When did the Roman Empire fall (your thoughts)?

[starman2012]

After Adrianople there were two major defeats for the Western army. In 388 Theodosius defeated the West in a hard-fought civil war at the Battle of the Save, during the course of which large numbers of Western troops were lost. As if that wasn't enough, in 394 there was another civil war during which even more Western troops were killed at the Battle of the Frigidus. These two major defeats for the West was the major cause of the West's manpower shortages.

But for centuries, defeats caused only temporary shortages. Until the fifth century it seems.

[sonic]

After Adrianople there were two major defeats for the Western army. In 388 Theodosius defeated the West in a hard-fought civil war at the Battle of the Save, during the course of which large numbers of Western troops were lost. As if that wasn't enough, in 394 there was another civil war during which even more Western troops were killed at the Battle of the Frigidus. These two major defeats for the West was the major cause of the West's manpower shortages.

But for centuries, defeats caused only temporary shortages. Until the fifth century it seems.

Possibly, but earlier defeats were against an 'external' enemy, with a perceived threat to Rome. When the battles are jumped-up generals fighting each other for political power, would people in the West want to sign up?

[Marja]

It didn't keep Caesar and Pompeius from recruiting. Of course, the late imperial Roman army was probably larger than the opposing late republican Roman armies in any of those conflicts.

It was probably policy that made the biggest difference though.

By hiring outside mercenaries they could bolster their own strength, keep the other side from hiring the same mercenaries to bolster their strength, and keep the mercenaries from raiding. By hiring Romans from their own territory, they would only accomplish the first of these. And by hiring Alanic or Hunnish mercenaries, they could reinforce their light cavalry; it was an important enough arm that Belisarius was still hiring Hunnish mercenaries to reinforce the light cavalry in the sixth century.

By more often using Roman troops to garrison key cities they might have somewhat fewer conflicts between garrisons and civilians, and by more often using mercenary troops to fight their battles they might use the opportunity to get rid of the ones they don't want. A few Roman historians praise Theodosius for getting his barbarian troops killed at the Frigidus.

P.S. I don't think this was a good idea. A few modern historians have suggested that the losses at the Frigidus may have prompted some of the revolts after the death of Theodosius.

[Theodosius the Great]

Marja et Tim,

You both seem to be focused on troop numbers while overlooking quality. How long do you think it takes to train raw recruits into a formidable force? At minimum?

It didn't keep Caesar and Pompeius from recruiting.

And why did Pompey lose with his vastly superior force? Because Caesar's troops were battle-hardened veterans with ten years experience. And both men, IIRC, resorted to recruiting non-citizens. Even before the civil war Caesar enrolled barbarians into Legio V 'Alaudae'.

Of course, the late imperial Roman army was probably larger than the opposing late republican Roman armies in any of those conflicts.

I think you've found your answer. The civil wars of the fourth century were more destructive than any from the preceding centuries. Bigger wars = bigger losses.

P.S. I don't think this was a good idea. A few modern historians have suggested that the losses at the Frigidus may have prompted some of the revolts after the death of Theodosius.

The worst idea came after Stilicho was executed. Olympius had the federate troops' families massacred which promted the soldiers to switch allegiance to Alaric. (Zosimus, book V.)

The soldiers who were in the city, on hearing of the death of Stilico, fell upon all the women and children in the city, who belonged to the Barbarians. Having, as by a preconcerted signal, destroyed every individual of them, they plundered them of all they possessed. When this was known to the relations of those who were murdered, they assembled together from all quarters. Being highly incensed against the Romans for so impious a breach of the promises they had made in the presence of the gods, they all resolved to join with Alaric, and to assist him in a war against Rome. Having therefore collected to the number of thirty thousand men, they fixed themselves in whatever place they pleased.


~Theo

[starman2012]

Possibly, but earlier defeats were against an 'external' enemy, with a perceived threat to Rome. When the battles are jumped-up generals fighting each other for political power, would people in the West want to sign up?

I don't think it mattered much who they had to fight provided they got pay and other benefits. (Fighting Persian cataphracts could be at least as dangerous as fighting other legionaries.) After all the internecine fighting and other chaos from 193-97 and 235-60, powerful armies capable of winning battles reappeared soon enough.

[starman2012]

By more often using Roman troops to garrison key cities they might have somewhat fewer conflicts between garrisons and civilians,

Often civilians didn't like having to provide accomodation etc to soldiers, who often were demanding and arrogant.

and by more often using mercenary troops to fight their battles they might use the opportunity to get rid of the ones they don't want. A few Roman historians praise Theodosius for getting his barbarian troops killed at the Frigidus.

