+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Aetius and the Western Empire (/showthread.php?tid=21225)
Aetius and the Western Empire - Renicus Ferrarius - 08-16-2012
I had a discussion about Rome's final years with a friend the other day in which I described Flavius Aetius as the Western Empire's "last best hope".
What are your thoughts on this?
Also, what do you think may have happened had Valentinian (may he rot) not assassinated Aetius? All biases aside, I like to think that Aetius could have prolonged and strengthened the Western Empire.
Re: Aetius and the Western Empire - markusaurelius - 08-16-2012
I originally bought into that theory that Aetius was this big savior of Rome etc. etc. But after really digging into things further I'm not so sure anymore. In fact he may have contributed to the fall of the empire IMO (not that Valentinian III was useful for anything but sucking up air).
I think Aetius was self centered and power hungry (although he may have been a good general and politician). He encouraged and took part in the elimination(by death) of other prominent figures in his time, usually through the manipulation of Galla Placidia(half sisters of Arcadius and Honorius). He had Bonifacius disposed in Africa and essentially took the only other competent general/leader out (ultimately via battle). Along with any support, army or resources he carried and Africa. The last major income source for the empire.
He made no major reforms, and essentially encouraged the growth of the Buccelari, or personal body guards/personal soldiers. This system essentially removed the regular army as it was known before.
I think someone like Stilicho was for more a "Savior or Rome" and one of the last generals/figures who was willing to sacrifice himself for the empire and not for personal gain.
Re: Aetius and the Western Empire - starman2012 - 08-16-2012
Quote: He had Bonifacius disposed in Africa
Bonafatius came to Italy with his army in 432 CE and there defeated Aetius, but lost his life. I don't think Bonafatius was a great loss, since he wasn't very effective in stopping the Vandals. He needed Aspar's help apparently just to stay even. And the fact he removed his arm from Africa soon after the loss of Hippo doesn't speak too highly of his own commitment to the Empire, as opposed to his own personal status.
Quote:and essentially took the only other competent general/leader out (ultimately via battle). Along with any support, army or resources he carried and Africa. The last major income source for the empire.
Africa (or rather Proconsularis and Carthage etc) were lost when Geiseric broke the treaty of 435 and took them. I'm not sure why he did that late in 439. Earlier I speculated that as long as Aetius seemed strong it was prudent for the Vandals/alans to keep the treaty, but this may no longer have seemed the case after the fate of Litorius.
Re: Aetius and the Western Empire - starman2012 - 08-16-2012
Quote:I had a discussion about Rome's final years with a friend the other day in which I described Flavius Aetius as the Western Empire's "last best hope".
What are your thoughts on this?
I think he did pretty much the best that could've been done in the crummy circumstances of the time but was just overwhelmed by too many problems at once, and not enough resources.
Quote:Also, what do you think may have happened had Valentinian (may he rot) not assassinated Aetius? All biases aside, I like to think that Aetius could have prolonged and strengthened the Western Empire.
I dunno...Majorian wasn't so bad either but didn't make much difference.
Re: Aetius and the Western Empire - markusaurelius - 08-17-2012
Quote:Bonafatius came to Italy with his army in 432 CE and there defeated Aetius, but lost his life. I don't think Bonafatius was a great loss, since he wasn't very effective in stopping the Vandals. He needed Aspar's help apparently just to stay even. And the fact he removed his arm from Africa soon after the loss of Hippo doesn't speak too highly of his own commitment to the Empire, as opposed to his own personal status.
My argument was not that Bonifatius was any better than Aetius, but he was an influential leader and able general(considering he beat Aetius in battle) and Aetius specifically targeted him by manipulating Galla Placidia to depose him. Had Aetius instead used his political skills and worked with Bonifatius and they had combined their military forces (instead of killing each other off) they would have put the Empire in a better position.
