Aetius and the Western Empire

[starman2012]

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, ...

Marcus Aurelius? mile: But your point is valid. Even someone with the best of intentions can't accomplish anything without staying in power.

Therefore his use of barbarian troops is not strange at all,

He was no stranger to Huns, having spent so much time with them.

(and still, I am conviced there were no native troops anymore after at least 420 except local militias).

That would also explain why Aetius turned to the Huns in the 430s.

Settling barbarians in within the former empire bordes probably contribued to it's final decline

I'll say...

but was there another option?

If they only the Romans had sufficient strength they would've killed or ejected them--with the exception of some settled on abandoned land.

Maybe he considered their presence as a potential source of manpower when needed.

Nothing new about recruiting barbarians by then but they didn't have to be within the empire, under their own kings for that.

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.

Aetius was very resourceful and repeatedly did what he had to do, including enlisting former enemies, in his own interest and in that of the empire--what was left of it.