquer Africa: Zachariah, Chron. 9.17 (262 Hamilton and Brooks).
26 Courtois, Vandales et VAfrique 353.
29
conflict in the speech which he made on board ship, debating where to land.27
Nor did he mention religious differences or affinities when he rebuked his troops
for plundering the Africans on the day after the landing. Instead of asserting
that the Africans ('Libyans') were fellow Catholics, Belisarius merely de

clared that he hoped for the Africans' support because they had formerly
been Romans.28
Although the African Catholic clergy unquestionably rejoiced at Belisarius'
arrival, the general seems to have received little religiously motivated support
from the non-Arian population. The only evidence (and this can be contested)
of distinctly Catholic aid to the Byzantine army was the willing surrender
of Syllectum (Sylakta) two days after the landing by the city's bishop and
notables to a small detail of Belisarius' troops who had managed to enter
the city.29 Belisarius did receive valuable cooperation from some Africans,
according to Procopius and Zacharias of Mitylene, but the individuals who
funrished the support appear to have been mostly landowners who were not
primarily motivated by religious considerations.30 Actually, it seems that
the Catholic majority of the population was not seething with religious hatred
against their heretical masters; Belisarius, for his part, did not rely much on
the African Catholics' religious fervor for the success of his campaign.31
27 Procop., bell. vand. 1.15.18-30 (378-80 Haury-Wirth). This speech is, unlike many
of the later ones composed by Procopius, filled with information of historical value. For
the diminished historical importance of later speeches composed by Procopius, M. Br?ckner,
Zur Beurteilung des Geschichtschreibers Prokopius von Caesarea (Ansbach 1896) 10.
28 Procop., bell. vand. 1.16.2-8 (381-83 Haury-Wirth).
29 The African Catholic clergy definitely welcomed the Byzantine arrival with enthusiasm.
Documentary evidence of their feelings is found in a letter written in the name of a general
council of the African church nearly two years after the invasion (May 535). The African
bishops declared to Pope John II their joy at liberation: Collectio Avellana, letter 85, (ed.
O. Guenther, CSEL 35.328). Other evidence of their feelings is the triumphant celebration
of St. Cyprian's Day at Carthage 14 Sept. 533, after the Arian priests had fled at the news
of Gelimer's defeat at Ad Decimum on 13 Sept.: Procop., bell. vand. 1.21.17-25 (402-04

Haury-Wirth). The only recorded instance of their active aid to Belisarius, however, was
the surrender of Syllectum by the priest and notables of the city, ibid. 1.16.9-11 (383 Haury
Wirth). Courtois, Vandales 312 n.7, questions whether the priest and local leaders surren
dered voluntarily or under duress.
30 Zachariah, Chron. 9.17 (262-63 Hamilton and Brooks). Courtois is perhaps correct
in saying that the general reception that Belisarius received from the Africans was apathetic,
Vandales 311-12, but his discussion and arguments are somewhat weakened by his failure
to consider this passage from Zachariah which is quite relevant. Procopius mentions African
cooperation, bell. vand. 1.17.6 (386 Haury-Wirth).
31 Belisarius, in an oration to his men a day after the landing, rebuked them for plun
dering, ibid. 1.16.2-8 (381-83 Haury-Wirth). The general declared that he was relying
completely on the Africans' loyalty as Romans for the success of the campaign. He did
not mention religion. As Rubin noted, 'Prokopios,' 412, the speech is quite rhetorical,
30
TRADITIO
On the same day that Syllectum surrendered, a royal Vandal courier

was captured and was handed a letter from Justinian addressed to all the
Vandals. The courier was ordered to publicize the note.32 The text of thi
letter provided further evidence for Belisarius' avoidance of the delicate
religious issue. Seeking to turn the Vandals against Gelimer's 'tyranny,'
the emperor disclaimed any desire to make war upon their nation; Justinian
asserted that he only wished to dethrone the usurper.33 The emperor proceeded
to promise peace and freedom to the Vandals if they aided the Byzantin
forces.34 It is significant that Justinian carefully refrained from mentioning

any outstanding religious difficulties between the Catholics and the Arians.
In this way, he sought to avoid offending the Arian sensibilities of the Vandals.
At the same time, however, he gave them no religious guarantees which might
hamper his future freedom of action in sacred affairs. Justinian's vague

pledge 'in the name of God' to provide cooperative Vandals with 'peace
and freedom' did not commit him to any specific religious policy in Africa
after Gelimer was defeated. For the moment, the emperor wished to shun,
rather than to encourage, a war fought on religious grounds. As a matter

of fact, the letter had no imporant practical effects, for the courier never
published it, but only showed it privately to a few friends.35
On September 13, the critical battle of Ad Decimum took place. Gelimer

suffered a severe defeat which cost him his capital Carthage.36 Procopius
mentions God several times in connection with this battle, but does not asser
that the Byzantine army won because of its correct religious beliefs. The
historian confesses that during the conflict he had reflected that God marks
out a pattern of what will occur, while He deceives others 'to make a path
for Fortune, who bears firmly toward that which has been previously de
creed.'37 Although apparently a Christian, Procopius was a skeptical one
who despised religious controversy and preferred to avoid discussion of it.38
but still of some historical value. Pflugk-Harttung, 'Belisar's Vandalen-krieg,' Historisch

Zeitschrift 61[N. F. 25] (1889) 72-73, and Courtois, Vandales 311-12, both note thatBelisa
rius was forced to take careful security measures after landing, indicating that he did not
trust the Africans. P. J?rs, Die Reichspolitik Kaiser Justinians (Giessen 1893) 16, observes
that the emperor received no material help from the Church and its bishops.
33 Ibid. 1.16.13 (384 Haury-Wirth).
36 Ibid. 1.16.15 (384-85 Haury-Wirth).
36 The date: ibid. 1.21.23-25 (404 Haury-Wirth). For the battle of Ad Decimum: ibid.
1.19 (391-96 Haury-Wirth).
37 Ibid. 1.18.2 (388-89 Haury-Wirth). G. Downey, 'Paganism and Christianity in Pro
copius,' Church History 18 (1949) 92-93, believes that Procopius is attempting to reconcile
the Christian concept of Theos with the pagan Tyche.
38 For a clear expression of Procopius' skepticism: Procop., De hello gothico 1.3.6-9
His mental outlook has two implications. On the one hand, it is noteworthy
that at least one important Byzantine official participating in the campaign
? the adviser to the commander-in-chief of the Byzantine forces ? was

not stirred to view the conflict as one of opposing religious convictions.
On the other hand, Procopius' own religious skepticism and tendency to
employ classical expressions of thought (in preference to Christian terminology)
may conceal, at least in the speeches which he composed for the mouth of
Belisarius, the sincere and fervent conviction of many Byzantine officers
and regular soldiers that the real issue of the war, or at least an extremely
important one, was religious.39 In general, however, it appears that Procopius
has not distorted the role of religious beliefs in the African campaign very
much. The other sources on the campaign do not mention the Arian-Catholic
issue as a vital one in the actual military operations. Furthermore, Procopius
provides several pieces of information in the course of his narrative which
indicate that even if his speeches must be regarded as suspect and unhistorical,
Byzantine army policy toward Arianism during the reconquest was moderate.40
(ed. J. Haury and G. Wirth, Leipzig 1963, 15-16). Also on Procopius' skeptical but probably
Christian beliefs: O. Veh, Zur Geschichtsschreibung und Weltauffassung des Prokop von
Caesarea 2 (Bayreuth 1952) 30; Rubin, 'Prokopios,' 341. The assertion of P. Bonfante
'II movente della Storia Arcana di Procopio,' Bullettino delV Istituto di Diritto Romano
41 (1933) 283-87, that Procopius was probably an Arian himself, is almost certainly false:
Stein, Hist, du Bas-Empire II 716 n.l; Veh. Zur Geschichtsschreibung . . . Prokop. 2.29.
A further indication of the unrealistic character of Bonfante's assertion is the fact that Pro
copius was forced to flee for his life from an Arian-inspired mutiny in Africa during the
spring of 536, bell. vand. 2.14.12-15, 21 (484-85 Haury-Wirth); 2.14. 38-41 (488 Haury-Wirth).
39 See H. Braun, Procopius Caesariensis, quatenus imitatus sit Thucydidem (Diss. Erlan
gen 1885); Die Nachahmung Herodots durch Prokop (N?rnberg 1894). But cf. G. Soyter:
'Glaubw?rdigkeit des Geschichtschreibers Prokopios von Kaisareia,' Byzantinische Zeit
schrift 44 (1951) 541-45.
40 The other sources offer few or no details on the campaign. Zachariah, Chron. 9.17
(262-63 Hamilton and Brooks), says nothing about Belisarius' policy toward religion,
although he does give more details than any source with the exception of Procopius. The
others simply announce the capture of Africa without discussing the actual campaign:
Marcellinus, Chronicon a. 534 (ed. T. Mommsen MGH Auct. Antiq. 11.103-04) does say Africa
'volente deo vindicata est.'; Victor of Tonnenna, Chron. an. 534 (198 Mommsen). Veh,
Zur Gesch. Prokop 2.29, claims that Procopius stresses the 'religious liberation' in this
war and points to passages in De bello vandalico as examples of this. His two examples,
1.8.3 (345 Haury-Wirth) on the persecution by King Huneric, and Procopius' description
1.21.19 (403 Haury-Wirth) of the return of a Cathaginian sanctuary to the Catholics (which
the Arians had wrested away by violence) are not convincing. Just because Procopius
mentions Vandal violence, he is not necessarily expressing a personal opinion. It is not
necessary to believe, as Veh does, that Procopius actually 'rejoiced' at the return of the
Carthaginian church to the Catholics. While undoubtedly Procopius had heard many tales
of Arian cruelty to Catholics, and this hearsay has crept into his narrative at various points,
31
32
TRADITIO
Before the battle of Ad Decimum, Belisarius delivered an oration to his
troops summarizing the issues at stake in the contest. He asserted, according
to Procopius, that 'justice' was on the Byzantines' side, but by 'justice'

