Vandalic War
Vandalic War | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of Justinian's wars of Reconquest | |||||||||
Campaign map of the war | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Belligerents | |||||||||
Eastern Roman Empire |
Vandalic Kingdom | ||||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||||
Belisarius Calonymus | Gelimer | ||||||||
Strength | |||||||||
10,000 infantry 5,000–7,000 cavalry | c. 20,000–25,000 or c. 30,000–40,000, mostly cavalry |
The Vandalic War was a conflict fought in North Africa between the forces of the Byzantine Empire and the Vandalic Kingdom of Carthage in 533–534. It was the first of Justinian I's wars of the reconquest of the Western Roman Empire.
The Vandals occupied
The Roman expeditionary force set sail from Constantinople in late June 533, and after a sea voyage along the coasts of Greece and southern Italy, landed on the African coast at Caputvada in early September, catching Gelimer completely by surprise. The Vandal king hastily gathered his forces and met the Roman army at the Battle of Ad Decimum, near Carthage, on 13 September. Gelimer's elaborate plan to encircle and destroy the Roman army came close to success, but Belisarius was able to drive the Vandal army to flight and occupy Carthage. Gelimer withdrew to Bulla Regia, where he gathered his remaining strength, including the army of Tzazon, which returned from Sardinia. In December, Gelimer advanced towards Carthage and met the Romans at the Battle of Tricamarum. The battle resulted in a Roman victory and the death of Tzazon. Gelimer fled to a remote mountain fortress, where he was blockaded until he surrendered in the spring.
Belisarius returned to Constantinople with the Vandals' royal treasury and the captive Gelimer to enjoy a
Background
Establishment of the Vandalic Kingdom
In the course of the
Geiseric's Vandals and Alans, however, had their own plans, and aimed to conquer the African provinces outright. Their possession of
Although the Vandals now gained control of the lucrative African grain trade with Italy, they also launched raids on the coasts of the Mediterranean that ranged as far as the Aegean Sea and culminated in their sack of Rome itself in 455, which allegedly lasted for two weeks. Taking advantage of the chaos that followed Valentinian's death in 455, Geiseric then regained control—albeit rather tenuous—of the Mauretanian provinces, and with his fleet took over Sardinia, Corsica and the Balearic Islands. Sicily barely escaped the same fate through the presence there of Ricimer.[6][7]
Throughout this period, the Vandals survived several Roman attempts at a counterstrike: the Eastern Roman general Aspar had led an unsuccessful expedition in 431, an expedition assembled by the Western emperor Majorian (r. 457–461) off the coast of Spain in 460 was scattered or captured by the Vandals before it could set sail, and finally, in 468, Geiseric defeated a huge joint expedition by both western and eastern empires under Basiliscus.[8][9] In the aftermath of this disaster, and following further Vandal raids against the shores of Greece, the eastern emperor Zeno (r. 474–491) concluded a "perpetual peace" with Geiseric (474/476).[10][11]
Roman–Vandal relations until 533
The Vandal state was unique in many respects among the Germanic kingdoms that succeeded the Western Roman Empire: instead of respecting and continuing the established Roman socio-political order, they completely replaced it with their own. Whereas the kings of Western Europe continued to pay deference to the emperors and minted coinage with their portraits, the Vandal kings portrayed themselves as fully independent rulers. The Vandals also consciously differentiated themselves from the native Romano-African population through their continued use of their native language and peculiar dress, which served to emphasize their distinct social position as the elite of the kingdom. In addition, the Vandals—like most Germanics, adherents of
In 523,
Justinian now had his pretext, and with
Diplomatic preparations and revolts in Tripolitania and Sardinia
Soon after his seizure of power, Gelimer's domestic position began to deteriorate, as he persecuted his political enemies among the Vandal nobility, confiscating their property and executing many of them.[22] These actions undermined his already doubtful legitimacy in the eyes of many, and contributed to the outbreak of two revolts in remote provinces of the Vandal kingdom: in Sardinia, where the local governor, Godas, declared himself an independent ruler, and shortly after in Tripolitania, where the native population, led by a certain Pudentius, rebelled against Vandal rule.[22][23] Although Procopius' narrative makes both uprisings seem coincidental, Ian Hughes points out the fact that both rebellions broke out shortly before the commencement of the Roman expedition against the Vandals, and that both Godas and Pudentius immediately asked for assistance from Justinian, as evidence of an active diplomatic involvement by the Emperor in their preparation.[24]
In response to Godas' emissaries, Justinian detailed Cyril, one of the officers of the foederati, with 400 men, to accompany the invasion fleet and then sail on to Sardinia.
