10-16-2007, 11:45 PM
Ironhand,
About the Goths, a lot of what you say makes sense. I can see how barbarian confederations would splinter into subgroups if a siege dragged on. But that seems to be all the more reason to take a small town by assault. Even the simplest barbarian, I would think, could construct siege ladders and battering rams. So, I think there's more going on with their unwillingness or inability to take towns and cities.
I think a major difference that allowed the 5th century Huns, unlike the 4th century Goths, to starve out cities was that they had a base to operate from that could supply Attila from vast distances. The Goths after Adrianople had no such base and could only live off the land by foraging. This was made difficult by Theodosius who ordered all food provisions to be stored inside the cities. How ironic, the Goths controlled the countryside unopposed yet they were starved out by the Romans huddling behind city walls !
Agreed. I would state it more plainly by saying that the Huns, like the Mongols, had no culture to offer their subjects once they became sedentary in the 5th century. They, again like the Mongols, became assimilated by the native populations. The Huns converted to Christianity while many Mongols became Muslims. As long as both groups remained nomadic or semi-nomadic the could rely on what little culture they had to preserve their identities.
Hi Voritgern,
Volunteers ? They were a rare breed from what I read about the Late Empire. Most soldiers were either conscripted or born into the army since pay was so meager and danger was so great, right ? Self-mutilation seems to have been wide spread to avoid conscription based on new laws penalizing such methods. Nonetheless, I suppose there were a few men willing to sign up.
More likely volunteers, I thought, would be upper class Romans like Orestes who served willingly under Attila.
Fleeing is one thing. Actively serving the enemies of the state is quite another, imo. Besides, two wrongs don't make a right.
Yes, I remember reading that too from AHM Jone's "The Later Roman Empire". I would've expropriated a few senatorial offenders to make an example. :twisted: Seriously.
Didn't everyone in a city or town have access to baths, hot water, etc... ?
Right, but if you're poor what are the chances that you have valuable knowledge and skills that would interest barbarians who want to conquer cities and towns ?
I only questioned the quality of foederates which I mistakenly thought you were referring to.
Intelligence was never an issue. Just physical, military, and technological inabilities that prevented barbarians from besieging Roman towns and cities. And accepting barbarian recruits at this period seems to have been done more out of desperation than admiration.
~Theo
About the Goths, a lot of what you say makes sense. I can see how barbarian confederations would splinter into subgroups if a siege dragged on. But that seems to be all the more reason to take a small town by assault. Even the simplest barbarian, I would think, could construct siege ladders and battering rams. So, I think there's more going on with their unwillingness or inability to take towns and cities.
I think a major difference that allowed the 5th century Huns, unlike the 4th century Goths, to starve out cities was that they had a base to operate from that could supply Attila from vast distances. The Goths after Adrianople had no such base and could only live off the land by foraging. This was made difficult by Theodosius who ordered all food provisions to be stored inside the cities. How ironic, the Goths controlled the countryside unopposed yet they were starved out by the Romans huddling behind city walls !
Quote:The weakness of the Huns was lack of numbers to hold a conquered territory and in short the very natures of the people does not lend itself well to times of peace. While they were very capable at applying the same types of intelligence to other non-military matters, the softer form of life did not appeal to them.
Agreed. I would state it more plainly by saying that the Huns, like the Mongols, had no culture to offer their subjects once they became sedentary in the 5th century. They, again like the Mongols, became assimilated by the native populations. The Huns converted to Christianity while many Mongols became Muslims. As long as both groups remained nomadic or semi-nomadic the could rely on what little culture they had to preserve their identities.
Hi Voritgern,
Quote:I did not speak of foederati but of volunteers, who were integrated into the Roman army like the next guy. Many of these men rose to high ranks and their sons could eventually reach very high posts or even become emperor!
Volunteers ? They were a rare breed from what I read about the Late Empire. Most soldiers were either conscripted or born into the army since pay was so meager and danger was so great, right ? Self-mutilation seems to have been wide spread to avoid conscription based on new laws penalizing such methods. Nonetheless, I suppose there were a few men willing to sign up.
More likely volunteers, I thought, would be upper class Romans like Orestes who served willingly under Attila.
Quote:You can call Romans who fled to the barbarians 'traitors' of course, but then I expect you don't care too much for the sometimes enormous tax pressures that rested on Roman citizens.
Fleeing is one thing. Actively serving the enemies of the state is quite another, imo. Besides, two wrongs don't make a right.
Quote:It is known that Roman society favoured the very rich
Yes, I remember reading that too from AHM Jone's "The Later Roman Empire". I would've expropriated a few senatorial offenders to make an example. :twisted: Seriously.
Quote:Many of the lower Roman classes did not have any 'creature comforts' to speak of, and especially during the harsh economic crisis of the 5th c.
Didn't everyone in a city or town have access to baths, hot water, etc... ?
Quote:You can be poor in barbarian lands as easy as in Roman lands, with about as much chances for justice, but the barbarian lords at least don't have a totally repressive taxation system.
Right, but if you're poor what are the chances that you have valuable knowledge and skills that would interest barbarians who want to conquer cities and towns ?
Quote:Don't underestimate these people - there happened to be quite qualified people among them, from what we would call the higher middle classes.
I only questioned the quality of foederates which I mistakenly thought you were referring to.
Quote:Barbarians were not stupid and apparently had no problems in admitting them
Intelligence was never an issue. Just physical, military, and technological inabilities that prevented barbarians from besieging Roman towns and cities. And accepting barbarian recruits at this period seems to have been done more out of desperation than admiration.
~Theo
Jaime