he did not mean the cause of the Catholic faith against the Arian heresy,
but rather the fact that Libya was formerly Roman: 'we are here in order to
recover our property.'41 Procopius believes that God may have blinded
Gelimer to an opportunity to destroy the Byzantine army; the historian does

not attribute this divine decision to the righteous beliefs of Belisarius' men,
but instead, to the inexplicable will of God, who had determined that the
Vandal monarch's span of prosperity had run its course.42
Having routed the Vandals at Ad Decimum, Belisarius entered Carthage
on 15 September 533.43 Before permitting his soldiers to march into the city,
the general reminded them again that the Africans had formerly been Romans
that these Africans has suffered many outrages (he was not specific) at the
hands of the Vandals; and that for this reason the emperor had made war
upon these barbarians.44 As in previous orations, Belisarius seems to be
avoiding direct reference to the volatile religious issue, although th
absence of any direct mention of the Africans' sufferings as Catholics may

simply be due to Procopius' dislike for confessional questions. At any rate,
the Carthaginian Catholics needed no vocal encouragement from Belisariu
to arouse their religious enthusiasm for the arrival of the Byzantine army.
When the news of Gelimer's defeat at Ad Decimum reached the city, the
Arian priests, who had been preparing a church for the celebration of th
important local festival of St. Cyprian (14 September), fled, and the Catholics
resumed the management of this religious ceremony which the Vandals had
previously usurped.45 Procopius cites a dream in which St. Cyprian himself
had prophesied to the faithful that he would at some future date avenge
this Arian profanation of his festival.46 The defeat of the Vandals and the
flight of the Arian priests on the day before the festival appeared to confirm
Cyprian's prophecy, and demonstrated that the Byzantine army enjoyed

divine favor.
There is no definite evidence that Belisarius ever threatened or harshly
treated the Arian clergy in Africa, or any Vandal, for that matter, on account
it seems clear that his account is quite restrained and remarkably independent from the
official propaganda line expressed in the Corp. Jar. Civ.
42 Ibid. 1.19.25 (394-95 Haury-Wirth).
43 Ibid. 1.20.1-2 (396 Haury-Wirth).
44 Ibid. 1.20.19-20 (399 Haury-Wirth).
45 Ibid. 1.21.19-25 (399-400 Haury-Wirth).
33
of religious convictions. The flight of these Arian priests at Carthage probably

reflected their fear of reprisals from the vengeful local Catholic zealots (who
had suffered so grievously under the Vandal occupation) at least as much as
any dread of injury by the Byzantine army. Nevertheless, the hasty de

parture of these priests demonstrates their awareness of the possible religious
implications of the Byzantine invasion. There is no specific information on
the fate of other Arian clergymen in Africa during the campaign. Subsequent
events (in 536), however, revealed that an influential number of the Arian
clergy remained at large in Africa after the Vandal kingdom had completely
collapsed. The regular Byzantine army entered Carthage in good order and
did not molest the citizens.47 Calonymus of Alexandria, admiral of the in
vasion fleet, and his sailors managed to plunder the city before Belisarius
arrived while everything was in disorder.48 From the arrival of the news
that the Byzantine army had won at Ad Decimum on 13 September to Beli
sarius' entry on 15 September, there must have been a lapse of security since
the fall of the city was imminent. The Arian priests fled during this interim
of anarchy. It would be presumptuous, in the absence of definite source
material, to assume that Belisarius evicted all of the Arian clergy from Car
thage and any other cities which he occupied. The Arian clergy of the Ostro
goths was permitted to remain in Rome by the Byzantine authorities at first
after that city was captured. Rome was taken on 9 December 536, but the
Arian clergy were not expelled until the winter of 543-544 when they were
suspected of treason.49
The honorable treatment which Belisarius offered to those Vandals who
had sought refuge in Carthaginian religious sanctuaries is an important in
dication that he and his subordinates in the Byzantine army followed a policy
of moderation in regard to the Vandals' religious convictions. Although the
Vandals were heretics who might seem to defile sacred buildings, Belisarius
offered these heterodox suppliants pledges of security and kept his word.50
Such conduct was definitely considered to be proof of religious toleration.51
Belisarius obviously wished to end the African campaign as quickly as possible,
47 Ibid. 1.21.9-10 (401-02 Haury-Wirth).

48 Ibid. 1.20.16 (398-99 Haury-Wirth).
49 Procop., bell. goth. 3.9.21 (336 Haury-Wirth).
50 Apparently all of the Vandals remaining in Carthage when Belisarius entered the
city had fled to sanctuaries as suppliants: Procop., bell. vand. 1.20.1 (396 Haury-Wirth).
Belisarius gave them pledges: ibid. 1.21.11 (402 Haury-Wirth). cf. 2.4. 10,21,32(434, 435,
437 Haury-Wirth).
51 See the statement of two Ostrogothic envoys to Belisarius at Rome during the winter
of 537-538 when he was besieging their king Vitigis: Procop., bell. goth. 2.6.18-19 (176-77
Haury-Wirth).
34
TRADITIO
and the acquisition of a reputation for kind treatment of one's enemies, what
ever their religious beliefs might be, was a sensible way to weaken the Vandals'
will to resist, as well as to avoid offense to the Vandals' co-religionists within
the Byzantine army.52 While consolidating his position by this temperate

policy, Belisarius dispatched his domes ticus or general manager Solomon of
Dara, who was also a commander of foederati, to inform Justinian of the vic
tory at Ad Decimum and of the capture of Carthage (Solomon probably de
parted in late September, 533).53

Belisarius' religious moderation was a prudent policy that soon had bene
ficial results. Gelimer, unaware of the imminent Byzantine invasion, had
dispatched his brother Tzazo with 5,000 men to crush a revolt in Sardinia.
When the Byzantines unexpectedly landed in Africa, the king recalled his
brother. Tzazo, having suppressed the insurrection and having received Gel
imer's plea, immediately conveyed his men back to Africa and united them
with his brother's forces.54 Gelimer now bribed African farmers to kill By
zantine soldiers, another indication of the absence of religious alignments

in the campaign; the Catholic farmers apparently had no qualms about killing
Byzantine soldiers.55 Having regrouped his troops, the Vandal king now
marched on Carthage and tried a new strategy. It seems to have been Gelimer,
not the Byzantine commander, who first attempted to turn the war into a
conflict along confessional lines. Gelimer, hoped that the Arian contingent
among Belisarius' soldiers would join their Vandal co-religionists (the king
also tried to win over the 600 Huns in the Byzantine army and hoped that
the Carthaginians themselves would turn against Belisarius).56 This is the
52 For Belisarius' haste and desire to prevent the Vandals from uniting and attacking
him: Procop., bell. vand. 2.4.10-11 (434 Haury-Wirth); 2.4.32 (437 Haury-Wirth).
53 Ibid. 1.24.19 (412 Haury-Wirth). The date of Solomon's departure is uncertain, but
it must have occurred soon after the capture of Carthage on 15 Sept. and perhaps after
Belisarius had strengthened the fortification to the extent that he was fairly confident that
he could hold the city: ibid. 1.23.19-20 (409 Haury-Wirth). For more information on Solo
mon see Nagl, 'Solomon,' RE 3A (1929) 941-46. Solomon was Belisarius' domesticus,
Procop., bell. vand. 1.11.5 (361 Haury-Wirth) and also a eunuch, ibid. 1.11.6 (361 Haury
Wirth). For the office of domesticus, Seeck, ' Domesticus,' RE 5 (1905) 1296-99.
54 The Sardinian rebel Godas, a Goth, was a slave of Gelimer to whom the Vandal king
had previously entrusted the island's government: Procop., bell. vand. 1.10.25-34 (359-60
Haury-Wirth). Gelimer dispatched Tzazo to quell the revolt, ibid 1.11.22-23 (363-64 Haury
Wirth). Tzazo killed the rebel and reestablished Vandal rule, ibid. 1.24.1-6 (410 Haury
Wirth). After Gelimer informed him of the loss of Carthage, Tzazo returned to Africa with
his men, ibid. 1.25.10-26 (413-16 Haury-Wirth).
55 Ibid. 1.23.1-18 (407-09 Haury-Wirth).
56 Ibid. 2.1.1 (419 Haury-Wirth). When Gelimer marched to Carthage he hoped that
the Arians in the Byzantine army would revolt against Belisarius; Procopius does not say
35
only clear instance in Procopius' narrative of either side's attempting to turn

the contest into one of religious warfare; the other sources simply provide
no information at all. Belisarius, however, perceived Gelimer's endeavors

and was sufficiently uncertain of the Byzantine troops' loyalty to refuse to
engage the Vandals in the open.57 Procopius mentions the specific measure
which the general took to forestall Carthaginian or Hunnic treachery, but

he fails to note what action, if any, beyond his general refusal to fight at first,
Belisarius took to prevent his Arian soldiers from rebelling. Furthermore,

according to Procopius, Belisarius did not refer to the religious differences
within the army when he made an address to the soldiers which aimed at
insuring their obedience.58
Gelimer failed to secure the adhesion of these Arians; there is no evidence
that he even was able to unsettle these heretical Byzantine soldiers.59 His
failure is an important and useful gauge of the religious issue's importance
in Belisarius' campaign of reconquest. Arian-Catholic animosity was suffi

ciently tangible for a desperate monarch to attempt to exploit it in the hope of
saving his disintegrating kingdom, but the conflict of religious convictions
in itself was not apparent or meaningful enough to the Arian soldiers within
the Byzantine army to cause a revolt in the name of religious solidarity.

