�Vandals" - a character assassination

I would like to bring to your attention one of the worst character assassinations in history.

In the English and German language ( any other?) the term �Vandal� is synonymous with a person that senselessly destroys, defaces or despoils works of cultural or any other   significance, like buildings, works of art etc.
�Vandals� is of course derived from the Germanic tribe with the same name, who after an odyssey of many years throughout the whole of Europe ended up in Northern Africa and, after the capture of Carthage in 439 established a kingdom there under their king Gaiseric.
In 455 the Eudoxa, the widow of the murdered West-Roman Emperor Valentian asked King Gaiseric for help and the Vandal fleet duly arrived in Italy and before the gates of Rome.
The city of Rome had no choice but to surrender, and after negotiations between Pope Leo I and King Gaiseric the terms were agreed. The Vandals would plunder the city, but there would be no killing, raping, torturing, or burning or destruction of building.
And so it happened, the Vandals plundered Rome for two weeks, but left people and buildings intact.
In fact, they proved to be a very disciplined and professional bunch of raiders, just doing their job.
They put the whole loot on their ships and sailed back to Africa, and would have lived happily ever after if the great Belisarius hadn't come and conquered the Vandal Kingdom in 533 and brought was left of the treasure of Rome back to Constantinople.
Little archaeological evidence of the Vandal Kingdom is left, and the Vandals would have become a footnote in history, if Byzantine propaganda hadn't portrayed them after the sack of Rome as a destructive gang of uncouth Germanic barbarians and thus entered the term "Vandals" into our dictionaries.
As you can see, the Vandals were in reality rather nice guys, a bit wild and exuberant at times, but compared to other conquerors, mild mannered and trust worthy. If you recall for example what happened during the sack of Constantinople by the Venetian led Crusaders, the sack of Rome in 455 must have been quite a pleasurable experience for the inhabitants.
Not to mention the behaviour of English football fans on away games.

So, I would like you to support me in my quest to clear the good name of the Vandals from all slander. You could start by striking the term �Vandals� from your active vocabulary, or write to your local education authority or the compilers of your national dictionaries , point out the real story of the Vandals and ask for a revision of the usage of the term� Vandal�.
Many thanks for your cooperation.


Edited by Komnenos

Originally posted by Constantine XI What could we possibly replace the word "Vandal" with? Actually it just occured to me what we could substitute it with: Venetian .

That's a brilliant idea and entirely justified. I'll write to the Oxford dictionary asap.

"A group of teenage Venetians is thought to have venetianised the fassade of the building with graffiti!"
Sounds good to me!

Originally posted by Iskender Bey ALBO Yea, I had to buy a gun because of the damn Venetians in my neighborhood...

You see, it works really well! Spread the word!

I strongly oppose that attempt of bashing Venetians... they were just a honorable republic of trader-pirates... what's wrong with that? It was and still is the key of success in this unjust world. Venetians just did their job, that was surviving in the middle of those powerful empires and feudal warlords everywhere around... through their cunning and treacherous policy they managed to be relatively powerful and the main economic power in the Mediterranean for centuries (and even in Italy at some time).

Besides, I have Venetian heritage myself. True that my ancestors only moved to the Veneto when the Austrians captured it, being actually from Ferrara and Modena in origin... but anyhow, Marco Polo still deserves some respect, doesn't he?

I personally suggest the term Gringo (Latin American pejorative for USA people) to substitute the I would agree rather abusive term of vandal and vandalic. After all the destruction they caused in places as Vietnam and most Latin America has few comparisons in World history.

Other candidates, following History, would be Hungarian (their early history is truly vandalic), Viking (other famous sackers, while less strikingly violent and mercilless than Hungarians, still well worth a mention among famous plunderers), Castilian (their sacking and destruction of native American lands has few comparisons too), Almogavar (these were quite cool: Aragonese and Navarrese mounted infantery that plundered the Byzantine Empire with crusading pretexts and, possibly, Venetian support). Greek, Roman, Turk, German, Dutch, Portugese, English, Belgian... wouldn't be bad candidates either.

All peoples have a dark side. Ahem...

Vandals peaceful? so what about the slaughter of the Alans in spain before they set over to north africa?

 The Vandals deserve their name, the sack of Rome wasnt overly violent they didnt massacre everyone what makes it stand out is how systematic it was, everything the Vandals could find was melted down, picked up and carted off.

 The visigoths sack wasnt so massive, the Vandals stripped Rome of practically everything, therefore by anybodys definition they vandalised the city of what made it great.

 Its a perfectly justifiable name to give them. There can be no real argument against that I think IMHO.

 "If you recall for example what happened during the sack of Constantinople by the Venetian led Crusaders, the sack of Rome in 455 must have been quite a pleasurable experience for the inhabitants."

 Yeah im sure the Romans had a great time losing all of their wordly possessions must have been a blast when those well-mannered charming men came in and took everything. What an insane thing to say "pleasurable experience"

 Did the Vandals belong in Italy? Did they belong in Spain? Africa? No they invaded the territory of another power, therefore they are warlike.

 The eastern roman empire had every right to expel the Vandals from Africa, the empire had strong claims to africa thre vandals had no claims they had seized this territory and the east wanted it back. The fact their name has been tarnished subsequently is tough luck.

Edited by Heraclius

 The Venetians spearheaded the crusade to Constantinople, knowing full well the crusaders would not be able to pay the debts they owned the Doge, the Venetians had perfect reason to suggest an attack on Zara and then Constantinople in payment.

 They practically destroy the greatest city in the medieval world for nothing more than greed  that says to me they deserve no more respect than the most savage of barbarians. Atleast many barbarians knew they were just in it for loot but Venice seems to have pretended it was a sophisticated civilisation when it was just a republic built on what they could get from others.

 It wouldnt be as bad if theyd done it themselves, but as true venetians do they get others to do their dirty work and then claim the spoils for the glory of the republic.

Originally posted by Heraclius The Venetians spearheaded the crusade to Constantinople, knowing full well the crusaders would not be able to pay the debts they owned the Doge, the Venetians had perfect reason to suggest an attack on Zara and then Constantinople in payment.

I see the role of Venetians here as very karmic: the crusaders wanted to crusade (so typical!) and the Venetians said: Your problem; N ships are X ducats. Venetians were pragmatic and did not care about crusades, just about who was going to pay for the ships. I see their attitude as neutral.

So the crusaders learnt (maybe) a lesson on finances and about the lack of interest for others of their fanatic ideals. Do you actually think a fanatic is better than a pragmatic? I don't.

When I play diplomacy games, there's nothing like meeting a fanatic with an ideology (they don't abound, sadly). Eventually he becomes your perfect victim or your perfect tool (or you worst enemy... but that's usually like saying your perfect victim again).  He will never be my perfect ally: my perfect ally is another pragmatic.

They practically destroy the greatest city in the medieval world for nothing more than greed

Guess that if Byzantines were so great they could have defended themselves. So they weren't that great anymore. Chaos theory: eternal order is simply impossible. Keeping order requires continuous investment of energies. Eventually all empires fall. Someone has to do the dirty (and somehow glorious too) job of demolition for further construction, don't you think?

(I'm playing Devil's advocate, I don't know what would I've thought would I'd be contemporary. I'm not such a social darwinist in real life - but still I have no special sympathy for Constantinople, much less for the crusaders that actually sacked it, while the role of the Venetians seems quite neutral, just dictated by pragmatism).

that says to me they deserve no more respect than the most savage of barbarians.

What kind of Barbarians? Some savages and barbarians are very nice and peaceful people.

At least many barbarians knew they were just in it for loot

Ok. That kind of Barbarians.

but Venice seems to have pretended it was a sophisticated civilisation when it was just a republic built on what they could get from others.

What's the difference?!

Ayhow most of the time they were just peaceful traders, you know. They didn't built their rich and might just by pillaging. Actually they didn't pillaged much, they basically traded.

Who pillaged were others: crusaders, Muslims, Byzantines. Venetians just got their comission.

It wouldnt be as bad if theyd done it themselves, but as true venetians do they get others to do their dirty work and then claim the spoils for the glory of the republic.

Not for the glory... just for the profit. They were pragmatics, not idealists.

Eventually crusaders were convinced by their priests that Byzantines were as evil as Muslims, that they had allied with Saladin and that they deserved a lesson. Maybe they actually deserved a lesson: never call others to defend you, they will just spoil you after all.

Oh, wise Machavelli...

Maju "I see their attitude as neutral."

 How could their attitude be neutral when they spearheaded the crusade towards Constantinople?

Maju "What kind of Barbarians? Some savages and barbarians are very nice and peaceful people."

 Are you living on a different planet or something? so peaceful and nice that they raped pillaged and plundered, hmm yes very peaceful.

 "Ayhow most of the time they were just peaceful traders, you know. They didn't built their rich and might just by pillaging. Actually they didn't pillaged much, they basically traded."

 No there wernt usually peaceful traders Venice was involved in many wars, often with other trading powers, if it wasnt for Venice the worst sack in medieval history wouldnt have taken place, therefore they are not as peaceful as you seem to suggest. The sack also had grave consequences for the balkans, with Byzantium crippled the muslim tide could no longer be held back and the Turks began to overrun the Byzantine empire, this shattered the fragile balance that had existed in varying degrees for centuries and doomed the eastern christians.

