02-20-2008, 11:23 AM
That's the million-euro question. Hugh Elton advocates a model that sees the Roman army 'victorious where it went'. Others see the same, but interpret the glass as 'half-empty', and see the Roman army instead 'running from theatre to theatre' without ever again achieving military dominace on all fronts.
Some think that there was a Roman field army, increasingly drawing the limitanei from the border into the comitatenses and filling the gaps with treaty-bound Germanic foederati.
The 'diminishing from the edges' model.
Other see a viable Roman military organisation that went 'private' after Roman centralised control ceased to exist. This model treats Roman generals like Syagrius as working within a Roman military machine, as well as the role of Frankish kings-cum-magister militum functions.
The 'failing from the top' model.
There is also a theory that actually puts that there was no Roman army of name during Aetius' rule, and that Roman dominance rested solely on treaties with germanic and other barbarian peoples (in return for the right to settle within the empire). Such treaties went good, but the Romans were never again able to control any in-fighting in Gaul, nor effectively withstand land-grabbing by, say, Visigoths and Burgundians in the 2nd half of the 5th c.
Some think that there was a Roman field army, increasingly drawing the limitanei from the border into the comitatenses and filling the gaps with treaty-bound Germanic foederati.
The 'diminishing from the edges' model.
Other see a viable Roman military organisation that went 'private' after Roman centralised control ceased to exist. This model treats Roman generals like Syagrius as working within a Roman military machine, as well as the role of Frankish kings-cum-magister militum functions.
The 'failing from the top' model.
There is also a theory that actually puts that there was no Roman army of name during Aetius' rule, and that Roman dominance rested solely on treaties with germanic and other barbarian peoples (in return for the right to settle within the empire). Such treaties went good, but the Romans were never again able to control any in-fighting in Gaul, nor effectively withstand land-grabbing by, say, Visigoths and Burgundians in the 2nd half of the 5th c.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