Opposing forces
Justinian selected one of his most trusted and talented generals, Belisarius, who had recently distinguished himself against the Persians[citation needed] and in the suppression of the Nika riots, to lead the expedition. As Ian Hughes points out, Belisarius was also eminently suited for this appointment for two other reasons: he was a native Latin-speaker, and was solicitous of the welfare of the local population, keeping a tight leash on his troops. Both these qualities would be crucial in winning support from the Latin-speaking African population.[31] Belisarius was accompanied by his wife, Antonina, and by Procopius, his secretary, who wrote the history of the war.[28]
According to Procopius (The Vandalic War, I.11), the army consisted of 10,000 infantry, partly drawn from the field army (
On the Vandal side, the picture is less clear. The Vandal army was not a professional and mostly volunteer force like the
The Vandals were also weakened by the hostility of their Roman subjects, the continued existence among the Vandals of a faction loyal to Hilderic, and by the ambivalent position of the Mauri tribes, who watched the oncoming conflict from the sidelines, ready to join the victor and seize the spoils.[23][39]
The war
Belisarius' army sails to Africa
Amidst much pomp and ceremony, with Justinian and the
From Methone, the fleet sailed up the
Advance on Carthage and the Battle of Ad Decimum
When the Roman fleet reached Africa, a council was held aboard Belisarius' flagship (The Vandalic War, I.15), where many of his officers advocated an immediate attack on Carthage itself, especially since it was the only fortified city in the Vandal realm, the walls of the other cities having been torn down to prevent a rebellion. Belisarius, however, mindful of the fate of the 468 expedition and wary of an encounter with the Vandal fleet, spoke against it. Thus the army disembarked and built a fortified camp to spend the night.[27][41][44]
Belisarius knew that success for his expedition relied on gaining the support of the local population, which had largely retained its Roman identity and to which he presented himself as a liberator. Thus on the next day of the landing, when some of his men stole some fruit from a local orchard, he severely punished them, and assembled the army and exhorted them to maintain discipline and restraint towards the native population, lest they abandon their Roman sympathies and go over to the Vandals. Belisarius' pleas bore results, for, as Procopius reports (The Vandalic War, I.17), "the soldiers behaved with moderation, and they neither began any unjust brawls nor did anything out of the way, and [Belisarius], by displaying great gentleness and kindness, won the Libyans to his side so completely that thereafter he made the journey as if in his own land".[45][46][47]
Then the Roman army began its march north, following the coastal road. 300 horse under
Gelimer, in the meantime, upon learning of the Romans' arrival, immediately notified his brother Ammatas in Carthage to assemble the Vandal forces in the vicinity, as well as to execute Hilderic and his relatives, while his secretary Bonifatius was ordered to load the royal treasure on a ship and sail for Spain if the Romans won.[27][49] Deprived of his best troops, which were with Tzazon, Gelimer contented himself with shadowing the northward march of the Roman army, all the while preparing a decisive engagement before Carthage, at a place called Ad Decimum ("at the tenth [milepost]") where he had ordered Ammatas to bring his forces.[48][49][50] The Romans advanced through Thapsus, Leptis Parva and Hadrumetum to Grasse, where for the first time they engaged in a skirmish with the scouts of Gelimer's army. After exchanging blows, both parties retired to their camps.[48][49] From Grasse, Belisarius turned his army westwards, cutting across the neck of the Cape Bon peninsula. This was the most dangerous part of the route to Carthage, with the fleet out of sight.[51]
Thus, on the morning of 13 September, the tenth day of the march from Caputvada, the Roman army approached Ad Decimum. There Gelimer planned to ambush and encircle them, using a force under his brother Ammatas to block their advance and engage them, while 2,000 men under his nephew Gibamund would attack their left flank, and Gelimer himself with the main army would attack from the rear and completely annihilate the Roman army. In the event, the three forces failed to synchronize exactly: Ammatas arrived early and was killed as he attempted a reconnaissance with a small force by the Roman vanguard, while Gibamund's force was intercepted by the Hunnic flank guard and was utterly destroyed with Gibamund beeing killed. Unaware of all this, Gelimer marched up with the main army and scattered the Roman advance forces present at Ad Decimum. Victory might have been his, but he then came upon his dead brother's body, and apparently forgot all about the battle. This gave Belisarius the time to rally his troops, come up with his main cavalry force and defeat the disorganized Vandals. Gelimer with the remainder of his forces fled westwards to Numidia. The Battle of Ad Decimum ended in a crushing Roman victory, and Carthage lay open and undefended before Belisarius.[52][53]
