Whatever became of the Roman Army in the West

[Robert Vermaat]

The West appears to suffer long term population decline attributable to the routine epidemics that hit, and, possibly the effects of declining agricultural productivity and climate change. The lands of southern Europe being typically more fertile and productive than the north lends itself to southward migration and this natural trend coupled with deliberate government policy would see a continual in-migration from beyond the border going over several centuries. That plus traditional sources of internal recruitment such as Illyricum get heavily damaged in several invasions would place a premium on soldiers from across the border.

I immediately agree that the population of the empire was under pressure, and territorial losses would not have been helpful either. But your initial suggestion was that most of the Roman army would have been made up of Germanic soldiers due to these being hired and the regular recruits being of Germanic descent as well. And as there is no evidence for the former (a much-repeated statement based I think it was Synesius? Or much later, Gibbon), there is not even a claim for that from ancient writers.

The West My argument is essentially a class one which I know doesn't get much love these days. Being a 'real' Roman by the late empire is really a matter of class identity and religious orthodoxy. The issue of wealth inequality was always a severe one but got worse as the Empire grew older and the wealth divide is likely to be stronger in the West than the East. One source, I forget which says words to the effect that 'the rich barbarian wants to emulate the Roman and the poor Roman wants to emulate the Barbarian. There are always more poor than rich so there is only one way that trend can end.

I don’t quite agree with your conclusions. Being ‘Roman’ was first of all a legal matter, and secondly a mind thing. Class nor religion came into it. Poor people felt as Roman as the rich, and one could be a Christian barbarian. To the contrary I would say, religion plaid it’s part in diminishing the sharp borders between roman and non-Roman. Poor barbarians also wanted to emulate the Romans, btw. I bet the source who said that wanted to make a point towards the fashion chances in the Roman empire that indeed saw emulation of what the Romans saw as barbarian characteristics. I don’t think for a minute that the Romans really wanted to emulate the barbarians.

Ethnic Identity is fluid, not fixed. It can shift over time based on circumstances and self interest, during periods of crisis identity differences can be sharpened or perceptions of identity can be changed.The process of becoming Roman as described by Tacitus falls over when the only social mobility is downwards. Roman identity as opposed to Gothic identity is sufficiently sharpened during the reign of Honorius that a pogrom of barbarians in Italy can occur but the fact the survivors went over to Alaric leaving Honorius with no army left (until he gets reinforced from the Eastern Empire) I think clearly shows the composition of the army.

Roman-ness could be ethnic, but it’s first of all a matter of the law. Only when barbarian groups managed to remain independently organized under their own leaders (I’m not talking about laeti or dedititii) do we see free non-Roman groups who saw themselves as different from the Roman population, ruled under different laws. That’s when the empire has ended and Roman law does not apply to non-Romans.
Your example about Honorius is wrong, because he was not bereft of troops, only of a majority of freely available forces. Most of the army could not be accessed that quickly, or Honorius did not trust them (after all he just had Stilicho killed).

I would suspect that polemicists such as Salvian really describe conditions in the empire very accurately. If preachers have to chastise their flocks for helping the barbarians locate the aristocrats treasure, there really is no love for the Empire and its ruling class and if the army is drawn from the same body of people cant see how they would share the same mindset. Even Ammianus, a minor aristocrat himself describes with disgust the social behaviours of the rulers. Of course, these behaviours were always there but become sharper as the government became more autocratic, less a partnership between regional urban elites and the state (as existed in the early empire) and more a command and control structure.

True, their was much disgust over the abuse of power by the rich. But still we do not find any disloyalty within the army or even a refusal to serve for that very reason. The army was not disloyal to the state because the lower classes felt abused by the rich. Ammanianus may very well criticize the misuse of power but he shows himself ever loyal, and does not describe any disloyalty by the lower classes either.

. I draw on Ramsey Macmullen's work 'Corruption and the Decline of Rome' which draws out sources which mention military ineffectiveness and larceny, one from recall is Ammianus' reference to the North African scandal during the reign of Emperor Valentinian of the officer who got away with shaking down the provincials rather than fighting the enemy. Given the paucity of the sources its always going to be a value judgment about how effective the army was. I find it difficult to imagine that the invasions of Alans and Vandals etc wouldn't have been able to be countered if an army of any reasonable capacity was in existence.

Are you saying that an invasion meant that the Roman army was ineffective? That would mean that this was the case for a very long time. Marcomannic wars, 2nd century?

I suggest you read Elton about the effectiveness of the army. It’s a straw man often set up to compare the legions of the Republic to the Late Roman army and compare effectiveness, without comparing the conditions. Every invasion of sorts was countered and neutralized up to the mid-5th century, after which the state of the army had deteriorated to such an extent that a reasonable defense was no longer possible. But we are discussing the Late Roman army, which I consider to be a period ranging from 280 to 480, and that’s quite a stretch of time. Most arguments given for the ‘uselessness’ of the army are not valid for that period, but only for the later part.