Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total War: Attila
#16
I never quite got how Stilicho was considered "Barbarian" when he had a Vandal father, while Aetius' father was Gothic and Aetius himself considered a "Roman."
Reply
#17
Modern authors and enemies at court I suppose. :whistle:
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#18
Quote:
Aaron post=365862 Wrote:Stilicho was a Vandal,
No he wasn't. He was a Roman with a Vandal father.

Tell Edward Gibbons and other historians that wrote about Stilicho otherwise. They mentioned Stilicho's barbarian ties quite often.....
"I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know." ~Cicero

Real Name: Aaron Phelps
Reply
#19
Quote:I never quite got how Stilicho was considered "Barbarian" when he had a Vandal father, while Aetius' father was Gothic and Aetius himself considered a "Roman."

It's why we never hear of them being called"Emperor Stilicho" or Emperor Aetis" and just as reagents :wink:

Note: I really, really, really do love this site. I can't tell you how long I've waited to actually talk about Roman History with other people. Thank you guys for being here.
"I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know." ~Cicero

Real Name: Aaron Phelps
Reply
#20
Well Aetius and Stilicho didn't want to be Emperors because they understood the downsides to it far outweighed the status. Any attempt to usurp their emperors would result in an immediate military response from the East, and the West had enough problems as it was with the Barbarians, and didn't have the military capacity to take on the far larger Eastern Roman army. This is why when Valentinian III wanted to rule both halves of the Empire in 450 after Theodosius died, Aetius told him no.
Reply
#21
I am happy that Aetius told Valentinian not to take power. I am a big fan of Marcian Smile
Reply
#22
Overreach - it's a dangerous thing....
Reply
#23
Quote:Tell Edward Gibbons and other historians that wrote about Stilicho otherwise. They mentioned Stilicho's barbarian ties quite often.....
Gladly, but he wrote during the 19th century so it might take some effort to reach him. Also, that should tell you something about the quality of some historians. Gibbon had an agenda to show the reasons for the end of Rome - barbarians was one of them. He had no problems taking ancient sources literally which stressed the barbarian background of Stilicho, who nontheless acted like every other power-hungry Roman would have done. I somehow think that if his Vandal father had named him Flavius Aemilianus or something equally Latin, we would not be having this discussion. Wink
_________________________________
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR: Forum rules
FECTIO Late Roman Society
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#24
Quote:
Aaron post=365885 Wrote:Tell Edward Gibbons and other historians that wrote about Stilicho otherwise. They mentioned Stilicho's barbarian ties quite often.....
Gladly, but he wrote during the 19th century so it might take some effort to reach him. Also, that should tell you something about the quality of some historians. Gibbon had an agenda to show the reasons for the end of Rome - barbarians was one of them. He had no problems taking ancient sources literally which stressed the barbarian background of Stilicho, who nontheless acted like every other power-hungry Roman would have done. I somehow think that if his Vandal father had named him Flavius Aemilianus or something equally Latin, we would not be having this discussion. Wink

Possibly, however Gibbons main reasoning for the downfall of the Western Roman empire was Christianity. While I'll agree saying Christianity helped divide the the Romans through ideology of who's right, who's wrong. I would say the Barbarians were the main contributing factor to the fall of the Western Roman empire, and I'll give my reason why I believe so.

Rome went from using in house Italians because obviously that's where they started. Glory, Loot, and the chance to serve your country were something the Romans loved and relished in, and for hundreds of years they did just that. However, as the Roman empire grew, places of Glory, Loot, became thin. It no longer became "What country we should conquer next?" It turned into which part of the Empire should we defend next?

Money from inflation started to kick into overdrive, which obviously someone had to do something with it, and it's why Constantine basically made silver and bronze worthless. No one with an Italia heritage wanted to join the Legions anymore. It was dangerous, dirty, no money in it, and if some disease didn't kill you most likely an opposing Army would.