Re: Aetius and the Western Empire - Flavivs Aetivs - 08-17-2012
Quote:My argument was not that Bonifatius was any better than Aetius, but he was an influential leader and able general(considering he beat Aetius in battle) and Aetius specifically targeted him by manipulating Galla Placidia to depose him. Had Aetius instead used his political skills and worked with Bonifatius and they had combined their military forces (instead of killing each other off) they would have put the Empire in a better position.
That's a theory that has been put forth multiple times, but arguably I don't think that would have worked out as good as they say. One way or the other, someone would have been overpowered and overshadowed.
However, Aetius did manage to work very well with other successful generals - Merobaudes, Majoran, Aegidius, and Marcellinus are examples, and his rival - the praetorian praefect of gaul Avitus - and Aetius worked with each other on occasion.
If I recall, Ricimerus also served under Atius but was stripped of his titles (which may show Aetius probably knew of his hateful nature that would show in the final years of the empire, but I'm just extrapolating here)
Bonifacius was not the only one in that power struggle - Aetius had Constantius Felix (The Magister Utriusque Militiae) executed (for fraud or something) in 430/431. Bonifacius recieved the title afterwards, and was made a patrician. Then Aetius marched an army to Ravenna, and they fought outside Ariminium (Rimini). Aetius was tactically defeated, but returned with an Army of huns.
My overall view of Aetius was that the whole "Last of the Romans" was another propaganda scheme for the Roman Citizenry (like the "God-given Empire" and that they always manipulated the actual outcome of battles and portrayed them as victories). His real position was to maintain the interests of the Gallic Landowning Class.
Aetius seems to have restored the field army of Gaul to some extent - and Marcellinus and Aegidius were both products of his Restoration of said field armies, but the payroll changed from the government to the head landlord - whomever that may be. This was in part due to the loss of Africa, and in part due to the bid for political power. Marcellinus and Aegidius both show that, along with Avitus and Ricimerus.
He was in some ways a hero to the west - and in other ways he wasn't. Personally I belive the destruction of the hunnic empire was what caused Aetius to be assassinated. I think that Aetius probably was planning to take int he Huns as foederati after it collapsed so he could use them to maintain power. There is some ways to suggest that Valentinian III wanted to be a Warrior-Emperor, considering the fact he was training in archery at the Campus MArtius when he was assassinated. So Valentinian III didn't want Aetius to continue to hold power.
In the End, Aetius Survival Might have meant the West could have re-taken africa. With a master Strategian like Aetius, and a Fleet borrowed from the East, A 1-day hop from Palermo to Carthage could have landed the Western Bucellarii and Field Armies, and then Aetius could have smashed Gaiseric.
But by 454, the constant combat in Africa from the 430s would have meant signifigant revenue loss - so it probably only would have bought the empire a little bit more time; maybe it would have been enough to get Africa up and running again, maybe not. I dunno and we never will.
Re: Aetius and the Western Empire - starman2012 - 08-17-2012
Quote:My argument was not that Bonifatius was any better than Aetius, but he was an influential leader and able general(considering he beat Aetius in battle)
That seems pretty remarkable considering that Bonafatius had just suffered a reverse in Africa, and had to transport an army to Italy (seems insanely risky btw considering the importance of the region and the apparent military failure at the time). But was it Bonafatius or his troops that were better? Maybe Aetius just didn't have many.
Quote:Had Aetius instead used his political skills and worked with Bonifatius and they had combined their military forces (instead of killing each other off) they would have put the Empire in a better position.
Avoiding civil war then would've been great. Other than that, not sure what if anything would've been achieved.
Re: Aetius and the Western Empire - starman2012 - 08-17-2012
Quote:My overall view of Aetius was that the whole "Last of the Romans" was another propaganda scheme for the Roman Citizenry
"Last of the Romans" a propaganda scheme? Why not "beginner of Glorious Revival"? "Last" doesn't seem very encouraging. :-(
Quote:In the End, Aetius Survival Might have meant the West could have re-taken africa. With a master Strategian like Aetius, and a Fleet borrowed from the East, A 1-day hop from Palermo to Carthage could have landed the Western Bucellarii and Field Armies, and then Aetius could have smashed Gaiseric.