Of course, it may be that Belisarius had taken adequate precautionary measures
to prevent any Arian mutiny. Belisarius' avoidance of a distinctly anti-Arian

policy was probably responsible in part for the conduct of his Arian soldiers;
they did not feel that the conflict was primarily a religious one.60
what measures the Vandal king took to help realize his hopes, ibid, 2.1.4 (419 Haury-Wirth).
The Arian Vandal church seems to have been organized as an aggressive and expansionistic
force, Courtois, Vandales 226-27. The Vandal clergy may have tried, given this zeal, to
stir up their Arian coreligionists in Belisarius' army. For Gelimer's attempts to win over
the Carthaginians and Huns, Procop., bell. vand. 2.1.4 (419 Haury-Wirth); 2.1.5-6 (420
Haury-Wirth).
57 Being suspicious, Belisarius impaled the Carthaginian Laurus, ibid. 2.1.7-8 (420 Haury
Wirth). The general courted the Hunnic Massagetae cavalry and promised that they would
be able to return home safely with all their booty, ibid. 2.1.9-11 (420-21 Haury-Wirth).
58 Procopius says nothing further about these Arian troops until he mentions them in
connection with the events of 536, bell. vand. 2.14.12 (484 Haury-Wirth). Since he does
not mention any rebellion by them during Gelimer's blockade of Carthage in 533, and since
these troops were allowed to remain in Africa, they apparently did not rebel. Belisarius'
address to the troops: ibid. 2.1.13-25 (421-23 Haury-Wirth).
59 Since Gelimer lived in a kingdom where religious tensions between Arian and Catholic
were always near the breaking point, he may have overestimated the effect of confessional
differences within the Byzantine army where religious issues tended normally to be of sec
ondary importance.
60 Gelimer's hopes were not so absurd, for at a later date (536) these Arian troops did
revolt because of religious grievances against the Catholics.
36
TRADITIO
Nevertheless, Gelimer's endeavor to exploit the religious allegiance of these

Arian soldiers was a warning-signal for later events. Several possible courses
of action were not followed. The Byzantine military authorities, including
Belisarius, could have resolved to transfer these approximately 1,000 Arians
to another theater, such as the Persian, where their particular religious con
victions would have been less vulnerable to exploitation. If the military leader
ship found this course impractical, they could have made certain that Arian
Catholic differences in Africa would never become so intense and open that
the loyalty of these heretical troops would be compromised.61 Perhaps, how
ever, Belisarius and his subordinates interpreted Gelimer's vain religious

hopes in another fashion; the Byzantine commanders may have concluded
that since these Arian contingents did not succumb to the Vandal king's
overtures, they would not be affected by Arian religious propaganda in the
future.62
Once Belisarius had secured his troops' loyalty, he engaged the Vandals
at the battle of Tricamarum in mid-December, 533. The contest determined
the end of the Vandal kingdom.63 Gelimer and his brother Tzazo's orations
before the battle contain references to heaven's curse and fate, but no dis
cussion of the religious issues which divided the Vandals and Byzantines.64
After he had routed the Vandals, Belisarius ordered pledges of security to

be offered to the heretical suppliants who now filled the sanctuaries.65 Un
61 The cost of transporting even 1,000 troops from Africa to the Persian frontier would
have been great. The expense would have been slight, however, in comparison with the
great damage caused in Africa when these troops rebelled in 536. In fact, Belisarius had
shipped thousands of Arian Vandals to the eastern frontier from Africa. These Vandals,
incorporated as a Byzantine corps, Vandali Justiniani, were probably sent not only to
bolster that border, but also to prevent any Vandal revolt in Africa against the new By
zantine government, Procop., bell. vand. 2.14.17 (484 Haury-Wirth); 2.4.10-12 (434 Haury
Wirth). Later Solomon of Dara in 539 did send soldiers of questionable loyalty to Belisarius
in Italy and to Justinian at Constantinople, ibid. 2.19.3 (508 Haury-Wirth). The explana
tion for the authorities' failure to transfer these Arian elements seems to have been either
oversight or miscalculation.
62 In retrospect, Procopius probably saw that Gelimer's endeavor to win the Arian troops
within Belisarius' army anticipated and foreshadowed the successful efforts of Arian priests
to seduce these troops in the spring of 536, Procop., bell. vand. 2.14.13 (484 Haury-Wirth).
The conspiracy took the authorities (including Procopius himself, the assessor of Solomon)
by complete surprise, ibid. 2.14.23 (485 Haury-Wirth).
63 The battle is described by Procopius, bell. vand. 2.2-3 (423-32 Haury-Wirth). Trica
marum was about 20 miles west of Carthage, ibid. 2.2.4 (424 Haury-Wirth). The Vandals
simply fled wildly when they heard that Gelimer had taken flight; there was no longer an
organized Vandal army, ibid. 2.3.22-23 (431 Haury-Wirth).
64 Ibid. 2.2.9-22 (424-26 Haury-Wirth); 2.2.24-32 (425-28 Haury-Wirth). These speeches
are regarded as sheer rhetoric by Rubin, 'Prokopios,' 417.
66 Procop., bell. vand. 2.4.10, 21, 32 (434, 435, 437 Haury-Wirth).
37
moved by the Vandals' religious convictions, the general wished to prevent

his opponents from uniting against him by offering them lenient treatment.66
Gelimer, who had taken refuge with the Moors on Mount Papua in Numidia,
finally surrendered to Belisarius around the end of March, 534, after a long
siege.67 He had been offered the title of patrician in return for his surrender,
but due to his refusal to abandon the Arian heresy he was not permitted to
hold this rank. His tenacious adherence to Arianism may have been shared
by other Vandals, for there is no record of any Arian Vandal's conversion
to Catholicism after the Byzantine reconquest.68
The absence of references to Arian-Catholic animosity in the various orations
composed by Procopius is no absolutely accurate gauge of the relative in

tensity or importance of religious convictions during the campaign in Africa.
Procopius' distaste for religious controversy may have caused him to ignore
a vital issue present in the minds of Byzantine troops and their officers parti
cipating in the overthrow of the Vandals. On the other hand there is no evi
dence that Belisarius appealed particularly to the religious emotions of the
African Catholics, nor that these Catholics in turn gave him important support
on a distinctly religious basis. The priority which Belisarius seems to have
given to military considerations; the presence of 1,000 Vandals in the Byzantine
army; Justinian's and Belisarius' wish to weaken the resistance of the Vandals
by claiming to liberate them from Gelimer's 'tyranny'; the moderate treat
ment accorded to Vandal suppliants in sanctuaries; and Gelimer's failure

to stir the Arians within the Byzantine army to revolt, all seem to indicate
that religious convictions played a generally passive, not an active, role in

Belisarius' military operations.
Belisarius felt compelled to return to Constantinople to answer charges
of treason made against him by officers stationed in Africa.69 He departed
for the capital in the summer of 534, taking a large number of Vandal men
(who were to serve as soldiers in the Byzantine army on the eastern frontier)
and Gelimer with him. He left Solomon of Dara in full command in Africa.
He had just returned from carrying news of Carthage's capture to Justinian,
and had therefore been absent from Africa when Gelimer attempted to seduce
the Arian Byzantine soldiers.70 Belisarius was able to clear himself, celebrated
66 Ibid. 2.4.11-12 (434 Haury-Wirth).

67 Ibid. 2.7. 11-12 450 (Haury-Wirth). Pharas conducted the siege of Gelimer's mountain
fortress, Procop., bell. vand. 1.11.11; 2.4.28-32; 2.6 and 2.7 (362, 436-37, 443-51 Haury-Wirth).
68 Pharas used the term Xeyovoiv, bell. vand. 2.6.22 (446 Haury-Wirth); there was no
binding promise to make Gelimer a patrician. For his refusal to abandon Arianism, see:
Procop., bell. vand. 2.9.14 (458 Haury-Wirth).
69 Ibid. 2.8.1-2 (452 Haury-Wirth); 2.8.5 (542 Haury-Wirth).
38
TRADITIO
public triumphs, and was chosen consul for 535.71 It is uncertain whether
he brought up the matter of the Arian troops with the emperor, or whether
he discussed the general African religious situation at all with Justinian;
the sources are silent. Perhaps the general considered religious policy outside
of his own sphere of responsibilities. He may simply have foreseen no diffi
culties with these 1,000 heretical soldiers. At any rate, from the course of
subsequent events, it appears that he did not, before he left Africa, warn
Solomon of the potential threat of these troops to the Byzantine authorities.72
At the end of June, 535, Justinian sent Belisarius with a fleet to conquer
Sicily; this was a first step toward the overthrow of the Ostrogothic kingdom
in Italy.73 The general may have been too preoccupied with preparations
for the Sicilian and Italian campaigns to note or comment upon a petition
from a general council of the African church which had met that spring.
Two hundred and seventeen African bishops had gathered at Carthage
under the presidency of Reparatus, bishop of the city.74 One piece of business
was the present legal status of ecclesiastical property. Charles Saumagne

has shown that by a law issued about April, 534, Justinian had attempted
to make a provisional settlement of the problem of Arian ecclesiastical pos
sessions in Africa.75 Justinian wished to provide a transition period in which
the transfer of Arian-held church property to Catholic ownership might be
accomplished peacefully. The Arian clergy in Africa were not at once evicted
71 Ibid. 2.9 (455-58 Haury-Wirth).

72 No one seems to have paid much attention to the vulnerability of the Arian soldiers'
faith to exploitation, because the revolt of 536 completely surprised the authorities, including
Procopius, bell. vand. 2.14.23 (485 Haury-Wirth).