After the extreme Roman failure of Adrianople, it was pretty much over as Italian armies were replaced with Barbarian mercenaries. Racism against your defenders obviously didn't help. Heck, Alaric just wanted to be acknowledge and even said he would help protect the Danube which was a PHENOMENAL deal for the Romans. Instead the Romans spit in their eye, and we got the sacking of Rome.

Only reason the East kept in power as long as they did was because of the Theodocian walls though Pope Innocent III helped out with that when he sent a crusade to it.

Barbarians imo is the number 1 reason why the Western Roman empire fell.

Note: Didn't Edward Gibbons write the fall and decline of the Roman Empire in the 18th century? Thought he wrote it during the American Revolution or maybe before it. I'll go look it up.
"I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know." ~Cicero

Real Name: Aaron Phelps
Reply
#25
Quote: It was dangerous, dirty, no money in it, and if some disease didn't kill you most likely an opposing Army would.

It paid better, you were fed better, and casualties were usually fairly low.

Quote:Money from inflation started to kick into overdrive, which obviously someone had to do something with it, and it's why Constantine basically made silver and bronze worthless.

Bronzes were worthless, Siliquae were still quite valuable, far moreso than the Denarius.

Quote:After the extreme Roman failure of Adrianople, it was pretty much over as Italian armies were replaced with Barbarian mercenaries.

Only the Thracian and Praesental I armies were effected by Adrianople and were replenished by 395. The Gallic, Italic, Spanish, African, Oriental, and Egyptian armies were all fine (the British and Dalmatian armies didn't exist yet in 378).

Quote:Only reason the East kept in power as long as they did was because of the Theodocian walls though Pope Innocent III helped out with that when he sent a crusade to it.

No, first effective administrative and military reforms under Anastasius, then further reforms under Justinian, Maurice, and Heraclius, all contributed to the long-term survival of the East.

Quote:Note: Didn't Edward Gibbons write the fall and decline of the Roman Empire in the 18th century? Thought he wrote it during the American Revolution or maybe before it. I'll go look it up.

The 18th century is the time of the American Revolution. 18th century = 1700's.
Reply
#26
Quote:
Quote: It was dangerous, dirty, no money in it, and if some disease didn't kill you most likely an opposing Army would.

It paid better, you were fed better, and casualties were usually fairly low.

Quote:Money from inflation started to kick into overdrive, which obviously someone had to do something with it, and it's why Constantine basically made silver and bronze worthless.

Bronzes were worthless, Siliquae were still quite valuable, far moreso than the Denarius.

Quote:After the extreme Roman failure of Adrianople, it was pretty much over as Italian armies were replaced with Barbarian mercenaries.

Only the Thracian and Praesental I armies were effected by Adrianople and were replenished by 395. The Gallic, Italic, Spanish, African, Oriental, and Egyptian armies were all fine (the British and Dalmatian armies didn't exist yet in 378).

Quote:Only reason the East kept in power as long as they did was because of the Theodocian walls though Pope Innocent III helped out with that when he sent a crusade to it.

No, first effective administrative and military reforms under Anastasius, then further reforms under Justinian, Maurice, and Heraclius, all contributed to the long-term survival of the East.

Quote:Note: Didn't Edward Gibbons write the fall and decline of the Roman Empire in the 18th century? Thought he wrote it during the American Revolution or maybe before it. I'll go look it up.

The 18th century is the time of the American Revolution. 18th century = 1700's.

Attila would've leveled Constantinople if it wasn't for the theodocian wall. Its the ONLY reason why Rome carried on until the turks blew holes in it a thousand years later.

As for the paid better, if it paid so well why was the goths, Hun's and vandals constantly fighting the western roman empires battles at the time?

As for the 18th century, I was rebutting what Robert posted about it being 19th. I believe Mr gibbons died before 1800.
"I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know." ~Cicero

Real Name: Aaron Phelps
Reply
#27
Attila would not have leveled Constantinople, and even if the Theodosian walls weren't there, he'd still have to get past the Constantian wall, which Gainas in 404 failed to breach.

