10-07-2018, 12:52 PM
The theory that the late Roman army was significantly 'barbarized' (ie transformed in a major way, culturally or ethnically or in terms of loyalty or efficiency, by the influx of men of 'barbarian' origin) in the 4th-5th century appears to have become quite unpopular lately.
A quick search on RAT reveals that reports of a drastic barbarization of the legions in the West are pure exaggerations, that barbarization wasn't all that common, that we should not rely on outdated notions of Barbarization, that the barbarization of the roman army is a myth. At least until the 2nd half of the 4th century, and even that the concept of "Barbarization" is completely false and has been thoroughly disproven since the 60's.
However, I wonder if we are going too far in dismissing this idea completely? Just because the changes in the army did not lead directly to military failure or the empire's fall, does not mean that they did not happen...
I was looking through some letters by Ambrose, bishop of Milan, and found a couple of interesting details relating to the situation in the 380s:
Letter 20 (Easter AD385) describes the seizure of the basilica by soldiers. "Some Gothic tribunes were present," Ambrose writes, "whom I accosted, and said, Have you received the gift of Roman rights in order to make yourselves disturbers of the public peace?"
The following day the basilica was again surrounded by soldiers: "the Goths came, and men of different nations; they came with weapons and surrounded and occupied the Basilica."
Note that Ambrose here makes no distinction between 'soldiers' and 'Goths and men of different nations' (ie barbarians), and they are commanded by Gothic tribunes. Perhaps he is making this connection to underline the Arian (ie treacherous and 'foreign') sympathies of the troops? Or perhaps the soldiers are Scholae from the palace, who had long beeen recruited from Germanic peoples?
In Letter 10, meanwhile (AD381), Ambrose describes the actions of Julianus Valens, formerly bishop of Poetovio: "a man, who, polluted with the impiety of the Goths, presumed, as is asserted, to go forth in the sight of a Roman army, wearing like a Pagan a collar and bracelet: which is unquestionably a sacrilege not only in a Bishop, but also in any Christian whatever: for it is alien to the Roman customs. It may be that the idolatrous priests of the Goths commonly go forth in such guise."
Valens had fled Poetovio, which suggests that this event happened at Milan (where he was later residing), and that the 'Roman army' in question was the imperial field army based at that city. So why did Valens appear before the troops dressed (apparently) as a Gothic priest? The implication, I think, is that the army contained large numbers of Arian Goths! However, they were still 'a Roman army'...
Hugh Elton is often cited in evidence against 'barbarization', and particularly his analysis of recorded names of Roman soldiers in the 4th-5th century. But we know that men with 'Roman' names could easily have 'barbarian' origin, and some (perhaps most?) non-Roman recruits were given new names on enlistment - and citizenship too, if Ambrose's letter above is proof for the army as a whole. Without further information, a man's name tells us nothing much about his origin.
So what other evidence might there be to support the idea that the post-Adrianople Roman army was still largely recruited from Roman citizens? During the Gothic invasion crisis of AD406, the Roman state was forced to enlist freed slaves into the ranks (CTh 7.13.16), which suggests that normal avenues of recruitment were no longer available.
Conversely, could we say that by c.AD400, the majority of men serving in the Roman army at all levels, from new recruits to the most senior commanders, were of non-Roman or barbarian origin, or would that be going too far?
Meanwhile, I like this discussion of the subject by Vedran Bileta, which takes a middle course: The Last Legions: The “barbarization” of military identity in the Late Roman West.
A quick search on RAT reveals that reports of a drastic barbarization of the legions in the West are pure exaggerations, that barbarization wasn't all that common, that we should not rely on outdated notions of Barbarization, that the barbarization of the roman army is a myth. At least until the 2nd half of the 4th century, and even that the concept of "Barbarization" is completely false and has been thoroughly disproven since the 60's.
However, I wonder if we are going too far in dismissing this idea completely? Just because the changes in the army did not lead directly to military failure or the empire's fall, does not mean that they did not happen...
I was looking through some letters by Ambrose, bishop of Milan, and found a couple of interesting details relating to the situation in the 380s:
Letter 20 (Easter AD385) describes the seizure of the basilica by soldiers. "Some Gothic tribunes were present," Ambrose writes, "whom I accosted, and said, Have you received the gift of Roman rights in order to make yourselves disturbers of the public peace?"
The following day the basilica was again surrounded by soldiers: "the Goths came, and men of different nations; they came with weapons and surrounded and occupied the Basilica."
Note that Ambrose here makes no distinction between 'soldiers' and 'Goths and men of different nations' (ie barbarians), and they are commanded by Gothic tribunes. Perhaps he is making this connection to underline the Arian (ie treacherous and 'foreign') sympathies of the troops? Or perhaps the soldiers are Scholae from the palace, who had long beeen recruited from Germanic peoples?
In Letter 10, meanwhile (AD381), Ambrose describes the actions of Julianus Valens, formerly bishop of Poetovio: "a man, who, polluted with the impiety of the Goths, presumed, as is asserted, to go forth in the sight of a Roman army, wearing like a Pagan a collar and bracelet: which is unquestionably a sacrilege not only in a Bishop, but also in any Christian whatever: for it is alien to the Roman customs. It may be that the idolatrous priests of the Goths commonly go forth in such guise."
Valens had fled Poetovio, which suggests that this event happened at Milan (where he was later residing), and that the 'Roman army' in question was the imperial field army based at that city. So why did Valens appear before the troops dressed (apparently) as a Gothic priest? The implication, I think, is that the army contained large numbers of Arian Goths! However, they were still 'a Roman army'...
Hugh Elton is often cited in evidence against 'barbarization', and particularly his analysis of recorded names of Roman soldiers in the 4th-5th century. But we know that men with 'Roman' names could easily have 'barbarian' origin, and some (perhaps most?) non-Roman recruits were given new names on enlistment - and citizenship too, if Ambrose's letter above is proof for the army as a whole. Without further information, a man's name tells us nothing much about his origin.
So what other evidence might there be to support the idea that the post-Adrianople Roman army was still largely recruited from Roman citizens? During the Gothic invasion crisis of AD406, the Roman state was forced to enlist freed slaves into the ranks (CTh 7.13.16), which suggests that normal avenues of recruitment were no longer available.
Conversely, could we say that by c.AD400, the majority of men serving in the Roman army at all levels, from new recruits to the most senior commanders, were of non-Roman or barbarian origin, or would that be going too far?
Meanwhile, I like this discussion of the subject by Vedran Bileta, which takes a middle course: The Last Legions: The “barbarization” of military identity in the Late Roman West.
Nathan Ross