73 Procop., bell. goth. 1.5.2-7 (25-26 Haury-Wirth). For the date, see Stein, Hist, du
Bas-Empire II 339 n.3.
74 The source for this council is a letter addressed by the bishops attending the session
to Pope John II: letter 85, Collectio Avellana (ed. O. Guenther, CSEL 35.328-30). Guenther
dates the letter about May 535. C. Saumagne, 'Etude sur la propriety ecclesiastique ? Cartha
ge d'apres les novelles 36 et 37 de Justinien,' Bgzantinische Zeitschrift, 22 (1913) 83-85,
dates the council early in 535. For this council, see also: Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des con
ciles (Paris 1908) 2.2.1136-39; A. Audollent, 'Afrique,' Diet. d'Hist. Geog. ?ccl. (Paris 1912)
I 835-36; L. Duchesne, L'?glise au VI* siecle (Paris 1925) 640-42; E. Caspar, Geschichte
des Papsttums (T?bingen 1933) II 211-213; R. Devreesse, 'L'Eglise d'Afrique durant l'oc
cupation byzantine,' Melanges d'Archeologie et d'Histoire 57 (1940) 143-46. On the African
church in general, see also: H. Leclercq, VAfrique chretienne (Paris 1904) II; J. Mesnage,
Le Christianisme en Afrique ; declin et extinction (Paris and Algiers 1915); E. Buonaiuti,
II cristianesimo nelVAfrica romana (Bari 1928). The African church seems to have almost
completely recovered from the Vandal persecutions by the time of this council: Duchesne,
L'?glise 640-41; Stein, Hist, du Bas-Empire II 322; Devreesse, 'L'figlise d'Afrique,' 145.
75 Saumagne, T?tude,' 81; his arguments are presumably accepted by Stein, Hist, du
Bas-Empire II 321.
39
from all of their ecclesiastical holdings by the Byzantine army.76 Some Arian
clergymen, as was pointed out, did flee and their churches were repossessed
by their former Catholic clerics.77 To avoid stirring religious passions, Jus
tinian wished to employ conciliation and legal methods to restore Arian

occupied church possessions to the Catholic hierarchy.78 To accomplish this
aim, the emperor decreed that all sacred vessels which had formerly belonged
to Catholics must be immediately returned to them. Justinian's law of 534
also ordered the restitution of all other movable and immovable property
of the Catholic clergy, but the edict did not permit the Catholic Church to
seize this property immediately.79 Saumagne has shown that Justinian per
mitted the Arian clergy to retain their ecclesiastical positions for a certain
time span, at the end of which, if they were converted to Catholicism, they
would not suffer deposition from office. It is certain that Justinian desired
to permit the entry of Arian clergymen into the Catholic hierarchy, for we
possess a letter from Pope Agapetus I, dated 15 October 535, informing Jus
tinian that former Arians, including Arian clergymen, cannot be accepted
into the Catholic clergy, despite the emperor's wish to do this.80 The emperor
expected these converted clerics to bring their ecclesiastical possessions with
them to their new faith.81 Justinian believed that in this way, Arian church
property, both that which had formerly been Catholic and that which the
Arians had acquired or developed on their own initiative, would be peace
fully incorporated into the Catholic Church.82 The African Catholic clergy,
however, naturally resented the lenient treatment being administered to
their recent oppressors and petitioned the emperor to reconsider his ac
tion.83
76 Saumagne, 'fitude,' 81-82. Belisarius had allowed Arian priests to remain in Rome
after the Ostrogoths were expelled: Procop., bell. goth. 3.9.21 (336 Haury-Wirth). The Arian
priests were driven out much later when suspected of treason.
77 The Arian clergy of the Carthaginian church (where the St. Cyprian festival was about
to be celebrated) fled when they heard of Gelimer's debacle at Ad Decimum, Procop., bell,
vand. 1.21.25 (404 Haury-Wirth).

78 Saumagne, 'Iitude,' 81-82. For two short discussions of Justinian's mixture of con
ciliation and firmness in his overall policy toward heretics: A. Knecht, Die Religionspolitik
Kaiser Justinians I (W?rzburg 1896) 147; Stein, Hist, du Bas-Empire II 278-80.
79 Saumagne, 'Etude,' 82.
80 Ibid.; letter 88, Collectio Avellana (ed. Guenther), CSEL 35.333-38.

81 Saumagne, 'Etude,' 82.
82 Ibid. 82, 86.
83 The evidence for the petition of the African bishops is found in Nov. 37 of Justinian
addressed to Solomon, the Praetorian Prefect of Africa. The emperor declares that the
council of the African church had dispatched the deacon Theodorus of the Carthaginian
church to present the bishops' demands.
40
TRADITIO
Justinian answered the bishops' demands affirmatively in a Novel dated
1 August 535.84 He confirmed the African Catholic Church in the possession

of their former property which the Vandals had granted to Arians.85 Further
more, any possessions, houses, or ornaments still in the hands of pagans,

Arians, or other heretics were immediately to be assigned to the Catholi
clergy.86 All Arians and other non-Catholics (such as the heretical Donatists
and non-Christians like the Jews) were now forbidden to worship and their
religious leaders could not perform religious ceremonies.87 No heretic could
hold public office.88 The African clergy did not permit any exceptions in
favor of the heretics: no exception, therefore, was made for Arian foederati
serving in Africa this time.89
The council of Carthage faced another problem: the eligibility of Arian

clergymen, who had been converted to Catholicism, to retain their sacre
offices and advance within the Catholic hierarchy. The council also faced
the question of the eligibility of any baptized Arian to enter, after conversion,
the ranks of the Catholic clergy.90 The Catholic bishops at Carthage agreed
that no former Arian could enter the Catholic clergy, but before taking any
definite action, they wished to gain papal assent; accordingly, they wrot
to Rome.91 Pope John II had died on 8 May 535, before the Africans' letter
reached Rome; John's successor, Agapetus I, answered their inquiry on Se
tember 9 of the same year. Agapetus agreed with the African bishops that
no former Arian clergyman or layman, no matter how young he had bee
when baptized, could ever enter the ranks of the Catholic clergy. He approve
the Africans' suggestion, however, that the Catholic Church should provide
economic support for those Arian clerics who would lose their offices (an
consequently their livelihood) when they were converted to Catholicism.9
In conformity with this decision, Agapetus wrote to Justinian. Apparently
the African clergy had informed the Pope by other means than their forma
letter of inquiry which survives, that the emperor himself wished to allow
84 Nov. 37, De africana ecclesia (ed. Schoell 244-45).

85 Ibid.
86 Nov. 37.3 (244 Schoell).
87 Nov. 37.5 (245 Schoell).
88 Nov. 37.6 (245 Schoell).
89 For the limited toleration previously accorded by Justinian to Arian Gothic foederati,
Cod. Just. 1.5.12.17 (54 Krueger).

90 The only record of the African church's discussion of this question is letter 85, Col
lectio Avellana (ed. Guenther, CSEL 35.328-30).
91 The letter was carried to Rome by two African bishops, Gaius and Peter, and a Car
thaginian deacon, Liberate: letter 86, Coll. Avell. (330-31 Guenther). For the council's
statement of its desire to follow the pope's decision: letter 85 (329 Guenther).
92 Letter 86, Coll. Avell. (330-32 Guenther).
Arian clergyman to retain their offices upon conversion to Catholicism.93

In a letter dated 15 October 535, the Pope, after uttering many kind words
for the emperor's religious zeal, informed Justinian that this policy of per
mitting Arian clergymen to enter the Catholic hierarchy was unacceptable

to the Church, being contrary to tradition.94
The emperor had been attempting to follow a policy of religious modera
tion in Africa, similar to that practised by Belisarius during the campaign
against the Vandals. The vigorous opposition of the clerics reversed the im
perial treatment of Arianism in Africa; the Novella of 1 August 535 with its
stringent measures marked the change. The explanation for this policy shift
is complex. The emperor himself was unquestionably pious and no friend

of the Arians; he followed a moderate course because of his sincere desire
for political and religious unity with a minimum of friction.95 Furthermore,
Justinian wished to begin his relations with the clergy of newly won Africa
on a friendly basis; through the local church, he might secure the Africans'
loyalty to himself.96 Finally, the council of Carthage had presented its de
mands at the very moment when it could extract maximum concessions.

Justinian was just beginning his ambitious war against the Ostrogoths in
Sicily and Italy. Africa was an essential protective flank and possible rear
base for these operations. It was, therefore, exceedingly important to secure
the tranquility of Africa, for discontent or a violent upheaval there could
disrupt and perhaps irrevocably ruin military affairs to the north.97 Since
93 In the letter which Pope Agapetus wrote to Justinian, the Pontiff indicates that he
knows that the emperor wishes to permit the converted Arian clergy to enter the Catholic
hierarchy while retaining their present offices and remaining eligible for future promotion:
Letter 88, Coll. Avell. (335 Guenther). Perhaps Gaius, Peter, and Liberatus had orally
explained to Agapetus the emperor's policy toward the Arians who wished to be converted
to Catholicism; letter 85, Coll. Avell. does not contain any indication that it is Justinian
who is encouraging the Arian clergy to enter the Catholic hierarchy.
94 Letter 88, Coll. Avell. (335 Guenther).
95 Saumagne, 'Iitude,' 81.
96 Nov. 37.1 (244 Schoell). Cf. R. Massigli, 'Primat de Carthage et metropolitan! de
Byzacene,' Melanges Cagnat (Paris 1912) 431.
97 For the dispatch of Belisarius to Sicily, Procop., bell. goth. 1.5.2-7 (25-26 Haury-Wirth);
the date, Stein, Hist, da Bas-Empire II 339. The disrupting effect of disturbances in Africa
upon Byzantine military affairs in Sicily and Italy was manifest in 536. Belisarius,
having conquered all of Sicily by the end of 535, was preparing his army for the invasion
of Italy when the general received word of the revolt in Africa in 536, Procop., bell. goth.
1.5.18, 1.6.26-27 (27, 32 Haury-Wirth). Also, bell. vand. 2.14.41-42 (488 Haury-Wirth).
Belisarius was forced to go to Africa, ibid. 2.15.9 (490 Haury-Wirth). His departure from
Sicily allowed rumors to arise that troops on that island had also revolted, ibid. 2.15.48
(495 HauryAVirth). The general was compelled to return to Sicily without having com
pletely subdued the rebels, ibid. 2.15.49 (495 Haury-Wirth). The revolt in Africa had jeop
ardized Sicily's security and perhaps interrupted preparations for the Italian campaign.
41
42
TRADITIO
most of the Vandal men had been removed by Belisarius, or had died in battle
against the Byzantines, little violent resistance could be expected from th
remaining Arian Vandals.98
The new severe policy of the emperor and the Church toward the Arians
in Africa had unexpected repercussions. Conditions in Africa were already

