Quality of Late Roman Legions

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

IMO it is probably better to see Alaric as a Roman general in revolt than a barbarian leader - the history makes much more sense that way. See T.S. Burns' "Barbarians Within the Gates of Rome" for probably the best work on this.

[Virilis]

All this leads to the basic question: Is it possible in general for an empire of this scale to survive for a longer period? I mean the ethnic, social, military, economical, logistical problems which comes along with an "empire" are such a burden that is it simply possible at all to keep it up in a coherent, static unit? I still believe that empires like these are surviving by the continuing dynamism brought by expansion & wars. Once the empire stops to expand, something very vital is lost at the same time... Don`t laugh.

[Hugh Fuller]

IMO it is probably better to see Alaric as a Roman general in revolt than a barbarian leader - the history makes much more sense that way. See T.S. Burns' "Barbarians Within the Gates of Rome" for probably the best work on this.

If you are correct, your post would seem to reinforce my point that the the invaders were becoming ever more sophisticated and Romanized, Alaric and his Visigoths to the point where he could be seen as a rebelling Roman general rather than a barbarian leader. IMO, he was neither a barbarian leader nor a Roman general but a rebelling leader of native unit brought into Roman Army under its own leaders and using arms, equipment, and tactics. I tend not to see Alaric as any more a Roman general than his eventual successor, Theodoric, who was killed at the Catalaunian Fields in 451. And the Visigoths were certainly not your typical barbarian hordes. they were a very disciplined and effective military force, which is what made both so useful and so threatening to the Romans.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

Actually I'd say Alaric was a Roman general who commanded the (mainly) ethnically Gothic units of the eastern army, however, these units were Roman and not tribal, paid and equipped by the state as any other Roman unit.

IMO Burns' work pretty much destroys the idea that the Goths at that time were "tribal" Goths and if you haven't read it I cannot recommend it enough.

The Goths of 451 were a much different beast.

[Hugh Fuller]

IMO it is probably better to see Alaric as a Roman general in revolt than a barbarian leader - the history makes much more sense that way. See T.S. Burns' "Barbarians Within the Gates of Rome" for probably the best work on this.

I took your advice and ordered a copy of this book through Amazon's used dealer network. It is costing $25 + $3.99 in shipping for a "Used, like new" condition book. I'll get back to you when I have had a chance to read what he has to say.

[Felix]

All this leads to the basic question: Is it possible in general for an empire of this scale to survive for a longer period? I mean the ethnic, social, military, economical, logistical problems which comes along with an "empire" are such a burden that is it simply possible at all to keep it up in a coherent, static unit? I still believe that empires like these are surviving by the continuing dynamism brought by expansion & wars. Once the empire stops to expand, something very vital is lost at the same time... Don`t laugh.

China is worth considering in regard to this problem. It came together and fell apart several times, and was continually either expanding or contracting, but stayed an empire for a very long time.

In ethnic terms, China did have an advantage of being the core civilization for that part of the world, whereas Rome was not. Of course, the part of the Roman world that was lost to barbarians was the part where Rome did have a higher degree of cultural dominance -- the West, and the Empire persisted in the part where older civilizations had flourished.

A much more significant advantage, I suspect, was the stability of Chinese government. Chinese dynasties rose and fell, but most dynasties provided a sustained period of stable peaceful government. The absence of long periods of civil war (as Hugh alluded to above) meant the human and financial resources of the Chinese empire were available to sustain the whole.

There were periods, when a dynasty was in decline, that a weak emperor (or a corrupt bureacracy) would survive by destroying any capable man who threatened him; but these were few and far apart.

Of course, when barbarians did succeed in conquering the empire, they ended up being Sinicized in order to govern it.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

I took your advice and ordered a copy of this book through Amazon's used dealer network. It is costing $25 + $3.99 in shipping for a "Used, like new" condition book. I'll get back to you when I have had a chance to read what he has to say.

Hope you find it useful - you're getting it cheaper than I did which would have been nearer $50 hock: Well worth it though IMO.

One to look for later this year will be a new book by Guy Halsall on "Barbarian Migrations and the Roman west, 376-568 " - I think its scheduled for November.

[Marcus Julius]

There are more answers than the questions you've asked. If there were a basic answer, Mine would be that Late Rome was a completely different culture than early Empire.

The difference in the legions themselves can be summed up as the difference between conscripted soldiers vs. volunteer warriors.

[A. Flavius]

Hi all,

Cheers for the many responses. I know comparing the the classical legions of the Early Empire to those of the Late Empire is a bit subjective. Too many years spent studying the days of Caesar and Augustus, I still find myself afflicted with the remnants of the disease known as Classicism.

As has been pointed out, the two eras in question were very different times and cultures. Simply because the Late Legions in question existed during the decline of the Empire in the West by no means indicated that they were inferior to the ones that conquered Gaul.

Cheers,

Scott.

[SigniferOne]

Why's classicism a disease...

Also, saying they were different cultures (which they were) I don't think precludes comparative analysis.

[A. Flavius]

Why's classicism a disease...

Read with tongue in cheek.

I'm simply having a go at the stereotypical Classicist who struggles to push their self past Diocletian (perhaps Julian) because that's when they start running into Church historians, Byzantine Historians, or even Medievalists.

Also, saying they were different cultures (which they were) I don't think precludes comparative analysis.

Whilst both came from a similar cultural background (Mediterranean for the most part) comparing the legions of the Principate with those of the Dominate would be like comparing the US Army in WWII to what it is today. Both met the challenges they faced.

[SigniferOne]

Except one didn't. That's why there's so much controversy...

[Marcus Julius]

Whilst both came from a similar cultural background (Mediterranean for the most part) comparing the legions of the Principate with those of the Dominate would be like comparing the US Army in WWII to what it is today. Both met the challenges they faced.

It's funny you bring that up, I've noticed a HUGE amount of similarities. Since modern politics aren't the proper thing to discuss here, I'll leave it alone, except to say that there are great similarities in both. While they do meet the challenges they face the best way that they are capable, they are, in fact, different challenges. My viewpoint is that the bigger differences stem from the home front - not the warfront.