P.S. I don't think this was a good idea. A few modern historians have suggested that the losses at the Frigidus may have prompted some of the revolts after the death of Theodosius.

Even worse, using mercenary or "federate" troops meant relying on untrustworthy elements for the bulk of combat power. I think that Roman commanders would've preferred to have an army of citizen soldiers. They had to have, or tolerate mercenaries and "federates" because lack of enough citizen recruits left them with no choice. By or after 408, the only way to fight one barbarian group was to hire another.

[starman2012]

And why did Pompey lose with his vastly superior force? Because Caesar's troops were battle-hardened veterans with ten years experience.

Or because Caesar was a better general.

The civil wars of the fourth century were more destructive than any from the preceding centuries. Bigger wars = bigger losses.

I don't think civil wars necessarily degraded combat power, provided there were ample replacements. Logdunum must've been very rough on the Severan army but it took Parthia's capital not one year later.

The worst idea came after Stilicho was executed. Olympius had the federate troops' families massacred which promted the soldiers to switch allegiance to Alaric.

It was awful dumb to alienate them. Without stilicho's troops, the West seemed helpless before alaric. Its losses were his gains.

[Theodosius the Great]

Or because Caesar was a better general.

*sigh* I hope that wasn't hero-worship. Caesar faced reversals fighting Pompey as well. Sure, his generalship was superior but not the only factor. Otherwise your "numbers" argument makes no sense.

At Pharsalus, Pompey had all the advantages in position, infantry and cavalry. But Pompey, tellingly, relied on his cavalry to win the battle. After his cavalry were routed he still had superior infantry but he knew he couldn't count on them because they were inferior fighting material.

I don't think civil wars necessarily degraded combat power, provided there were ample replacements.

Other factors to be considered are duration, frequency and scale of civil wars.

~Theo

[starman2012]

Other factors to be considered are duration, frequency and scale of civil wars.

All were probably as bad in the late republican period and third century as they were in the fourth; moreover those of the third century were compounded by major defeats inflicted by foreign powers, and worse than Adrianople. Julian btw was beaten strategically in 363 but tactically his army performed quite well i.e. it didn't suffer great losses.

[M. Demetrius]

Caesar may have been more flexible, such as secretly mixing the cohort of infantry into his own cavalry to upset the Pompeiian cavalry. That turned the tide, as it were. But that doesn't really have to do with the fall of the Empire--thought it was probably a large factor in the fall of the Republic.

[Nikanor]

Lets reduce the issue to basics:

- There was never any 'Roman' tribe, or 'Roman ethnic group' or 'Roman nation' nor there was ever any Roman state in the strict sense we give today so as to note its start and its finish date. Speaking of the Greek-named city of Rome, since its inception in archaic times, this was a union of nearby towns and their various populations ranging from the more numerous local Latins to the northern neighbours Etruscans and southern colonists Greeks with the last two being incorporated in the local upper classes forming a new overclass ruling over the locals, later expanding to include others.

- It is this caste power-formation which defined Rome and its ascension in international to power over a painstaking more than 3 centuries to establish an Empire. Still today we view it in a monolithic way and we think it was all about military conquests when it had been precisely all about Roman internationalized aristocracies using expert diplomacy extending their oligarchical links with all neighbrouring ones. Today we colour the map of the Roman Empire when back then everything was relative. Even in the heyday between 100 BC to 200 AD, you had inside states with full self-governance, others that did not pay taxes, others that even minted their own coinage and others that even maintained own armies - i.e. everything to tell us that there was no universal state law, thus in a very basic way no precise Empire in the sense we give it today and it is our definitions that are raising the trouble. We should thus rather see it more as the 'Roman system'.

- In this sense, there is absolutely no clear end to the Roman Empire, i.e. of the 'Roman System'. The finance and the power was almost since the beginning based in the East and by late 3rd AD century the capital of the Empire had already moved repeatedly in the East, and by early 4th century AD Constantine moved it permanently in Constantinople, i.e. at the Empire's most strategic position. By then, so much was by then the divide between the East and West that a few decades later, when the western parts including Rome were overrun by northern germanic trines, there was minimal (for the event) fuss among Eastern Romans while there was a huge negative reaction 2 centuries later to Justinian's efforts in the West.

Effectively this very Roman power-system continued uninterrupted up to 1204. Yes it had already changed religion. Yes it was not Latin Romans manning and ruling it but Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians for the most among others. Yes it even discarded Latin language sticking to the popular Greek (native of ethnic Greeks who constituted about half of the population). But then this was nothing new for Rome - it had happened again - as Greek was the initial language of Roman high castes till the 5th century BC prior to reforms.

We thus do talk about the very Roman power system going on throughout all these centuries up to the early 13rth AD century, when, in 1204 the Venetians (themselves effectively formed by renegade oligarchies out of the very Eastern Roman Empire) led an army mostly of Franks against Constantinople tearing it down and destroying it permanently. After this - no matter the whatever Despotates the continuity of this power-system was over thus we may speak of the end at 1204 as it being the only date on which we may speak of a technical end. 1453 is thus out of question. There was no Empire, nor a System there anymore.

[Nikanor]

Of course for the fans of Caton we may provide several ends of the Roman Empire:

1) Let us start with a near-end:
31 BC battle of Actium: Antonius lost victory out of his hands. Had he won it, he and his Greek princess Cleopatra who was of an ancestry worldwide seen as more high than the highest of Romans, would had moved the epicenter of the Empire in the East. I.e. we would have a similar pattern to what happened in 4th century AD in late 1st BC century.

... of course this did not happen but one cannot fail but notice the early tendency!

2) A first end can be noted as the downfall of the old families in the mid-1st AD century: Not a nation, nor a tribe but a power system, what was really Rome if not the story of its aristocratic families? With the fall of the Claudians and the first rise of obscure families such as the Flavians we may mark an end of Roman power. While this lead to the Empire becoming eventually even more powerful it can be argued that it was never to be the same again as never again would the ancient Roman castes have pre-eminence.

... yet for most people the above is not sufficient: ancestry of succesors was also quite Latin, then why should it play any role?
However even this last vestige of justification was already gone in the very late 2nd century.

3) A first really visible end comes with the rise of the Severan Dynasty in the last decade of the 2nd AD century, a dynasty of Eastern (i.e. foreign to Roman) origins that changed irreversibly the Empire on all accounts kickstarting the orientalisation period of the Empire which included the wide spread of asiatic religions including eventually christianism as well as the complete and irrevocable transfer of power from Rome to the East.

... and if the rise of the Severans is not enough for some as ancestry of Emperors and the styles they introduced should not play role in Imperial terms, then the last vestige of "old Rome" has to be set prior to the rise of Diocletian. This is the Emperor who not only abolished Rome as capital (never even setting foot there) but who divided the Empire into two self-ruling states.

4) Rome as an Empire-state (but not as System) ended clearly by Diocletian: himself a non-Latin in ancestry from Dalmatia, clearly marks the end of "Rome as they knew it" : he divided the Empire into Eastern and Western states out of which he choose of course the valuable East giving to his friend Maximian the much less valuable West and then both employed 2 Ceasars to rule over half of their constituencies. Diocletian did many other reforms that - no matter his staunch pro-pagan policies - made may describe him as the first Byzantine Emperor (in the sense of assigning crudely every non-Roman and every oriental-like colour to "Byzantines" while this was far from the truth as the orientalisation had started 100 years earlier than the rise of Diocletian with the Severans.

From the above, it is either the rise of the Severans or the rise of Diocletian and the Tetrarchy that has to be seen as the end of the good-old Roman Empire. For me it is rather the Severans as I see Diocletian as the end-result of what the Severans started earlier on. Beyond the above all the rest are simply inscribed in the continuation of the Roman System. When we mention that Constantine "moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople" we are totally wrong in all historic sense as Rome had ceased to be the capital some 5 decades before during Diocletian's reign. The Roman System had already evolved well since before Diocletian himself.

At last, assigning the end of the Roman into petty battles with lawless barbarians in the west should be best left to Gibbon who picked up things he liked and discarded things he did not like from history.

[starman2012]

the rise of Diocletian. This is the Emperor who not only abolished Rome as capital (never even setting foot there)

IIRC Diocletian did visit Rome but wasn't impressed by its people.

From the above, it is either the rise of the Severans or the rise of Diocletian and the Tetrarchy that has to be seen as the end of the good-old Roman Empire.

How about c 268 CE when the Illyrians replaced Gallienus? The latter and his father were from an old and distinguished family whereas the Illyrian emperors had more humble origins.

[Robert Vermaat]

I take it English isn't your first language. Arguing.

Right on both counts.

[Robert Vermaat]

For an unknown reason everybody remembers the disaster that was the Battle of Adrianople as the 'last major defeat of the Roman army'.

Probably the same reason why 'everybody' remembers the Fall of Rome as the 'End of the Roman Empire'.