unsettled. All of the soldiers stationed in Africa, both Arians and Catholics,
had become very irritated at the government: their pay was long overdue.99
The foederati resented the domineering conduct of their Byzantine superiors.100
Moreover, many soldiers had married Vandal women. Each of these women
urged her husband to claim the lands which she had formerly owned under
the Vandal monarchy.101 Justinian, however, on 1 January 535, had decreed
that any person who had been deprived of property during the Vandal oc
cupation of Africa ? or his legitimate heirs ? might lay claim to it within
the next five years and regain full ownership.102 Doubtless this measure was
intended in part to satisfy those African landowners who had encouraged
the emperor to overthrow the Vandal kingdom and who had betrayed certain
cities to Belisarius during the campaign of conquest.103 This law, together
with Solomon's attempts to confiscate and register all Vandal lands in the
name of the government, aroused the opposition of those soldiers who had
expected to retain their wives' landed property.104
No less a cause of unrest was the emperor's harsh new policy toward Arianism.
The 1,000 Arian soldiers who had participated in the conquest of Africa had
remained there. They were angered by the end of official toleration of their
heretical religious practices, resenting exclusion from the right to worship
and especially the denial of the right to baptize their children.105 Arian Vandal
priests, who suffered from the confiscations decreed by Justinian and the
disabilities proclaimed by the Catholic hierarchy, fanned the religious passions
98 Procop., bell. vand. 2.5.1 (439 Haury-Wirth); 2.8.4 (452 Haury-Wirth); 2.9.1 (455
Haury-Wirth); 2.14.17-18 (484-85 Haury-Wirth). Courtois, Vandales 354, believes that
casualties had been relatively light in the actual fighting. Therefore he concluded that
several tens of thousands of Vandal men must have survived the immediate Byzantine
reconquest.
99 Procop., bell. vand. 2.15.55-56 (496 Haury-Wirth); Hist. arc. 18.11 (113 Haury-Wirth).
100 The resentment of the foederati is manifest in a speech of the rebel leader Stotzas at
the battle of Membresa in 536: Procop., bell. vand. 2.15.30-36 (493 Haury-Wirth).
101 Ibid. 2.14.8-9 (483 Haury-WTirth). Many women were captured at the battle of Tri
camarum, ibid. 2.3.24; 2.4.3 (431, 433 Haury-Wirth).

102 Nov. 36 (243-44 Schoell).
103 Zachariah, Chron. 9.17 (262-63 Hamilton and Brooks).
104 The soldiers objected to Solomon's attempts to register former Vandal lands in the
name of the emperor, Procop., bell. vand. 2.14.10 (483-84 Haury-Wirth).
105 Procop., bell. vand. 2.14.11-15 (484 Haury-Wirth).
43
of these soldiers.106 It is likely that those Vandal women who were married
to Arian soldiers also strengthened their husbands' religious convictions.107
The combination of these disturbing elements, plus the successful escape
back to Africa of 400 Vandals whom the emperor had intended to send to
fight the Persians, created a volatile situation.108 The Arian soldiers' religious
grievances finally touched off a mutiny. A tight group of conspirators had
been plotting an army uprising; oaths were taken. Because they were denied
the right to celebrate Easter with religious services and baptismal rites for
their children, the Arian members of the conspiratorial group decided to

murder Solomon of Dara, master of the soldiers and praetorian prefect in
Africa.109 They tried to gain enough courage to kill him while he attended
services on Easter Day (23 March 536) and the following day at Carthage,
but they lacked sufficient resolution.110 Too uneasy to remain in the city
any longer, most of the conspirators took to the countryside and began to
assault the African population.111 On 27 May, most of Carthage's garrison
mutinied, sacked the city, and forced Solomon, Martinus (a commander of
foederati), the historian Procopius, and five unidentified men to flee; Solomon
and Procopius made their way to Belisarius at Syracuse (Syracuse had sur
rendered to Belisarius without a struggle; he had occupied all of Sicily by the
end of 535).112
106 Ibid. 2.14.13 (484 Haury-Wirth). Procopius emphasizes that it was Justinian who
decreed the exclusion of Arians from religious rites, ibid. 2.14.14 (484 Haury-Wirth) but he
failed to mention the pressure which the African Catholic clergy and the pope exerted upon
the emperor. Procopius attacked Justinian on this matter, Hist. arc. 18.10 (113 Haury-Wirth).
107 Procopius mentions that the Vandal women played an important part in inciting
the rebellion by urging their husbands to claim lands which the women had previously
held, bell. vand. 2.14.8-9; 2.15.47 (483, 495 Haury-Wirth). These Vandal women, presumably
all Arians, had always lived under the religious supremacy of Arianism in Africa and were
undoubtedly outraged by the reversal of positions between Arianism and Catholicism.
It is likely that these women shared and stimulated the resentment of their husbands over
the denial of Arian baptismal rites to their children, Procop., bell. vand. 2.14-15 (484 Haury
Wirth).
108 Ibid. 2.14.17-19 (484-85 Haury-Wirth).

109 Ibid. 2.14.20 (485 Haury-Wirth). It is significant that it was the Arians (rather than
the soldiers who were concerned with economic issues) who finally decided to start the
revolt, ibid. 2.14.21 (485Haury-Wirth). The religious conflict, together with the likely ex
posure of Solomon while at church, probably dictated the selection of Easter Day service
as the original time and place for the assassination attempt: ibid. 2.14.22 (485 Haury-Wirth).
The only study of this rebellion is a Marxist interpretation emphasizing the economic cau
ses: K. F. Schtepa, 'Vosstaniya Stotsi (536-546 gg. n.a.) ? K Istorie Revolutsionnikh

Dvizhenii v Rimskoi Afrike,' Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 3-4/12-13 (1940) 115-130.
110 Procop., bell. vand. 2.14.22-28 (485-86 Haury-Wirth).
111 Ibid. 2.14.29 (486 Haury-Wirth).
112 The majority of the garrison revolted on the fifth day of the Easter celebration (Easter
44
TRADITIO
The extraordinary feature of the military revolt at Carthage was the poli
tical and military authorities' failure to anticipate the plot. Procopius ex

plains that no one had disclosed the conspiracy because even most of Solo
mon's bodyguards and servants, in the expectation of acquiring lands, had
associated themselves with the rebels.113 It appears that the local authorities
had not foreseen the violent reaction of the Arian troops to the tough new
anti-Arian measures of the government; otherwise, the revolt would not

have been such a surprise. Those officers, however, who had observed Geli
mer's attempts to woo these African soldiers, could have informed Solomon
that these heretical elements ought to be watched. Solomon, of course, had
been on a mission to Justinian when Gelimer attempted to exploit the reli
gious divisions within Belisarius' army; the Byzantine commander, therefore,
was probably not very conscious of the vulnerability of some of his forces
to Arian religious propaganda.114 The choice of Easter as the date for the
beginning of the uprising demonstrates the importance of religious convictions
as an initial motivation for the rebellion.
This mutiny need not have occurred. The stringent anti-Arian measures
of Justinian may seem reprehensible for their intolerance, but they would
probably have been accomplished smoothly in Africa if the roughly 1,000

Arian troops had been transferred to another theater before the new religious
policy was implemented; there were no other groups of Arians within Africa
that could have offered serious armed resistance.115 The revolt of the Arian
soldiers marked the end of two incompatible policies: official promotion of

Catholic unity and purity of the faith on the one hand, and de facto limited
toleration of Arianism on the other. The policy of toleration had kept the
two sources of Arianism in Africa from uniting hitherto: the remaining Vandal
populace and the 1,000 heretics within the Byzantine army. Until 535/536,
the Arian soldiers within the army did not apparently identify their interests
with those of the Vandals. Here is another gauge of the role of Arianism in sway
fell on 23 March 536), ibid. 2.14.31 (487 Haury-Wirth). The rebels plundered the city, ibid.
2.14.36 (487 Haury-With) and forced Solomon, Procopius and others to flee, ibid.
2.14.37-41 (487-88 Haury-Wirth).
113 Ibid. 2.14.23 (485 Haury-Wirth).
114 The dispatch of Solomon to Justinian at Constantinople after the capture of Carthage
on 15 Sept. 533: Procop., bell. vand. 1.24.19 (412 Haury-Wirth); his return in 534 after the
Vandals were conquered: ibid. 2.8.4 (452 Haury-Wirth); his replacement of Belisarius:
ibid. 2.8.23 (455 Haury-Wirth).
115 J. B. Bury, Later Roman Empire (2nd ed., London 1923) II 139, 143, refers to the
'utmost intolerance' and 'intolerance' of Justinian; Diehl, L'Afrique byzantine 48, sees
'trouble and disorganization' in Africa as a result of Justinian's religious intolerance. But
he notes that intolerance in itself was not the whole cause of the rebellion in 536; there were
also economic factors, ibid. 77-78.
45
ing the actions of the troops. The purely doctrinal differences of Arianism
and Catholicism were not a strong enough issue to incite rebellion among Arian
elements within the predominantly Catholic Byzantine army; Gelimer had
learned in 535 that abstract questions of confession could not provoke these
men to revolt. It was only in 536, when these Arian soldiers experienced
real disabilities because of their faith (exclusion from worship and the sacra
ments), and were incited by important non-religious issues (the land question
and the domineering attitude of high Byzantine officers), that Arianism could
serve as a powerful force crystallizing their anger and provoking them to
open revolt.
The revolt of the Arian soldiers, moreover, was not so much the inevitable
result of any of Justinian's actions, as of the lack of coordination between
the government's military and religious policies on the one hand, and of the
absence of close contact between Carthage and Constantinople on the other.116
Without this nucleus of Arians who clearly served as the catalyst for the
general rebellion of both Arian and Catholic troops, there might have been
no mutiny at all.117
Despite the critical importance of the Arians' religious grievances in starting
the revolt, the ensuing rebel movement did not, apparently, assume a distinctly
116 A. Audollent, 'Afrique,' Diet. d'Hist. Geog. ?ccl. (Paris 1912) I 836, believes that the
local political and military authorities in Africa must have informed Justinian of the need
to conciliate the Arians there, and that for this reason the emperor permitted Arian clergy
men to enter the Catholic hierarchy. Audollent fails to explain how, if this were so, Justi
nian subsequently changed his mind, and why he did not receive local reports warning him
not to enforce the Catholic clergy's new demands. And if the emperor did decide to change
his mind, why did not these local officials, who had been corresponding so carefully with
him on the Arian question, recommend that he immediately order the transfer of these
Arians to another military theater ? Why did the local authorities not write to the emperor
about the activities of these Vandal Arian clergymen who were inciting the Arian soldiers,
and why did the local authorities not arrest these priests? It seems clear from Procopius'
narrative that the rebellion came as a complete surprise. No one was expecting the local
troops to react violently against the anti-Arian measures, and therefore no reports of this
kind had been made to Constantinople. There may have been earlier recommendations
to Constantinople to be moderate toward the Arians, but in 535-36 the local authorities
were taken unawares: Procop., bell. vand. 2.14.23 (485 Haury-Wirth). E. Buonaiuti, 77
Cristianesimo neU'Africa romana (Bari 1928) 419, believes that in general Constantinople
had not taken sufficient account of the critical conditions in Africa, and had recalled Beli
sarius. Poor communications must have contributed to the lack of coordination (it took
two and one-half months for Belisarius' invasion fleet to sail from Constantinople to Car
thage), but it seems that the failure of both central and local Byzantine authorities to per
ceive the political and military implications of new religious policies was the basic cause
for the mutiny.
117 The importance of the Arians in starting the revolt is clear from Procopius, bell. vand.
2.14.21 (485 Haury-Wirth).
46
TRADITIO
religious character. Procopius, in fact, is the only source who mentions Arian
ism as a cause for the rebellion; even the firm Catholic African bishop Victo
of Tonnenna does not refer in his chronicle to the religious origins of the mut
ny.118 Victor may simply not have known all of the factors which contributed
to the revolt; Procopius, having been personally involved, and possibly a