I'm not so optimistic. Gaiseric was a helluva tough cookie. He preempted Majorian's expedition, and foiled the big one of 468. It would've taken a great general indeed.
Quote:But by 454, the constant combat in Africa from the 430s
There was no constant combat in Africa from the 430s to 454. Combat essentially ended in 439. The problem thereafter was lack of proper upkeep and management.
Quote: would have meant signifigant revenue loss - so it probably only would have bought the empire a little bit more time; maybe it would have been enough to get Africa up and running again, maybe not. I dunno and we never will.
Some former landowners were resettled farther west after loss of proconsularis. They might've helped.
Re: Aetius and the Western Empire - Flavivs Aetivs - 08-17-2012
Quote:"Last of the Romans" a propaganda scheme? Why not "beginner of Glorious Revival"? "Last" doesn't seem very encouraging. :-(
It doesn't matter, my point is that his "heroism" was a way of controlling the roman citizenry
Quote:I'm not so optimistic. Gaiseric was a helluva tough cookie. He preempted Majorian's expedition, and foiled the big one of 468. It would've taken a great general indeed.
That's true, Gaiseric was indeed a good strategian
Quote:There was no constant combat in Africa from the 430s to 454. Combat essentially ended in 439. The problem thereafter was lack of proper upkeep and management.
You misinterpreted what I was saying: I said constant combat from the 430s to mean the combat was from the 430s, not that it was lasting all the way to 454. Either way, the infrastructure there had collapsed, farms and olive groves had been burned, so the profit loss was phenomenal.
Quote:Some former landowners were resettled farther west after loss of proconsularis. They might've helped.
Yes that was recorded in the Nov. Valentinian, so the skilled landowners may have gotten things back up and running, but it would have taken time to get the former yields. So as there was some way to keep africa safe AND fight the Visigoths, Franks, and Seuves then it's possible a Recovery could have happened. Personally my tactic would be to re-take africa, then march to Tingis and cross the straits of Gibraltar to Attack the Sueves and Re-take spain. Then march accross spain to attack the visigoths. Provided Aetius had the troops to field such a campaign, that is. Albeit they could re-supply in the Roman-Controlled sectors of Africa and Spain
Re: Aetius and the Western Empire - starman2012 - 08-17-2012
Quote:That's true, Gaiseric was indeed a good strategian
It was unfortunate for the WRE that he could exercise such talent for so many years i.e. had a long lifetime. Geiseric didn't die until 477, at age 88--remarkable for the period. If only he had died 20 years earlier Majorian probably would've succeeded.
Quote:Either way, the infrastructure there had collapsed, farms and olive groves had been burned, so the profit loss was phenomenal.
What was the use of taking the area if it meant killing the goose which was laying the golden eggs? Maybe Geiseric should've been content to be an extortionist.
mile: Quote:Personally my tactic would be to re-take africa, then march to Tingis and cross the straits of Gibraltar to Attack the Sueves and Re-take spain. Then march accross spain to attack the visigoths.
I'd do it a little differently. First concentrate on beating the Vandals. After that, don't march all the way across the hot desert, but bring the men to Gaul via ship. The visigoths would be next, and then the suevi. In other words, based on economic (as well as strategic) importance, Africa would have highest priority, then gaul, then spain. :wink:
Re: Aetius and the Western Empire - starman2012 - 08-18-2012
Quote:I said constant combat from the 430s
Getting back to this: I don't think there was any combat from February 435 to October 439. For me, there are unanswered questions about the African campaign. Why didn't Geiseric take all of WRE Africa when Bonafatius went to Italy with his army in 432? I get the impression he and Aspar, although technically beaten, must've inflicted serious losses. And why did Aspar leave in 434? Lastly why did Geiseric keep the peace of 435 for a few years and then break it when he did? Ferrill said it was because he was still consolidating his hold on his conquests up til then, but another suggestion is that he saw that the WRE was preoccupied in gaul. But this preoccupation obviously predated 439; on the basis of heavy fighting against the burgundians in 437, why didn't he move against Carthage then?
