09-05-2012, 05:08 PM
Hero or vilain? I my oppinion it's more complex than this.
I read some critics he acted only for his own wealth or avidity for power. True, but who did not in Roman history? Cesar, Pompei, Constantine, ...
I have often raised the question how "roman" was Aetius actually? We judge his acts and policies based on a contemporary view of the roman history. But he had the view of his time, having knowledge of roman past glory through few accounts of writers.
He was born around 390-396 according to source, in an already weaken empire. He spent many years as hostage in the court of barbarians. When he was a young adult most of the western roman world had been devastated by barbarians and most part of the empire settled by them.
Being a roman in 430AD was a totally different feeling than in 370AD.
Therefore his use of barbarian troops is not strange at all, also bearing in mind that "native" troops often proove non reliable in the past (and still, I am conviced there were no native troops anymore after at least 420 except local militias).
Settling barbarians in within the former empire bordes probably contribued to it's final decline but was there another option? Maybe he considered their presence as a potential source of manpower when needed.
But I do agree that the title of "last of the roman" is more a romantic view by the modern world than wat he really was or tried to achieve.
Don't shoot me, it's just an opinion
:wink:
I read some critics he acted only for his own wealth or avidity for power. True, but who did not in Roman history? Cesar, Pompei, Constantine, ...
I have often raised the question how "roman" was Aetius actually? We judge his acts and policies based on a contemporary view of the roman history. But he had the view of his time, having knowledge of roman past glory through few accounts of writers.
He was born around 390-396 according to source, in an already weaken empire. He spent many years as hostage in the court of barbarians. When he was a young adult most of the western roman world had been devastated by barbarians and most part of the empire settled by them.
Being a roman in 430AD was a totally different feeling than in 370AD.
Therefore his use of barbarian troops is not strange at all, also bearing in mind that "native" troops often proove non reliable in the past (and still, I am conviced there were no native troops anymore after at least 420 except local militias).
Settling barbarians in within the former empire bordes probably contribued to it's final decline but was there another option? Maybe he considered their presence as a potential source of manpower when needed.
But I do agree that the title of "last of the roman" is more a romantic view by the modern world than wat he really was or tried to achieve.
Don't shoot me, it's just an opinion
:wink:
thanks for reading, David Hennion
