vandalsdeclineessay

The Vandals were a very important group of people is the early days. The Vandals were an [|East Germanic tribe] that entered the late  [|Roman Empire]  during the 5th century. The Vandals are perhaps best known for their [|sack of Rome]  in 455. During the 3rd century when the Roman Empire was in crisis with many powerful enemies at their borders, the Vandals and their ally Sarmatians did invade the Roman territory along upper Rhine River in AD 270. About AD 271 AD the Roman Emperor Aurelian was obliged to protect the middle course of the Danube against them. In AD 330 they were granted lands in Pannonia on the right bank of the Danube by Constantine the Great. Vandals accepted Arian Christianity during the reign of Emperor Valens in the AD 360’s. Before this, there is mention of two branches of the Vandal Confederacy: the Siling Vandals in the northwest and the Asding Vandals in the south. There is one main lesson I think that we could learn today from the Vandals and that would be how to deal with failure and death. It is known that more than 20,000 Vandals died in the battle with the Franks, including the very first Vandal king, Godigisel, but they were victorious nonetheless and moved on toward the Iberian Peninsula (nowadays: Spain and Portugal, but at that point ruled by the Roman Empire). From here, under the command of the third (and greatest) Vandal king, Geiseric, the Vandals swept their way through North Africa. The Roman Empire, under Emperor Valentinian III, most likely in fear of an attack of Rome itself, sought to appease the Vandals by formally granting them the title to the lands they had taken in 429. Of course, this did little good, as it seemed to only egg the Vandals on further. Geiseric had built an entire fleet of ships and began attacking the Mediterranean throughout the Roman Empire, which continued over the course of the next 35 years. The Vandals had to deal with many loses of kings and followers though out many of their wars. The strength of being able to lose a friend or relative is very hard and they showed great strength in that area.

By the time Rome began paying any serious attention to the threat of the Vandals it was already too late. In 455, the Vandals sacked Rome for a period of two weeks, taking from the city as many valuables as they could carry (including priceless artifacts that had been taken from the temple in Jerusalem before it was destroyed in A.D. 70). In case you were wondering, this was Rome’s third sacking. It had happened previously by the Gauls and the Visigoths in 387 B.C. and A.D. 410, respectively, and it would certainly not be the last. Later sackings include those by the Ostrogoths, the Saracens, the Normans and their own military, under Emperor Charles V. Rome is perhaps the most-sacked city in the history of the world (perhaps with the exception of Jerusalem). This particular sacking marked the height of the Vandal Empire, which only began to decline from here, under a series of less than adequate Kings and inter-tribal revolts. The empire 'officially' ended in 534, when they were finally defeated by the Romans, after war was declared by Byzantinian (Byzantine was the Eastern half of the Roman Empire) Emperor Justinian I. This is also shows how the Vandals can cope with defeat when they lost one of their attacks. The attack on Rome was one of their largest fights and probably the hardest one to lose.

The vandals were very strong people and I would have to relate the sacking of Rome to all of this. They lost many fights and wars, but as they are called the Vandals they did lots of vandalism. This might be a way of coping with the loss’s they had to deal with.

Now, what does this entire message have to do with us? Simple. The fact that the Vandals sacked Rome, they did so in a most traditional way; raiding the city, burning some things, plundering. It was no different than other sackings of the day and probably even less severe than other sackings of Rome itself. So, why is it that if one was to destroy someone else's property today, they would be considered a "vandal?" Why did this East Germanic tribe get such a bad rap? Why can't destructive people be labeled "Visigoths," or "Gauls?" It's a simple question with a complicated answer, going somewhere back around the time of the French Revolution, when The Roman Empire was remembered in a positive light and, therefore, its sackers seen in villainy, and for one reason or another, the Vandals were singled out. It may not be fair, but there’s nothing that can be done about it at this point. So all in all I think that the lesson learned is that they might have vandalized lots of peoples land, but the way they dealt with defeat was an amazing quality that they had.