Re: Aetius and the Western Empire - Flavivs Aetivs - 08-19-2012
Quote:Magister Militum Flavius Aetius post=318589 Wrote:I said constant combat from the 430s
Getting back to this: I don't think there was any combat from February 435 to October 439. For me, there are unanswered questions about the African campaign. Why didn't Geiseric take all of WRE Africa when Bonafatius went to Italy with his army in 432? I get the impression he and Aspar, although technically beaten, must've inflicted serious losses. And why did Aspar leave in 434? Lastly why did Geiseric keep the peace of 435 for a few years and then break it when he did? Ferrill said it was because he was still consolidating his hold on his conquests up til then, but another suggestion is that he saw that the WRE was preoccupied in gaul. But this preoccupation obviously predated 439; on the basis of heavy fighting against the burgundians in 437, why didn't he move against Carthage then?
Well, I have to say first that Africa wasn't as hot back then as it was now; there are a lot of cities on the coast anyways so if you marched along the coast I'm sure you wouldn't have much of a problem. Also, after 439 there isn't much recorded Gothic activity in Gaul afterwards. Most of the Activity is with the suebes in the 440s, so if I reconquered Africa the Suebes would have been the next most immediate threat to me, ergo I'd have taken them out next.
Also, you do have a point - without the hunnic edge Gaiseric might have been emboldened to make a move against Carthage.
Re: Aetius and the Western Empire - starman2012 - 08-19-2012
Quote:Well, I have to say first that Africa wasn't as hot back then as it was now; there are a lot of cities on the coast anyways so if you marched along the coast I'm sure you wouldn't have much of a problem.
The main difference was more vegetation, I presume, then. But a lot had been wrecked by the Vandals, so I dunno..
Quote:Also, after 439 there isn't much recorded Gothic activity in Gaul afterwards. Most of the Activity is with the suebes in the 440s, so if I reconquered Africa the Suebes would have been the next most immediate threat to me, ergo I'd have taken them out next.
It was important, though, to get Gaul back in order; it was economically and strategically more important.
Quote:Also, you do have a point - without the hunnic edge Gaiseric might have been emboldened to make a move against Carthage.
An even clearer case can be made for Sueve expansion in Spain due to that.
Re: Aetius and the Western Empire - Robert Vermaat - 08-21-2012
Quote:But a lot had been wrecked by the VandalsThat's not correct, the Vandals did not wreck the North African economy (regardless of the meaning of that name today), this was done centuries later. The Roman economy of this period was in tatters anyway (several causes) and of course civil war, religious persecution and occupation did not help much. But the reason for Justinian to want to reconquer Vandal Africa was that it was still rich.
I'm not much impressed by Aetius. To me it seems that he was more concerned with his own position than with the strengthening of the Roman state - not different from any 'warlord' behind the throne from Arbogast and valentinian onwards, I suppose. He was mainly a military man, and that fact (comparing the supposedly 'soft' diplomats in the East) was part of the downfall of the West.
Re: Aetius and the Western Empire - starman2012 - 08-21-2012
Quote:That's not correct, the Vandals did not wreck the North African economy
In addition to physical destruction, public buildings are said to have fallen into disrepair under them. But I suppose much continued essentially as before, with Vandal landowners replacing Roman ones..
Quote:But the reason for Justinian to want to reconquer Vandal Africa was that it was still rich.
Interesting. The East was fairly rich already. I thought it was done as a prelude to taking Italy, and essential for that main goal, just like the Japanese couldn't bypass the Philippines while aiming for Singapore and sarawak.