 Byzantium did very little to impair the progress of the crusades, all the empire wanted was these bands of unruly lunatics from the west out of their land ASAP. The Byzantines often helped the crusaders with supplies, guides and military support. Any hostility the crusaders got they totally provoked. The crusaders pushed their luck far to often and fully deserved the wrath of the Byzantine Emperor when the empire was at war with the Principality of Antioch etc.

 The Venetians were as bad as the Vandals or whoever, the Vandals sacked Europes greatest city in 455, Venice which led the crusaders sacked the medieval worlds greatest city in 1204, the severity was very different but a sack remains a sack no matter what.

 Example of the brutality of the sack, is the sacking of the emperors tombs, Justinians tomb was pillaged and destroyed, Basil II's to and countless more.

 I consider a people who destroyed some of the greatest works of art, literature, sculpture and building as barbaric.

Edited by Heraclius

Originally posted by Heraclius Maju "I see their attitude as neutral."  How could their attitude be neutral when they spearheaded the crusade towards Constantinople?

They didn't spearhead anything. They had a big problem: a large army of Germanic crusaders had gathered at Venice hoping to be brought to Palestine but they couldn't pay for the trip. The Venetians would have sent them away but feared that they would sack Venice then.

So the Venetians decided to get something from that uncomfortable situation and bargained with the Crusaders. I do this for you but you do that for me: I bring you to Asia but you help us with our problem: Byzantium.

You get your trip and your pillage and your bloody war and we get some posessions and gold. After all Byzantium was inmensely richer than Palestinian lands, already sacked once and again by earlier crusades, it was closer and was a rival of Venetian naval ambitions.

Politics and bussiness. That's it. Why have you such a problem accepting that? If you were Greek, I could understand it, on patriotic grounds... but you're British: of another mariner republic, just like Venice...

Maju "What kind of Barbarians? Some savages and barbarians are very nice and peaceful people."  Are you living on a different planet or something? so peaceful and nice that they raped pillaged and plundered, hmm yes very peaceful.

I don't know what do you understand by "barbarians" but for me it's opposite to "civilized". Still many uncivilized cultures, like the San, the Zoe... are nice and peaceloving. Instead all civilizations are warrying, even the Chinese!

"Ayhow most of the time they were just peaceful traders, you know. They didn't built their rich and might just by pillaging. Actually they didn't pillaged much, they basically traded."  No there wernt usually peaceful traders Venice was involved in many wars, often with other trading powers, if it wasnt for Venice the worst sack in medieval history wouldnt have taken place, therefore they are not as peaceful as you seem to suggest. The sack also had grave consequences for the balkans, with Byzantium crippled the muslim tide could no longer be held back and the Turks began to overrun the Byzantine empire, this shattered the fragile balance that had existed in varying degrees for centuries and doomed the eastern christians.

They were a regional power and acted as such. The plundering can't be blamed only in the Venetians... the ones who did it were memebers of other nationalities.

Anyhow, are you sure it was the worst sack? Medieval times were abundant in barbaric pillagings. For instance the Hungarians pillaged German and Italian villages this way: they killed all males of all ages and also women too young or old. The rest of women they brought to their country. In one case it's attested that they herded their bounty of women naked and tied by their hairs. Naturally they also pillaged anything else they could find.

Vikings terrorized Western Europe, Muslims the Mediterranean, Crusaders SW Asia... it was just part of the nature of the Iron Age (we call it Medieval but actually it's just a prolongation of the Iron Age in almost all senses).

Luckily, we live now in the Nuclear Age... we are safe now, I guess. Now pillaging is done through respectable corporations and international institutions, like the IMF...  it's so aseptic... so "Venetian"

Example of the brutality of the sack, is the sacking of the emperors tombs, Justinians tomb was pillaged and destroyed, Basil II's to and countless more. I consider a people who destroyed some of the greatest works of art, literature, sculpture and building as barbaric.

It was another era. Not much later Popes used the marbles of the Colosseum to decorate the Vatican... they knew nothing about art and culture, not to mention archaelogy...

You can't judge the lion because it kills the cubs, you can't judge the shark for eating seals, you can't judge other times based on our modern illustrated values: they hadn't been invented at the the time.

In those tombs there was gold, so they took it... it's the destiny of all gold hoarders: somebody will come and steal it - even after your death.

Still I'm sure the Venetians did not direct the specifical stages of the plundering, that was up to those pious crusaders and their moral masters, the priests that travelled with them an advised them on moral matters.

I mantain that your judge on Venetians is too harsh and unjustified.