Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Defences of the western Roman empire in 5th century
#1
I have a question; could somebody explain to me what the military situation was during Flavius Aetius's period in the western empire?
All I know is that he lost a battle against Bonifacius in 432 and he took with him all comitatenses troops from Gaul except two legions or so and later on Aetius was dependant on his Hunnic allies to counter the Goths in Gaul.
Now I have a quite few (say: a lot) dark spots inside of my head (and I'm probably not alone on this)...

What was the condition of the frontier garrisons? Did the legions still play a part in this? Were there still legions or any other significant armies in Italy and Illyricum to secure these regions or was the defence of the empire totally in the hands of mercenaries like Huns, Germanics, etc. from abroad? (which I presume is the case)
What role does the Auxilia Palatina play in all this?

Anyone with any theory, hypothese or attempts to make things (more) clear is welcome Smile

Thank you :wink:


P.S. I'm trying to work this whole thing out in Rome: Total War setting but I don't know where to look for this specific and 'hard-to-get' info.
Thijs Koelewijn
Reply
#2
That's the million-euro question. Hugh Elton advocates a model that sees the Roman army 'victorious where it went'. Others see the same, but interpret the glass as 'half-empty', and see the Roman army instead 'running from theatre to theatre' without ever again achieving military dominace on all fronts.

Some think that there was a Roman field army, increasingly drawing the limitanei from the border into the comitatenses and filling the gaps with treaty-bound Germanic foederati.
The 'diminishing from the edges' model.

Other see a viable Roman military organisation that went 'private' after Roman centralised control ceased to exist. This model treats Roman generals like Syagrius as working within a Roman military machine, as well as the role of Frankish kings-cum-magister militum functions.
The 'failing from the top' model.

There is also a theory that actually puts that there was no Roman army of name during Aetius' rule, and that Roman dominance rested solely on treaties with germanic and other barbarian peoples (in return for the right to settle within the empire). Such treaties went good, but the Romans were never again able to control any in-fighting in Gaul, nor effectively withstand land-grabbing by, say, Visigoths and Burgundians in the 2nd half of the 5th c.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#3
There is a theory, that the Roman influence in this /our region, is not very big anymore around 400.

There is even a discussion if the limes, in that period, were further south than generaly thought.
No clear proof yet, through excavations and reports.

Maybe you can find info about this in a University library, which also has Archaeology as a study.
Regards

Garrelt
-----------------------------------------------------
Living History Group Teuxandrii
Taberna Germanica
Numerus I Exploratores Teuxandrii (Pedites et Equites)
Ludus Gladiatorii Gunsula
Jomsborg Elag Hrafntrae
Reply
#4
Guy Halsall's recent "Barbarian Migrations" book has a useful analysis that would, IMO, help you - as well as being a very good book on the subject for the whole of the empire in the west.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

mailto:[email protected]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/">http://www.endoftime.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Reply
#5
Quote:I have a question; could somebody explain to me what the military situation was during Flavius Aetius's period in the western empire?
All I know is that he lost a battle against Bonifacius in 432

We should remember that due to Aetius' political intrigue North Africa, the Western Empire's wealthiest province, was lost to the Vandals. This greatly reduced revenues to the imperial coffers which exacerbated the Empire's declining military situation.

Quote:P.S. I'm trying to work this whole thing out in Rome: Total War setting but I don't know where to look for this specific and 'hard-to-get' info

This book will help you with creating historically plausible armies - Persian, Barbarians, and Romans.

Are you playing the "Invasio Barbarorum" mod (updated version) ?
They've added new factions like : Lakhmid Arabs and Armenians.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#6
Quote:
Razor:2aenzi2v Wrote:I have a question; could somebody explain to me what the military situation was during Flavius Aetius's period in the western empire?
All I know is that he lost a battle against Bonifacius in 432
We should remember that due to Aetius' political intrigue North Africa, the Western Empire's wealthiest province, was lost to the Vandals. This greatly reduced revenues to the imperial coffers which exacerbated the Empire's declining military situation.
I agree that the impact of the loss of North Africa was desastrous, but can we blame Aetius for that? I think Boniface was the prime suspect of inviting them over from Spain. Aetius surely never sent them there, but within a year of their arrival in 429 they're already besieging Hippo...

Some parallels to Vortigern and the Saxons in roughly the same period come to mind...
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#7
Quote:I agree that the impact of the loss of North Africa was desastrous, but can we blame Aetius for that? I think Boniface was the prime suspect of inviting them over from Spain. Aetius surely never sent them there, but within a year of their arrival in 429 they're already besieging Hippo...

To a point, I agree that Boniface shares the blame. However, we can look to the subsequent period when Aetius was supreme general of all the Western Empire. He made no effort to recover North Africa in the early 430s. That was a critical period where the Vandals were victorious but weakened after so many years of warfare. But instead of sending an expedition to recover the province, Aetius gave the Vandals a much needed reprieve to recover their strength.

IMO, Aetius' priorities were too Euro-centric or even Gallo-centric. He placed Gaul above Africa because the former was his power base.