the result of a subsequent military investigation of the mutiny (it seem
likely that there would have been an official inquiry) had a far better o
portunity to understand what had really occurred. Moreover, since Victo
was writing his chronicle some thirty years after the uprising, he may have
considered the revolt as unimportant. Nevertheless, his failure to mentio
any connection of the rebellion with Arianism is an indication that even som
very pious African Catholics did not regard the mutiny as primarily heretical
in character.119
The reason for the lack of significant religious coloring in the general rebe
lion that followed the sack of Carthage is clear: the Arians who began th
mutiny were only a small fraction of the total number of troops who eve
tually participated. There were at least 1,000 Arians within the Byzantine
army in Africa. In addition to these, there were 1,000 Vandals (deserters
from the Vandal military units which Justinian had organized to fight in the
East, and men who had never been captured by the Byzantine armed forces)
who were presumably Arians.120 Therefore the Arians totaled about 2,000
men. The entire number of soldiers (excluding the numerous local slave
of uncertain religious faith who had joined the rebels) in rebellion amounted
to 9,000 men.121 The Arians, therefore, comprised less than one-fourth of the
118 Victor of Tonnenna, Chron. an. 541 (200 Mommsen), says nothing of the motives for
Stotzas' revolt; Marcellinus, Chron. an. 535 (104 Mommsen), only mentions that a revolt
had begun by the soldiers against their leader; Jordanes, Romana 369 (ed. T. Mommsen
MGH Auct. Antiq. 5.48), also merely says that Stotzas wished to establish a tyranny; Za
chariah of Mitylene, Chron., does not mention the revolt; Corippus (MGH Auct. Antiq
3.3.34 ed. R. Partsch) Johannidos 3.305-306, does not explain how the rebellion arose sav
from Stotzas' hatred of the Africans; in Joh. 4. 208-17 (p. 43 Partsch), Stotzas' dying
words, after some nine years of revolt, are a confession of his own ingratitude and disloyalt
to the emperor.
119 Rubin comments on the excellent presentation by Procopius of the causes of the muti
ny, 'Prokopios,' 422-23.

120 Yov the number of Arians: Procop., bell. vand. 2.14.12 (484 Haury-Wirth); number
of Vandals: ibid. 2.15.4 (489 Haury-Wirth).
121 For the great number of slaves: ibid. 2.15.4 (489 Haury-Wirth). Doubtless the parti
cipation of these slaves in Stotzas' movement explains why Corippus called the rebel leader
a companion of Catiline: Joh. 4.212 (43 Partsch). There were 8,000 regular soldiers who
rebelled: Procop, bell. vand. 2.15.2 (489 Haury-Wirth); 1,000 Vandals joined these mutineers
2.15.3-4 (489 Haury-Wirth); making 9,000 rebels in all ? excluding slaves. Cf. ibid. 2.16.3
(497 Haury-Wirth), where Germanus discovers that two-thirds of the army has rebelled.
47
full rebel strength. The majority of the rebels had joined for non-religious
reasons, probably desire for land.

The mutineers took to the countryside after plundering Carthage, and
elected one of Martinus' bodyguards, Stotzas, as leader or 'tyrant.'122 Stotzas,
as a foederatus, may well have been an Arian; the sources, however, say nothing
about his religious allegiance.123 Stotzas seems to have sought to establish

an independent kingdom in Africa.124 The rebels committed numerous acts
of violence, but there is no record of their harming Catholic clergymen, or
churches. It is uncertain whether the mutineers in fact had any religious

policy; the sources say nothing. If the rebels had pursued a distinctly anti
Catholic course of action ? which is unlikely since the Arians were a minority
among the insurgents ? it is likely that contemporary writers would have men
tioned it.125 There is no further reference at all to the Arian clerics who had
helped incite the rebellion.126
Stotzas expected, after his election, to return to Carthage and capture

the city easily. Theodorus the Cappadocian, a general sent to Africa with
reinforcements shortly after Solomon himself had returned from Constanti
nople (534), held the city for the emperor, despite a personal grudge against
Solomon, until Belisarius could arrive in the summer of 536.127 Belisarius,
122 Election of Stotzas: Procop., bell. vand. 2.15.1 (489 Haury-Wirth); Procopius believes
heaven may have placed a curse upon Stotzas and caused him to revolt against the em
peror: ibid. 1.11.30 (365 Haury-Wirth); cf. Nagl, 'Stotzas/ RE 4A (1932) 74-75.
123 Stotzas was a bodyguard of Martinus, a commander of foederati: Procop., bell. vand.
1.11.6 (361 Haury-Wirth); Jordanes, Rom. (48 Mommsen). Procopius' belief that heaven
had cursed Stotzas, bell. vand. 1.11.30 (365 Haury-Wirth), not because of the rebel's religious
confession, but because he had rebelled against the emperor. The same reasoning applies
to Corippus' consignment of Stotzas' soul to Hell: Joh. 4. 213-18 (43 Partsch).
124 Procop., bell. vand. 1.11.30 (365 Haury-Wirth); 2.15.1 (489 Haury-Wirth); Jordanes,
Rom. 369 (48 Mommsen); Victor of Tonnenna, Chron. an.541 (200 Mommsen).
125 The mutineers killed a number of the guards and plundered: Procop., bell. vand. 2.14.
35-36 (487 Haury-Wirth); Coripp., Joh. 3.308-09 (34 Partsch). Great destruction resulted
from this rebellion and those that followed: Procop., Hist. arc. 18.11 (113 Haury-Wirth).
126 Presumably, some Arian priests from Africa made their way to the Arian Ostrogothic
kingdom of Italy, as, for example, some Hunnic deserters from Justinian's army: Procop.,
bell. goth. 1.3.15 (17 Haury-Wirth). There are no exact figures for the size of the Arian Van
dal clergy, but Courtois, Vandales 286 n. 1, estimates that there were several hundred at
most. Those Arian priests who remained with the Arian rebels probably bolstered the in
surgents ' morale. If any Arian priests were present at the battle of Cellas Vatari, they may
well have been killed in the general slaughter of the rebels: Procop., bell. vand. 2.17.22 (503
04 Haury-Wirth).
127 Theodorus had been sent with a new army, sharing its command with Ildiger, son
in-law of Antonina, wife of Belisarius, ibid. 2.8.24 (455 Haury-WTirth). The mutineers first
elected Theodorus their general because he had a grudge against Solomon, ibid. 2.14.33-34
(487 Haury-Wirth). Theodorus helped Solomon and Procopius escape from Carthage,
48
TRADITIO
bringing some 100 men with him from Sicily, landed at Carthage and was
able to rally about 2,000 troops to the emperor's cause.128 In a speech to
these men immediately before the battle of Membresa, Belisarius pointed
out Stotzas' disloyalty and tyrannical ambitions, but omitted any reference
to Arianism as a factor in the present revolt.129 The conflict at Membresa
resulted in a defeat for the insurgents, but rumor of a mutiny of Byzantine
troops in Sicily forced Belisarius to return to that island before completely
subduing the rebels in Africa.130 Justinian then sent his nephew Germanus
and a few men to attempt to save the African situation.131 Germanus was
able to win over many of the mutineers gradually, and decisively routed
the still numerous insurgent forces at the battle of Cellas Vatari/Scalae Ve
teres in 537.132 Only Stotzas and a few other rebels escaped; many mutineers
had fallen. This revolt was extinguished.133