Belisarius' entry into Carthage and Gelimer's counterattack
It was only by nightfall, when John the Armenian with his men and the 600 Huns rejoined his army, that Belisarius realized the extent of his victory. The cavalry spent the night at the battlefield. In the next morning, as the infantry (and Antonina) caught up, the whole army made for Carthage, where it arrived as night was falling. The Carthaginians had thrown open the gates and illuminated the city in celebration, but Belisarius, fearing a possible ambush in the darkness and wishing to keep his soldiers under tight control, refrained from entering the city, and encamped before it.[54][55] In the meantime, the fleet had rounded Cape Bon and, after learning of the Roman victory, had anchored at Stagnum, some 7.5 km from the city. Ignoring Belisarius' instructions, Calonymus and his men proceeded to plunder the merchant settlement of Mandriacum nearby.[55]
On the morning of the next day, 15 September, Belisarius drew up the army for battle before the city walls, but as no enemy appeared, he led his army into the city, after again exhorting his troops to show discipline. The Roman army received a warm welcome from the populace, which was favourably impressed by its restraint. While Belisarius himself took possession of the royal palace, seated himself on the king's throne, and consumed the dinner which Gelimer had confidently ordered to be ready for his own victorious return, the fleet entered the Lake of Tunis and the army was billeted throughout the city. The remaining Vandals were rounded up and placed under guard to prevent them from causing trouble. Belisarius dispatched Solomon to Constantinople to bear the emperor news of the victory, but expecting an imminent re-appearance of Gelimer with his army, he lost no time in repairing the largely ruined walls of the city and rendering it capable of sustaining a siege.[54][56]
During the following weeks, while Belisarius remained in Carthage strengthening its walls, Gelimer established himself and the remnant of his army at Bulla Regia. By distributing money he had managed to cement the loyalty of the locals to his cause, and sent messages recalling Tzazon and his men from Sardinia, where they had been successful in re-establishing Vandal authority and killing Godas. While waiting for Tzazon's arrival, the Vandal king's army also increased by the arrival of more and more fugitives from the battle of Ad Decimum, as well as by a contingent of his Mauri allies.[57] Most of the Mauri tribes of Numidia and Byzacena, however, sent embassies to Belisarius, pledging allegiance to the Empire. Some even offered hostages and asked for the insignia of office traditionally awarded to them by the emperor: a gilded silver staff and a silver crown, a white cloak, a white tunic, and a gilded boot. Belisarius had been furnished by Justinian with these items in anticipation of this demand, and duly dispatched them along with sums of money. Nevertheless, it was clear that, as long as the outcome of the war remained undecided, neither side could count on the firm loyalty of the Mauri.[54][57] During this period, messengers from Tzazon, sent to announce his recovery of Sardinia, sailed into Carthage unaware that the city had fallen and were taken captive, followed shortly after by Gelimer's envoys to Theudis, who had reached Spain after the news of the Roman successes had arrived there and hence failed to secure an alliance. Belisarius was also reinforced by the Roman general Cyril with his contingent, who had sailed to Sardinia only to find it once again in possession of the Vandals.[58]
As soon as Tzazon received his brother's message, he left Sardinia and landed in Africa, joining up with Gelimer at Bulla. The Vandal king now determined to advance on Carthage. His intentions were not clear; the traditional interpretation is that he hoped to reduce the city by blockading it, but Ian Hughes believes that, lacking the reserves for a protracted war of attrition, he hoped to force Belisarius into a "single, decisive confrontation". Approaching the city, the Vandal army cut the aqueduct supplying it with water, and attempted to prevent provisions from arriving in the city. Gelimer also dispatched agents to the city to undermine the loyalty of the inhabitants and the imperial army. Belisarius, who was alert to the possibility of treachery, set an example by impaling a citizen of Carthage who intended to join the Vandals. The greatest danger of defection came from the Huns, who were disgruntled because they had been ferried to Africa against their will and feared being left there as a garrison. Indeed, Vandal agents had already made contact with them, but Belisarius managed to maintain their allegiance—at least for the moment—by making a solemn promise that after the final victory they would be richly rewarded and allowed to return to their homes. Their loyalty, however, remained suspect, and, like the Mauri, the Huns probably waited to see who would emerge as the victor and rally to him.[59][60]
Tricamarum and the surrender of Gelimer
After securing the loyalty of the populace and the army, and completing the repairs to the walls, Belisarius resolved to meet Gelimer in battle, and in mid-December marched out of Carthage in the direction of the fortified Vandal camp at Tricamarum, some 28 km from Carthage. As at Ad Decimum, the Roman cavalry proceeded in advance of the infantry, and the ensuing Battle of Tricamarum was a purely cavalry affair, with Belisarius' army considerably outnumbered. Both armies kept their most untrustworthy elements—the Mauri and Huns—in reserve. John the Armenian played the most important role on the Roman side, and Tzazon on the Vandal. John led repeated charges at the Vandal centre, culminating in the death of Tzazon. This was followed by a general Roman attack across the front and the collapse of the Vandal army, which retreated to its camp. Gelimer, seeing that all was lost, fled with a few attendants into the wilds of Numidia, whereupon the remaining Vandals gave up all thoughts of resistance and abandoned their camp to be plundered by the Romans.[61][62] Like the previous battle at Ad Decimum, it is again notable that Belisarius failed to keep his forces together, and was forced to fight with a considerable numerical disadvantage. The dispersal of his army after the battle, looting heedlessly and leaving themselves vulnerable to a potential Vandal counter-attack, was also an indication of the poor discipline in the Roman army and the command difficulties Belisarius faced.[63] As Bury comments, the expedition's fate might have been quite different "if Belisarius had been opposed to a commander of some ability and experience in warfare", and points out that Procopius himself "expresses amazement at the issue of the war, and does not hesitate to regard it not as a feat of superior strategy but as a paradox of fortune".[64]
A Roman detachment under John the Armenian pursued the fleeing Vandal king for five days and nights, and was almost upon him when he was killed in an accident. The Romans halted to mourn their leader, allowing Gelimer to escape, first to
Meanwhile, Gelimer remained blockaded by Pharas at the mountain stronghold of Medeus, but, as the blockade dragged through the winter, Pharas grew impatient. He attacked the mountain stronghold, only to be beaten back with the loss of a quarter of his men. While a success for Gelimer, it did not alter his hopeless situation, as he and his followers remained tightly blockaded and began to suffer from lack of food. Pharas sent him messages calling upon him to surrender and spare his followers the misery, but it was not until March that the Vandal king agreed to surrender after receiving guarantees for his safety. Gelimer was then escorted to Carthage.[65][69]
Aftermath
Belisarius' triumph
Belisarius would not remain long in Africa to consolidate his success, as a number of officers in his army, in hopes of their own advancement, sent messengers to Justinian claiming that Belisarius intended to establish his own kingdom in Africa. Justinian then gave his general two choices as a test of his intentions: he could return to Constantinople or remain in Africa. Belisarius, who had captured one of the messengers and was aware of the slanders against him, chose to return.
And there was booty—first of all, whatever articles are wont to be set apart for the royal service—thrones of gold and carriages in which it is customary for a king's consort to ride, and much jewelry made of precious stones, and golden drinking cups, and all the other things which are useful for the royal table. And there was also silver weighing many thousands of
capture of Jerusalem. [...] And there were slaves in the triumph, among whom was Gelimer himself, wearing some sort of a purple garment upon his shoulders, and all his family, and as many of the Vandals as were very tall and fair of body. And when Gelimer reached the hippodrome and saw the emperor sitting upon a lofty seat and the people standing on either side and realized as he looked about in what an evil plight he was, he neither wept nor cried out, but ceased not saying over in the words of the Hebrew scripture: "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." And when he came before the emperor's seat, they stripped off the purple garment, and compelled him to fall prone on the ground and do obeisance to the Emperor Justinian. This also Belisarius did, as being a suppliant of the emperor along with him.— Procopius, The Vandalic War, II.9
Gelimer was given an ample estate in
Re-establishment of Roman rule in Africa and the Mauri Wars
Immediately after Tricamarum, Justinian hastened to proclaim the recovery of Africa:
Our predecessors did not deserve this favor of God, as they were not only not permitted to liberate Africa, but even saw Rome itself captured by the Vandals, and all the Imperial insignia taken from thence to Africa. Now, however, God, in his mercy, has not only delivered Africa and all her provinces into Our hands, but the Imperial insignia as well, which, having been removed at the capture of Rome, He has restored to us.