The army paid better than the civvie pay. It's estimated the average civilian made 3 solidi a year. A miles of the Limitanei made one Annona (4 Solidi until Anastasius, who increased it to 5), and also had the income his family would generate farming or trading or whatever. An infantryman of the Comitatenses it's estimated was paid 4 annonae, or 16 Solidi (20 in Anastasius' time onwards).

Furthermore, the soldiers received tax breaks as well.
Reply
#28
I don't think it would have been in Attila's interest to level Constantinople as he had a good extortion racket going on with them until the Eastern empire manned up when Marcian came to power and refused to play ball any longer with Attila's bullying tactics, so then his eyes turned west.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#29
Attila knew what he could get out of the West, and did that in 439 when he set up the treaty with Aetius mentioned by Cassiodorus.

Although looting the hell out of North Gaul was one of his goals in 451, his primary goal was putting Childeric on the Throne of the Franks.
Reply
#30
Quote:Attila would not have leveled Constantinople, and even if the Theodosian walls weren't there, he'd still have to get past the Constantian wall, which Gainas in 404 failed to breach.

Tell that to the people who were at Aquileia when Attila besieged their city. I don't remember reading about Gainas, or maybe he or they had a different name? However, it was no different then Fritigern or Alaric roaming the Roman countryside pillaging. When it came to besieging a Roman town or Garrison, it just wasn't viable. Alaric or Fritigern or anyone for that matter didn't know what to do.

Then you bring up Aetius. Funny story about Aetius that I'm sure you're familiar with was that as a young man as for a peace treaty, he spent some of his life with the Huns. There they grew to know each other, and became fond of one another to where Aetius could come and go within their tribe as he pleased. Now we both know Aetius told Attilas uncle Rua a few things about Roman's fortifications hence why Attila in the end ravaged any city he came by and passed their defenses with ease.

To get to the geist of the story I doubt Constantine walls would've stopped Atilla like it did a few others. Attila was different.



Quote:The army paid better than the civvie pay. It's estimated the average civilian made 3 solidi a year. A miles of the Limitanei made one Annona (4 Solidi until Anastasius, who increased it to 5), and also had the income his family would generate farming or trading or whatever. An infantryman of the Comitatenses it's estimated was paid 4 annonae, or 16 Solidi (20 in Anastasius' time onwards).

Furthermore, the soldiers received tax breaks as well.

You're mentioning the Eastern Roman Empire. I did say earlier that if it wasn't for Theodocians Walls (Why we're debating in the first place) that the Eastern Roman empire would cease to exist. However they did have Theodocian's walls therefore they were able to hold out and keep trucking onwards for the next millennium. I somewhat understand economically why the Holy Roman Empire lasted, but it was because of those walls to why they were able to last. Constantine knew what he was doing when he scoped Constantinople out.

I'm not very familiar with the Eastern Roman Empire after the Western collapsed. I know they handled their taxes, collection of said taxes, and their army better than the West. They were more disciplined then the West and it's why they continued on. Different languages between the West and East, and for the majority, different religions and belief systems.

I know a little about Odoacer, Justinian, and Belisarius; who in fact may have reigned in the Western empire if Justinian would'n't have stopped him if I remember correctly

Other then that I only remember a bit about Alexis Comnenus I because of the Crusades, which I am familiar with. I haven't gotten around to reading about the Eastern Roman Empire at the moment. Right now I'm knee deep in early Roman history and loving every minute of it. This has been a very enlightening debate and I thank you for having it with me.
"I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know." ~Cicero

Real Name: Aaron Phelps
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Rome..Total Realism Question and one for Total War version arklore70 1 1,065 02-15-2006, 12:06 PM
Last Post: Optio equitum

Forum Jump: