10-08-2018, 12:53 PM
The point that Elton makes is that there is no hard proof for any large-scale number of non-Romans in the army. Although the observations of Ambrose are interesting, they are local and may not be typical for any other unit of the army. Of course there were plenty of non-Romans in the Roman army. There were volunteers - palatine troops were perhaps more drawn from warlike barbarians, and of course foederati settled within the Empire were supposed to supply men to the army as well. And of course the bulk of non-Romans were those hired on a short-term basis for campaigns - Goths figured highly among those, and it was one the things Alaric meant to end.
However the bulk of the troops were conscripts and volunteers from the citizens themselves, at least in theory, and so far I've seen no evidence that contradicts that. To the contrary, two major incidents seem to prove this: the 'Germanic purges' of the army after the downfall of Stilicho resp. Gainas seem to indicate perfectly that the bulk of the army (at least of the field army) was Roman. Such incidents would not have been possible if 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.
I know the discussion about barbarians with Roman names, but we should not turn this evidence around. There are enough high-ranking Roman officials with non-Roman names (such as Stilicho), as well as many barbarian high-ranking officials with non-Roman names (such as Aspar) to speak against any notion that barbarians felt somehow obliged to change their given names into Roman ones at this period of Roman history
If we compare that to those instances in which we really can compare Roman names and non-Roman names (such as the late Roman cemetary of Concordia, dated c. 394 I think), it strengthens the conclusion made by Elton earlier that sufficient evidence of a 'barbarization of the army' is lacking.
In my opinion the search for such a barbarization is not new, you find it in Zosimus and Gibbon, but related to the lack of answers about the enigma of the Fall of the western Roman Empire.
However the bulk of the troops were conscripts and volunteers from the citizens themselves, at least in theory, and so far I've seen no evidence that contradicts that. To the contrary, two major incidents seem to prove this: the 'Germanic purges' of the army after the downfall of Stilicho resp. Gainas seem to indicate perfectly that the bulk of the army (at least of the field army) was Roman. Such incidents would not have been possible if 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.
I know the discussion about barbarians with Roman names, but we should not turn this evidence around. There are enough high-ranking Roman officials with non-Roman names (such as Stilicho), as well as many barbarian high-ranking officials with non-Roman names (such as Aspar) to speak against any notion that barbarians felt somehow obliged to change their given names into Roman ones at this period of Roman history
If we compare that to those instances in which we really can compare Roman names and non-Roman names (such as the late Roman cemetary of Concordia, dated c. 394 I think), it strengthens the conclusion made by Elton earlier that sufficient evidence of a 'barbarization of the army' is lacking.
In my opinion the search for such a barbarization is not new, you find it in Zosimus and Gibbon, but related to the lack of answers about the enigma of the Fall of the western Roman Empire.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