—Codex Justinianeus, I.XXVII
The emperor was determined to restore the province to its former extent and prosperity—indeed, in the words of J.B. Bury, he intended "to wipe out all traces of the Vandal conquest, as if it had never been, and to restore the conditions which had existed before the coming of Geiseric". To this end, the Vandals were barred from holding office or even property, which was returned to its former owners; most Vandal males became slaves, while the victorious Roman soldiers took their wives; and the Chalcedonian Church was restored to its former position while the Arian Church was dispossessed and persecuted. As a result of these measures, the Vandal population was diminished and emasculated. It gradually disappeared entirely, becoming absorbed into the broader provincial population.[73][76] Already in April 534, before the surrender of Gelimer, the old Roman provincial division along with the full apparatus of Roman administration was restored, under a praetorian prefect rather than under a diocesan vicarius, since the original parent prefecture of Africa, Italy, was still under Ostrogothic rule. The army of Belisarius was left behind to form the garrison of the new prefecture, under the overall command of a magister militum and several regional duces.[77] Almost from the start, an extensive fortification programme was also initiated, including the construction of city walls as well as smaller forts to protect the countryside, whose remnants are still among the most prominent archaeological remains in the region.[78][79]
Despite Justinian's intentions and proclamations, however, Roman control over Africa was not yet secure. During his campaign, Belisarius had secured most of the provinces of Byzacena, Zeugitana and Tripolitania. Further west, on the other hand, imperial control extended in a series of strongholds captured by the fleet along the coast as far as Constantine, while most of the inland areas of Numidia and Mauretania remained under the control of the local Mauri tribes, as indeed had been the case under the Vandal kings.[80] The Mauri initially acknowledged the Emperor's suzerainty and gave hostages to the imperial authorities, but they soon became restive and rose in revolt. The first imperial governor, Belisarius' former domesticus Solomon, who combined the offices of both magister militum and praetorian prefect, was able to score successes against them and strengthen Roman rule in Africa, but his work was interrupted by a widespread military mutiny in 536. The mutiny was eventually subdued by Germanus, a cousin of Justinian, and Solomon returned in 539. He fell, however, in the Battle of Cillium in 544 against the united Mauri tribes, and Roman Africa was again in jeopardy. It would not be until 548 that the resistance of the Mauri tribes would be finally broken by the talented general John Troglita.[81][82]
The degree to which Roman authority was fully re-established to its pre-Vandal conquest grandeur remains a subject of historical debate. Procopius, in his account of the Vandalic War, portrays the significant hardships experienced by the local population in the aftermath of the successful reconquest.[83] The consequences of the war, such as destruction, displacement, and economic disarray, had a profound impact on the peoples of North Africa.
Furthermore, Procopius implicitly questions the extent to which the restoration of Roman governance truly brought about prosperity and peace to the people of North Africa.[84] The historian's narrative leaves room for the interpretation of how well the reintegration into the Roman fold was managed and how successfully the region regained its stability and wealth.