There is no evidence that religious grievances caused the army revolts
which subsequently took place in Africa. One of general Theodorus' body
guards, Maximinus, plotted an abortive coup in 538, but Germanus surprised
the conspirators, routed them, and executed Maximinus.134 The ostensible

reason for this short-lived insurrection was overdue pay, not Arianism.
ibid. 2.14.38-39 (488 Haury-Wirth). Solomon charged him with defense of the city, ibid.
2.14.41 (488 Haury-Wirth). Theodorus was able to hold the city for the emperor, ibid. 2.15.6
(489 Haury-Wirth).
128 Procop., bell. vand. 2.15.9-11 (490 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus, Chron. an. 535 (104
Mommsen); Coripp., Joh. 3.310-13 (34 Partsch); Jordanes, Rom. 370 (48 Mommsen).
129 Procop., bell. vand. 2.15.16-29 (491-92 Haury-Wirth). Rubin notes that speech is pure
rhetoric: 'Prokopios,' RE 23.423. Stotzas' speech, bell. vand. 2.15.30-39 (493-94 Haury
Wirth) is also considered pure rhetoric by Rubin: 'Prokopios,' 423.
130 por tne victory at Membresa (Majaz al-Bab, on the river Bagradas/Majarda): Procop.,
bell. vand. 2.15.44 (494 Haury-Wirth); Coripp., Joh. 3.310-14 (34 Partsch). For the return
of Belisarius: Procop., bell. vand. 2.15.46-49 (495 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus, Chron. an.
535 (104 Mommsen).
131 procop., bell. vand. 2.16.1 (497 Haury-Wirth): Germanus goes to Libya. He sent
Solomon back to Constantinople: Marcellinus, Chron. an. 536 (104 Mommsen). Germanus
was appointed Master of the Soldiers for Africa and also had special powers.
132 Scalae Veteres is the name given by Procopius, bell. vand. 2.17. 3(501 Haury-Wirth).
For the battle ibid., 2.17.4-33 (501-505 Haury-Wirth) According to Rubin, who bases his opin
ion on Coripp., Joh. 3.318 (35 Partsch), the correct name is Cellas Vatari: 'Prokopios,' 424.
For the date of the battle: Marcellinus, Chron. an. 537 (105 Mommsen).
133 Procop., bell. vand. 2.17.35 (505 Haury-Wirth): Marcellinus, Chron. an. 537 (105 Momm
sen). Rubin notes that Procopius describes the flight and subsequent fortunes of Stotzas
without hatred: 'Prokopios,' 424.
134 For the abortive revolt of Maximinus: Procop., bell. vand. 2.18.1-11 (505-07 Haury
Wirth); surprised by Germanus: ibid. 2.17.13-14 (507 Haury-Wirth) impaled: ibid. 2.18.18
(507-08 Haury-Wirth).
49
Maximinus himself seems to have been simply ambitious for political

power.135
Solomon once again returned, in 539, to replace Germanus. As praetorian

prefect and master of the soldiers in Africa, Solomon removed any further
political threat of Arianism in Africa by deporting all remaining Vandals

(Belisarius had removed most of the men in 534 to serve in the East), especially
the troublesome Vandal women.136 Many of the rebels had died in the inces
sant fighting of the past three years, but Solomon also dispatched all remaining
suspicious elements within the army to either Belisarius in Italy or Justinian
at Constantinople.137 These actions eliminated the population base necessary
for any survival of Arianism in Africa. This expedient of deportation could
have been applied immediately after Gelimer had attempted to woo certain
elements in the army; had the soldiers of questionable loyalty been removed
in 534, it is unlikely that the rebellion of 536 would have taken place.
Stotzas, the leader of the first army mutiny in Africa, remained at large
in Mauretania, having married the daughter of a Moorish chief.138 The only
soldiers who accompanied him at first were a few Vandals.139 In 544, however,
Stotzas joined Antalas chief of the Moorish tribe of Frexes; together these
two leaders plundered the African countryside after the death of Solomon
(spring of 544). Solomon was replaced by his unpopular cousin, Sergius.140
Apparently Stotzas now commanded a few Byzantine deserters besides some
Vandals.141 Through a ruse, this rebel leader managed, with the cooperation
135 Ibid. 2.18.9 (506-07 Haury-Wirth). Overdue pay was no new grievance for soldiers
in Africa. For Maximinus' ambitions: ibid. 2.18.2 (505 Haury-Wirth).
136 The return of Solomon: Procop., bell. vand. 2.19.1 (508 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus,
Chron. an. 539 (106 Mommsen). For the removal of Vandals and suspicious army elements:
Procop., bell. vand. 2.19.3 (508 Haury-Wirth). Gf. Belisarius' herding of the Vandals to
Carthage, ibid. 2.4.10-12 (434 Haury-Wirth); guarding them, ibid. 2.7.17 (451 Haury-Wirth);
loading themtobesent to Constantinople, ibid. 2.8.4, 2.8.20, 2.9.1 (452, 454, 455Haury-WTirth).
Courtois, Vandales 354, while admitting that one cannot be precise, believes that at least
several tens of thousands of Vandals remained in Africa immediately after the Byzantine
conquest. They were a minority of the population: Courtois Vandales 354.
138 The name of the Moorish chief whose daughter Stotzas married is not given by Pro
copius: bell. vand. 2.17.35 (505 Haury-Wirth); Coripp., Joh. 4.429-32 (48 Partsch).
140 Procop., bell. vand. 2.22.5 (522-23 Haury-Wirth). Solomon was killed by the Moors
near the city of Tebesta: ibid. 2.21.26-28 (521-22 Haury-Wirth). His replacement by Ser
gius: ibid.2.22.1 (522 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus, Chron. an. 541 (106 Mommsen). Sergius*
unpopularity: ibid. 2.22.2 (522 Haury-Wirth).
141 Procop., bell. vand. 2.23.1 (525 Haury-Wirth). These soldiers may have been
remnants of the rebels who escaped from the carnage at Cellas Vatari: ibid. 2.17.21:28 (504
Haury-Wirth) or they may have been new deserters from the Byzantine army.
50
TRADITIO
of the Moors under Antalas, to capture the city of Hadrumetum and wa
able to recruit many of its garrison for his own band.142 A priest within th
city, named Paul, after secret consultation with the city's notables, succeeded
in making a daring escape, and returned with sufficient forces to recapture
Hadrumetum from the rebels temporarily. The sources do not provide an
indication as to whether Stotzas' previous association with the Arian-inspired

revolt of 536 was responsible for Paul's determination to risk death in order
to defeat the rebel leader.143 There is no record of any other African Catholic
clergyman's active resistance to Stotzas.

Justinian then dispatched Areobindus, who was married to the emperor's
niece, Praejecta, as master of the soldiers to share authority with Sergius.144
Areobindus reached Carthage in the spring of 545. Stotzas was finally killed
at the battle of Thacia (at the end of 545), but his rebels managed to rout th
loyal troops.145 The insurgents proceeded to elect a certain John, known as
* Stotzas junior,' to succeed Stotzas.146 John's religious beliefs and policies,
if he had any, are unknown. He joined his forces, about 1,000 in numbe
now, to those of a new mutineer, Guntharic, duke of Numidia and maste
of the soldiers. Guntharic had treacherously captured and executed Areo
bindus at about the end of 545.147 Sergius, Solomon's cousin, had been r
142 Stotzas was now cooperating with Antalas, the Moorish leader: Procop., bell. uand.
2.23.1 (525 Haury-Wirth). The Moors, having surprised a Byzantine detachment and cap
tured its members including Himerius, commander of the troops of the province of Byzacium, ibid. 2.23.3-5 (525-26 Haury-Wirth), and also captured a cavalry group, ibid. 2.23
6.-10 (526 Haury-Wirth), and having turned the prisoners over the Stotzas, the rebel leade
used these prisoners to decoy the garrison of Hadrumetum into opening the gates, ibid
2.23.11-16 (526-27 Haury-Wirth).
143 Procop., bell. vand. 2.23.18-25 (527-29 Haury-Wirth). Paul and virtually all the Afr
can notables were forced subsequently to flee to Constantinople owing to new and mor
serious depredations by Stotzas and Antalas: ibid., 2.23 (525-29 Haury-Wirth).
144 Ibid. 2.24.1, 2.24.4 (529, 530 Haury-Wirth).
145 Arrival of Areobindus: ibid. 2.24.6. (530 Haury-Wirth); battle and defeat of Byzantine
troops under John, son of Sisiniolus, who is killed : ibid. 2.24. 8-13 (530-31 Haury-Wirth);
the location was between Sicca Veneria (el Kef) and Carthage; death of Stotzas, Procop.,
bell. vand. 2.24.13-14 (531 Haury-Wirth); Coripp., Job. 4.208-19 (43 Partsch)); Victor of
Tonnenna, Chron. an. 545 (201 Mommsen); Marcellinus, Chron. an. 545 (107 Mommsen);
Jordanes, Rom. 384 (51 Mommsen).
146 Succession of John: Procop., bell. vand. 2.25.3 (532 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus,
Chron. an. 545 (107 Mommsen); Jordanes, Rom. 384 (51 Mommsen). The name 'Stotzas
Junior' is given only by Marcellinus and Jordanes.
147 Tyranny of Guntharic: Procop., bell. vand. 2.25. 1.2.28.34 (532-50 Haury-Wirth).
For the death of Areobindus: ibid. 2.26.23-33 (538-40 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus, Chron.
an. 547 (108 Mommsen); Victor of Tonnenna, Chron. an. 546 (201 Mommsen).. The rebe
John joined Guntharic: Procop., bell. vand. 2.27.7 (531 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus, Chron
an. 547 (108 Mommsen).
called in the fall of 545.148 Artabanes, however, the Armenian commander

of a detachment of his fellow countrymen, contrived to murder Guntharic
and his main accomplices during the winter of 545-546.149 Guntharic had
been primarily interested in seizing political power; he had held it for thirty
six days. Loyal to Justinian, Artabanes slew many other mutineers, but
was able to capture and send the rebel chief John and a few of his Vandals
back to Constantinople.150 At the capital, after his hands were cut off, John
was placed in a gibbet for the public's gaze.151
In this way the last traces of the Arian-inspired mutiny of Easter, 536
were erased. The original religious motivations of the Arian conspirators
who had touched off the revolt in 536 had probably been largely forgotten
over the course of ten years, and at any rate rendered meaningless by Solo
mon's deportation of virtually all Arians in Africa in 539. Audollent in an
unannotated statement says that in the seditions after the mutiny of 536
' . . . the hand of the Arians is visible: one has reasons to believe that they
also encouraged the undertakings of the great native leaders.'152 There is
no evidence for either of these assertions (unless one considers that Stotzas,
who remained at large and later joined the Moorish chief Antalas, and Stot
zas' successor John, who also united with Antalas and the rebel Guntharic,
were primarily 'Arians'). There is no positive proof that Stotzas and John
were Arians at all ? they may have been heretics, or they may not have
been. Whatever these leaders' religious beliefs may have been, the sources
did not consider it important enough to mention. There is no contemporary
reference, even by the African Catholic Victor of Tonnenna, to any specifically
anti-Catholic action by either Stotzas or John. We may presume that these
two leaders were not primarily motivated by any religious convictions, nor
did they pretend to be; in fact, they seem to have become basically bandits

