Are the Bagaudae Coming?
Troublesome insurgencies of provincial groups called “bagaudae” (or “bacaudae”) arose in late third century in Roman Gaul and persisted into the fifth there and in Spain. Scholars debate exactly what they were: some suggest unruly peasants, others suggests rustics organized for self-protection against the backdrop of a state that taxed but offered little protection from barbarian invasion. Perhaps they were bandits able to range more freely in the shadow of a retreating state. It would be interesting know whether, as some suspect, they were supported by a provincial aristocracy moving more and more away from the shrinking cities to their estates in the country. None of these alternatives is exclusive, of course, and the situations may well have overlapped. As the precise goals of the bagaudae are unknown, it’s no surprise that historians impose their own views on their motives, for example casting their actions as an example of class warfare or as the beginnings of nationalism. That they arose almost exclusively in the troubled western half of the late empire, suggests that the insecurity, taxation and corruption of the late empire provoked their appearance.
Although ancient writers don’t offer much explanation of their origins or goals, they refer to these insurgents as “bagaudae,” perhaps from a Gaulish word meaning “fighter,” instead of characterizing them as bandits or “latrones.” This distinction implies that contemporaries and the imperial government regarded bagaudae as something other than mere bandits, and the army was often sent to quell their insurrections. While not successful in battle against imperial troops, by the mid-fifth century they came to control swathes of territory in parts of Gaul and Spain.
Parallels between the Roman Empire and the contemporary United States are a dime-a-dozen, and, in my view at least, often not worth much more. But in reading the news recently, I was struck by a faint, seeming parallel: a disturbing story about military maneuvers in North Carolina during which the United States Army will practice addressing the threat of domestic terrorism. This development immediately raises the question of who these supposed potential domestic terrorists may be or, perhaps more importantly, who the United States government regards as potential domestic terrorists— which may not be at all the same thing. I think it is fair to say that most Americans would agree, wherever they may stand along the political spectrum, that “domestic terrorist” is a term not intended by the government to apply, for example, to Antifa protestors (despite their history of violence, rioting and arson), but to vague, amorphous, and perhaps non-existent and broadly conservative groups.
Why the exercises in rural North Carolina, rather than in an urban setting. True enough, there is a huge army base in that state— Fort Bragg— no doubt with much scope for maneuvers, and the answer might be a simple as that. And yet, cities are where actions properly understood as “terroristic” occur: rioting, arson and property damage, bombings and so on. Quite obviously any domestic terrorism of any consequence should expected to happen in a city. Thus, one might expect defense against domestic terrorists by handled by the FBI, through infiltration and surveillance of terrorist cells. If there were actual fighting one would expect it to be done by SWAT teams and specialists in urban warfare. Why, instead, army maneuvers in a rural or forested setting in the largely southeast of the country?
Perhaps it is a sort of military theater. In other words, the location of the maneuvers in one of the old heartlands of the country is meant as a demonstration to a section of the population now disfavored by East and West Coast elites. It’s certainly an inviting theory. Are the government and cultural elites afraid of a new bagaudae— provincials provoked to action by government indifference to them, the result of distance and isolation? Do they fear an insurrection by those for whom they feel a distaste, the result of a cultural shift that is itself the result of geographical and cultural isolation?
Social media reveal that many ordinary Americans are upset by the unwillingness of government to support traditional cultural norms or to perform essential governmental duties such the maintenance of civil order or control of the border. Many go further and see the government as indifferent to or even antagonistic toward such things. From vaccine mandates to the imposition of fashionable moral codes, it seems evident that government and its cats’-paws at universities and large corporations have priorities quite apart from and indeed above those conventionally associated with government. Is the fear of modern-day bagaudae justified? Are bagaudae gathering in the woods once again? It seems unlikely. Still, the planned military maneuvers seem to point to a suspicion on the part of government elites that they have concerned themselves with tasks that, whatever their merit in their own eyes, are unpopular, and that they have failed or ignored those tasks they ought to have done. Whether the bagaudae are gathering in the woods or not, they seem to be haunting dreams in Washington.