In his later work, the Secret History (Ἀπόκρυφη Ἱστορία, Apókryphe Historía), composed several years after the events of the Vandal War, Procopius provides a critical and unvarnished assessment of Emperor Justinian's administration of the newly acquired province. This controversial and rather scathing account of Justinian's reign reveals not only the military triumphs but also the complexities of governing the territory, including the contentious issues, corruption, and discontent that accompanied the post-war period.[85]
References
- ^ "Procope : Histoire de la guerre des Vandales". remacle.org. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. I, pp. 244–246
- ^ Merrils & Miles (2010), pp. 47–54
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. I, pp. 247–249, 254–257
- ^ Merrils & Miles (2010), pp. 54–55, 60–65
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. I, pp. 257–258, 325–327
- ^ Merrils & Miles (2010), pp. 65–66
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. I, pp. 331–337
- ^ Diehl (1896), pp. 3–4
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. I, p. 390
- ^ a b Diehl (1896), p. 4
- ^ Hughes (2009), p. 70
- ^ Merrils & Miles (2010), pp. 90–102
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. II, pp. 124–125
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. II, p. 125
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. II, pp. 125–126
- ^ Diehl (1896), pp. 5–6
- ^ Hughes (2009), pp. 71–72
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. II, p. 126
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. II, pp. 126–127
- ^ Diehl (1896), pp. 7–8
- ^ a b Hughes (2009), p. 72
- ^ a b c d e Bury (1923), Vol. II, p. 128
- ^ Hughes (2009), pp. 72–73
- ^ a b Hughes (2009), p. 76
- ^ Diehl (1896), p. 14
- ^ a b c d Hughes (2009), p. 80
- ^ a b c Bury (1923), Vol. II, p. 129
- ^ Diehl (1896), pp. 14–15
- ^ Hughes (2009), p. 73
- ^ Hughes (2009), pp. 74–75
- ^ a b Bury (1923), Vol. II, p. 127
- ^ Diehl (1896), pp. 16–17
- ^ Hughes (2009), pp. 75–76
- ^ Diehl (1896), pp. 8–9
- ^ Hughes (2009), pp. 81–82
- ^ Diehl (1896), pp. 9, 12–13
- ^ Hughes (2009), pp. 82–84
- ^ Diehl (1896), pp. 9–11
- ^ Hughes (2009), p. 78
- ^ a b c Bury (1923), Vol. II, p. 130
- ^ Diehl (1896), pp. 17–18
- ^ Hughes (2009), pp. 79–80
- ^ Diehl (1896), pp. 18–19
- ^ a b Bury (1923), Vol. II, pp. 130–131
- ^ Diehl (1896), pp. 19–20
- ^ a b Hughes (2009), p. 85
- ^ a b c Hughes (2009), p. 86
- ^ a b c Bury (1923), Vol. II, p. 131
- ^ Diehl (1896), pp. 20–21
- ^ Hughes (2009), p. 87
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. II, pp. 133–135
- ^ Hughes (2009), pp. 87–96
- ^ a b c Bury (1923), Vol. II, p. 135
- ^ a b Hughes (2009), p. 97
- ^ Hughes (2009), p. 98
- ^ a b Hughes (2009), p. 99
- ^ Hughes (2009), pp. 98–99
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. II, p. 136
- ^ Hughes (2009), pp. 99–100
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. II, pp. 136–137
- ^ Hughes (2009), pp. 100–106
- ^ For a critical consideration of both sides' strategy and tactics, cf. Diehl (1896), pp. 27–32; Hughes (2009), pp. 85–89, 96, 104–106
- ^ a b Bury (1923), Vol. II, p. 137
- ^ a b c Bury (1923), Vol. II, p. 138
- ^ Hughes (2009), p. 106
- ^ Hughes (2009), pp. 106–107
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. II, pp. 137–138
- ^ a b Hughes (2009), p. 107
- ^ Hughes (2009), pp. 108, 112ff.
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. II, pp. 138–139
- ^ Hughes (2009), p. 109
- ^ a b Bury (1923), Vol. II, p. 139
- ^ Browning (1992), p. 12
- ^ Hughes (2009), p. 110
- ^ Diehl (1896), pp. 37–41
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. II, p. 140
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. II, pp. 148–150
- ^ For a detailed survey, cf. Diehl (1896), pp. 138–298
- ^ Diehl (1896), pp. 34–36
- ^ Bury (1923), Vol. II, pp. 140–147
- ^ Diehl (1896), pp. 41–93, 333–381
- ^ Kadellis (2016), pp. 14-15
- ^ Kadellis (2016), pp.14-15
- ^ Kadellis (2016), pp.14-15
Sources
Primary
- Procopius of Caesarea. History of the Wars: The Vandalic War, Volumes I. & II. – via Wikisource.
Secondary
- Browning, Robert (1992). The Byzantine Empire (Revised ed.). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. ISBN 0-8132-0754-1.
- ISBN 0-486-20399-9.
- Diehl, Charles (1896). L'Afrique Byzantine. Histoire de la Domination Byzantine en Afrique (533–709) (in French). Paris, France: Ernest Leroux.
- Hughes, Ian (2009). Belisarius: The Last Roman General. Yardley, PA: Westholme Publishing, LLC. ISBN 978-1-59416-528-3.
- Merrils, Andy; Miles, Richard (2010). The Vandals. Chichester, U.K.; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-405-16068-1.
- Kadellis, Anthony. (2016) 'Prokopios’ Vandal War: Thematic Trajectories and Hidden Transcripts,' in S. T. Stevens and J. Conant (eds.), North Africa under Byzantium and Early Islam (Washington, D.C: Dumbarton Oaks, 2016), pp. 13-21.