149 Artabanes managed to slay Guntharic at a banquet: Procop., bell. vand. 2.28.28-34
(549-50 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus, Chron. an. 547 (108 Mommsen); Jordanes, Rom. 384
(51 Mommsen). For the length of Guntharic's 'tyranny': Victor of Tonnenna, Chron. an.
546 (201 Mommsen).
150 Many other accomplices of Guntharic, including Vandals, were slain while asleep,
eating, or paralyzed with fear: Procop., bell. vand. 2.28.35-38 (550 Haury-Wirth). The
rebel leader John 'Stotzas Junior' was captured in a sanctuary along with some of his
Vandals: ibid., 2.28.39 (550 Haury-Wirth). John and the Vandals were sent to Constanti
nople: ibid. 2.28.40 (550 Haury-Wirth); Marcellinus, Chron. an. 547 (108 Mommsen). At
the capital he was punished: Jordanes, Rom. 384 (51 Mommsen). Schmidt, Gesch. der
Wandalen (2nd ed., Berlin 1942) 147, notes that this seems to be the last reference to the
Vandals, but cf. Genesius, Regna (ed. C. Lachmann, Bonn 1834) 33.
151 Jordanes, Rom. 385 (51 Mommsen).
152 A. Audollent, 'Afrique,' Diet. d'Hist. Giog. Eccl. I 837.
51
52
traditio
and nothing more. As for Audollent's belief that uninden
incited the Moors, this is a sheer supposition which seems, on

quite unlikely. The Moorish leader of the Frexes tribe, Anta
Stotzas to join the Moorish raiders; Stotzas was encourage
not Antalas by Stotzas.153 The Moors, moreover, never had
for the Arian Vandals; few of them had allied with Gelimer aga
and it is unlikely that Vandal Arian priests, or other Arian

have had very much influence on the decisions of these Moori
pagans.154 The last known traces of any Arian political and mi
and Arianism itself in Africa disappear with the final deporta
and the crushing of the rebellions of Stotzas and John. There is

mention in the sources of Arianism in Africa.
A final problem must be examined: how can the above c
reconciled with the recent argument of Speel that Arianism r
tant in Africa after the Byzantine reconquest? He asserts
disappearance of Christianity from North Africa finds its pri
decisive cause in a unique form of theological dissent ? na

Arianism.'155 He also affirms: 'When Islam made its inroa
it offered a faith which was closer, in some respects, to the Te
of the Vandals than Teutonic Arianism was to the Catholic
the Byzantines. '156 Furthermore he maintains that ' conversion
Arianism, the faith of the bulk of North Africa's populatio

a.d. to ca. 670 a.D., to Islam was an easy step.'157 Finally,
the Christians who were converted to Islam were Berbers,
marriages between Roman soldiers and Vandal women and
Berbers, and descendants of Roman Arian soldiers and Van
is no evidence to prove that the Berbers were Arians; they see
to Corippus, to have been mostly pagans.159 Speel passes ov
Novel of 535 which deprived the Arian church and its member
sessions and prohibited Arian worship. He ignores the depo
suspicious elements in the Roman army as well as the removal
men and women. What happened to their children is uncer
likely would have been deported with their parents. If not, w
153 Procop., bell. vand. 2.22.5 (522-23 Haury-Wirth); Coripp., Job. 3.45
154 Procop., bell. vand. 1.25.2-9 (412-413 Haury-Wirth). On the relatio
Berbers: Courtois, Vandales 340-352.
155 C. J. Speel, 'The Disappearance of Christianity from North Africa
the Rise of Islam/ Church History 29 (1960) 379.
156 Ibid. 392.
157 Ibid. 393.
168 Ibid. 391.
160 Coripp., Joh. 4.666-83 (53 Partsch); 8.304-17 (101-02 Partsch); 6.104-41 (67 Partsch).
53
influence, the few offspring born before their parents were deported would
not have been reared under Arian influence. Most important, Speel does not
base his statements upon the primary sources. He refers his readers to two
secondary sources, the Cambridge Medieval History and to E. L. Woodward's
Christianity and Nationalism in the Later Roman Empire, but no statement
that Arianism did survive the Byzantine reconquest is found in either work
on the pages cited.160 One must conclude that his arguments are unfounded
and that they do not alter the above conclusion that sources at present available
provide no positive indication that Arianism remained a religious, military
and political force in Africa more than a few years after the Byzantine re
conquest. This is explained both by Justinian's anti-Arian legislation and

by the Byzantine annihilation and deportation of the Arian elements of the
population. Some Arians, of course, may have continued to live in Africa;

there simply is no positive evidence to prove it. It seems very improbable
in the face of the silence of known sources that any African Arianism, to the
extent that it existed at all, was sufficiently significant on the eve of the
Arab conquest to affect markedly the rate of Christian conversions to Islam.
The University of Chicago
160 Speel, 397 n. 43, citing G. H. Becker, Cambr. Med. Hist. II 370 and E. L. Woodward,
Christianity and Nationalism in the Later Roman Empire 67 ff.

27830788

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

27830788

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARIANISM AND THE BYZANTINE ARMY IN AFRICA 533-546

Author(s): WALTER EMIL KAEGI

ARIANISM AND THE BYZANTINE ARMY

One of the principal motivations for the Emperor Justinian's reconquest

There are several works on Justinian's reconquest of Africa. A perceptive article by

expeditionary force of 533 actually treated its invasion of Africa as a Catholi

pearance of Christianity in the wake of the Islamic conquest is explained by

majority of North Africans after the Byzantine reconquest.2 His thesis

serves to be tested by the Byzantine sources: according to the sources, how

successfully did Arianism in Africa survive the collapse of the Vandal

2 C. J. Speel, 'The Disappearance of Christianity from North Africa in the Wake of

ARIANISM AND BYZANTINE ARMY

There were, of course, additional reasons for Justinian's decision to order

of the legitimate ruling house of Hilderic.9 These factors, however, were

bishop, according to Procopius, persuaded Justinian to undertake the expe

Juris Civilis 2.77).

The African bishop Victor of Tonnenna offers a somewhat different reli

ARIANISM AND BYZANTINE ARMY

so far as to term this enterprise 'a sort of Crusade.'19 E. L. Woodward has

37 (1947) 75, regards it as a favorable omen.

uppermost in his policy-making.21 Secondly, the presence of 'no less than

horse, serving in the Byzantine army), in the expeditionary force tended

to blur the religious distinctions between Byzantines and Vandals.22 Although

tine Empire, he had found it necessary to give limited toleration to Arian

in a critical situation. Perhaps the most important incentive for Belisarius to

avoid exciting religious feelings was Justinian's hope of encouraging the

A religious war would probably only have provoked fanatical resistance.

value of the African Catholic majority's support; would it be measurably

Belisarius' army disembarked 30 or 31 August, 533 at Caput Vada (Ras

21 See n. 15, supra.

ARIANISM AND BYZANTINE ARMY

that the Africans ('Libyans') were fellow Catholics, Belisarius merely de

of Gelimer's defeat at Ad Decimum on 13 Sept.: Procop., bell. vand. 1.21.17-25 (402-04

On the same day that Syllectum surrendered, a royal Vandal courier

forces.34 It is significant that Justinian carefully refrained from mentioning

hamper his future freedom of action in sacred affairs. Justinian's vague

rather than to encourage, a war fought on religious grounds. As a matter

On September 13, the critical battle of Ad Decimum took place. Gelimer

but still of some historical value. Pflugk-Harttung, 'Belisar's Vandalen-krieg,' Historisch

ARIANISM AND BYZANTINE ARMY

? the adviser to the commander-in-chief of the Byzantine forces ? was

Before the battle of Ad Decimum, Belisarius delivered an oration to his

troops summarizing the issues at stake in the contest. He asserted, according

to Procopius, that 'justice' was on the Byzantines' side, but by 'justice'

Gelimer to an opportunity to destroy the Byzantine army; the historian does

Having routed the Vandals at Ad Decimum, Belisarius entered Carthage

avoiding direct reference to the volatile religious issue, although th

absence of any direct mention of the Africans' sufferings as Catholics may

Cyprian's prophecy, and demonstrated that the Byzantine army enjoyed

ARIANISM AND BYZANTINE ARMY

of religious convictions. The flight of these Arian priests at Carthage probably

any dread of injury by the Byzantine army. Nevertheless, the hasty de

47 Ibid. 1.21.9-10 (401-02 Haury-Wirth).

the Byzantine army.52 While consolidating his position by this temperate

parted in late September, 533).53

zantine soldiers, another indication of the absence of religious alignments

ARIANISM AND BYZANTINE ARMY

only clear instance in Procopius' narrative of either side's attempting to turn

no information at all. Belisarius, however, perceived Gelimer's endeavors

which the general took to forestall Carthaginian or Hunnic treachery, but

Belisarius took to prevent his Arian soldiers from rebelling. Furthermore,

in Belisarius' campaign of reconquest. Arian-Catholic animosity was suffi

the Byzantine army to cause a revolt in the name of religious solidarity.