I know it's easy for me to be critical but it seems so natural to think that if I could chose only two provinces to focus on protecting, it would be Italy and North Africa (in that order).

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#8
I have doubts if Aetius even have any spare army to send to Africa.
Pavel Nikolajev / VANDALICVS
DECIMA GEMINA

DUM SPIRO SPERO
Reply
#9
Yes, that's my point. He had no spare army because he valued Gaul over all other provinces. Because of that mistake, IMO, his armies dwindled even further.

Aetius also made no use of the fleet that Constantine III successfully used to repel the invading fleet from Carthage in the early 400s. Similar situation to Aetius' predicament, IMO. Both men controlled Italy and faced rebellion in North Africa.

~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#10
Did that fleet still existed?
Reply
#11
Jaime, Aetius was magister militum per Gallias, he had no jurisdiction in Africa. There was hardly a choice for him to 'value' Gaul over Africa, Africa was not his job, but of the Comes Africae. Blame another guy.

Quote: He had no spare army because he valued Gaul over all other provinces. Because of that mistake, IMO, his armies dwindled even further.
I would rather say he had no spare army, period. And since control of Gaul meant control of Italy, he had little choice. The Visigoths were already besieging Arelate in 427, Franks invaded soon after, so even if his collegue in Africa had asked for help, or Ravenna would have ordered him to help, he did not have the opportunity to do so. But no such order is known anyway, and Aetius was too early 'in the job' to be seen as ruler of the West at that time already.

Quote:Aetius also made no use of the fleet that Constantine III successfully used to repel the invading fleet from Carthage in the early 400s. Similar situation to Aetius' predicament, IMO. Both men controlled Italy and faced rebellion in North Africa.
Ah, but Constantine III never controlled Italy to begin with?

Are you referring to Constantius III, the one who ruled only a few months?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#12
Wow, thanks for the info and theories.

Garrelt, Perhaps I might look it up in the university libraries but for now I'm just busy busy and busy with other stuff.

Robert, which timeperiod are we discussing? pre-433 or post-433? I always believed that Aetius became THE magister militum in the west after Galla Placidia reinstated him after returning with his Hunnic allies (that would be the year 433).
Then he could have send troops to Africa IF he had the opportunity and the troops available?
Perhaps a plausible explanation would be that the situation in Gaul was just that very very instable that Aetius couldn't leave Gaul because the problems could only be restrained by his Hunnic allies (and apparently Aetius was the keyfigure to keep the Huns as allies). Turning away from Gaul to Africa would be too risky? :?:
Thijs Koelewijn
Reply
#13
Well, Bonifatius who was defending Africa was recalled to Italy to fight Aetius. In the emantime the Vandals took big parts of Africa and after 433 Aetius had to fight the Burgundians and the Alans. After this campaign the Roman government had already signed a treaty with the Vandals. So I guess, no, he couldn't really do anything about the situation in Africa.

It was lost because the Emperor thought it was more important to fight Aetius and after his return he was occupied with defending Gallia.
RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS

DEDITICIVS MINERVAE ET MVSARVM

[Micha F.]
Reply
#14
Quote:Did that fleet still existed?
It's only a twenty year lapse from Aetius's accession.

Quote:Aetius was magister militum per Gallias, he had no jurisdiction in Africa
Even after Boniface was killed ? I meant the 430s, after Boniface was gone. Are you saying Aetius did not have the legal authority to send an expedition to Africa during that time period ?

I don't see why Gaul's fate should be tied to Italy's. Abandoning Gaul to save Africa would seem to be wiser, IMO. Once Africa was recovered then he could have focused on Gaul again.

Quote:Are you referring to Constantius III, the one who ruled only a few months?
Oops ! Yes, I meant Constantius III. Sorry for using the anglicized version of his name :oops:

Quote:Turning away from Gaul to Africa would be too risky?
Yes, that's my question as well. What that the conventional wisdom at the time (and now) ?

Quote:the Roman government had already signed a treaty with the Vandals. So I guess, no, he couldn't really do anything about the situation in Africa.
Yes, but the treaty was broken when a joint naval expedition was eventually sent by both Empires. Besides, I doubt that the Western Emperor was truly independent or was strong enough to impose his authority.


~Theo
Jaime
Reply
#15
But in 20 years a fleet of wood ships can rot very quickly, especially if you don't have the money or the interest to keep it. Why spend a small fortune to keep it if more important matters are pressing? Remember that when the joint expedition was made, a new fleet was build, meaning that the old fleet didn't existed anymore.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Roman Army Units in the Western Provinces (1): 31 BC-AD 195 Condottiero Magno 4 4,058 08-12-2016, 10:40 PM
Last Post: Graham Sumner
  Third Century AD - the Empire is Never Reunited Paul Elliott 5 1,411 07-26-2013, 10:46 AM
Last Post: Nathan Ross
  Aetius and the Western Empire Renicus Ferrarius 52 9,115 09-11-2012, 12:03 AM
Last Post: Flavivs Aetivs

Forum Jump: