Defences of the western Roman empire in 5th century

[Theodosius the Great]

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?

Good point, but I'm not that familiar with the fleet. This would be a good question to ask Jasper - this is more his field. I would think piracy would always be a threat to trade.

For the Punic Wars I know the Romans could easily build up a fleet within months and that was when the Empire comprised of just Italy.

Remember that when the joint expedition was made, a new fleet was build, meaning that the old fleet didn't existed anymore.

Well, I think an invasion fleet would require a ship-building program since the Romans had no use of one since the days of the Republic. So, it's probably a mistake to think that no fleet of any kind was in service.

~Theo

[taira1180]

Indeed, an invasion fleet (lot's of transporting ships) is a very different thing than a patrol fleet. But in the years after the invasion of africa, the vandals lauched several naval expeditions of pillage, without being disturb. Maybe the roman fleet (if it stil existed?), wasn't big enouth to do much more than defend against a couple of pirates ships.
But by the way, even if Aetius had a fleet, since the vandals were invited by Bonifacius, i don't see why he should send the fleet to Hispania (where the vandals were) and let Italia without a fleet: he must probably thougth that with their migration (and the remnant of the alani), it would be easy to destroy the suevii, and recover the Hispanic provinces. Or he simply didn't care/could do do anything.

[Ioannes Vandalicus]

comparing 5th century and punic wars is at least artificial. I mean, we cannot compare it.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

we can, as they are so different in the economic and power dynamics... :wink:

[Theodosius the Great]

Maybe the roman fleet (if it stil existed?), wasn't big enouth to do much more than defend against a couple of pirates ships.

I've re-read parts of Vegetius and he seems to speak of the fleet in the present tense. He wrote his 'Epitome' just a few years before Constantius III so I'm not sure if this sheds any light on our discussion.

A thought :

• if a fleet is not in use (due to a shortage of marines / oarsmen, etc.) then wouldn't ships be dry-docked to shield them from the elements ? From my reading about the Battle of Lepanto, I know the Venetians did this in the 15th and 16th centuries because they lacked manpower to permanently man all their ships

wasn't big enouth to do much more than defend against a couple of pirates ships.

Yes, it may have been reduced to something like a modern 'coast guard.'

But by the way, even if Aetius had a fleet, since the vandals were invited by Bonifacius, i don't see why he should send the fleet to Hispania (where the vandals were) and let Italia without a fleet

Why would anyone use a fleet to reconquer Hispania when you have land routes ?

But getting back to the main issue :

• was it militarily, strategically unfeasible to transfer troops from Gaul to Africa ? Let's leave aside the political obstacles for a moment.

~Theo

[Robert Vermaat]

I've re-read parts of Vegetius and he seems to speak of the fleet in the present tense. He wrote his 'Epitome' just a few years before Constantius III so I'm not sure if this sheds any light on our discussion.

We don't know exactly when Vegetius wrote, other go for a late 4th c. date, during the reign of Theodosius. But that hardly matters, a fleet in existance during the reign of Constantine III or even Constantius III might have been out of use during the 430s.

A thought :

• if a fleet is not in use (due to a shortage of marines / oarsmen, etc.) then wouldn't ships be dry-docked to shield them from the elements ?

I can't be sure of course, but the Romans often built fleets when they had use for them, letting them rot away after the expedition was over.

We see a similar attitude over here on the Lower Rhine: rather than sailing upriver, Roman barges were only used locally for a longer period of time, or else scrapped and/or used as a harbour defence.

But getting back to the main issue : was it militarily, strategically unfeasible to transfer troops from Gaul to Africa ? Let's leave aside the political obstacles for a moment.

Of course it would have been possible, but not logical. We always see that, in the case of Late Roman expeditions to Africa, the troops come either from Spain or, more commonly, from Italy and/or the East.

But Africa did not belong to Aetius' diocese, and only later may have fallen under his sphere of influence. But by that time he was beset with enough problems about Goths, Franks, Alamanni and Huns, to even have to luxury to worry about Africa. Before that, it was Boniface's job, and after him Aspar. Then, Rome recognises Gaiseric as Roman ally.

Let's see - a timeline:

424 - The governor Boniface supports Valentinian and is rewarded with the rank of comes Africae.
425 - Aetius becomes magister militum per Gallias.
426 - The Visigoths are raiding in southern Gaul.
427 - Aetius lifts the Visigothic siege of Arelate (Arles). Vandals and Alans raid the African provinces. The comes Africae Boniface is suspected of planning a revolt. He is recalled, but refuses and is declared an “enemy of the Republicâ€

[taira1180]

But the office of magister militum didn't make Aetius the supreme commander of the Western army? Or that office only meant to control Italy? (Anyway, this is a theoretical question, since with all those wars, it was obvious that he was to busy to to be preoccupied with Africa)

[Theodosius the Great]

I can't be sure of course, but the Romans often built fleets when they had use for them, letting them rot away after the expedition was over.

We see a similar attitude over here on the Lower Rhine: rather than sailing upriver, Roman barges were only used locally for a longer period of time, or else scrapped and/or used as a harbour defence.

Interesting. So, it, at least sometimes, was Roman practice to discard or recycle used ships for other uses. It seems so wasteful and expensive, but maybe the practice implies that Roman ships were not built that sturdily, having short lifespans ?

the only time that Aetius was in a position to do anything about Africa was after the Huns had become the main threat. However, Aspar was till the man who in effect dealt with Africa, being the man who relieved Boniface. In effect, Aetius never had the jurisdiction to act in Africa, as I argued earlier.

Thanks for the timeline. It does help put things in perspective.

I must have confused Aetius' authority with Stilicho's.

So, Aetius always had at least one rival, sometimes two, but I think he always commanded the most powerful army in the West. There was an army for Italy and Africa but his troops were probably the most battle-hardened. It sounds like he could've gotten his way if he ever decided to force the issue.

But you're right, the ultimate responsiblilty for failing to recover Africa was Valentinian III's (or whoever pulled his strings). Ceding terriority so close to Carthage (for how ever short a time) was a fatal mistake, IMO. The Vandals only grew stronger when Rome let up the pressure.



~Theo

[Robert Vermaat]

But the office of magister militum didn't make Aetius the supreme commander of the Western army? Or that office only meant to control Italy? (Anyway, this is a theoretical question, since with all those wars, it was obvious that he was to busy to to be preoccupied with Africa)

It would have, in theory at least, but for some reason politics meant that his eastern counterpart Aspar (the Alan) was lined up to a) relieve Boniface and b) take on the Vandals, initially. And Aspar outlived Aetius. Besides, after Gaiseric was made a Roman general the situation became academic, because (like Alaric before him) to all intents and purposes, Africa was NOT lost, but in control of a warlord like Aspar and Aetius. We can draw it in different colours on our modern maps, but to the people of the 5th c., nothing changed, it was the same as the other warring emperors of the 4th c., only now they were warring generals - big deal.

Now was Gaiseric (acting as a Roman federate) different from Alaric (whose troops were also paid by the Roman state) or different from any Roman with an army marching on Rome? For the population in the path of their armies, there sure was no difference between the armies of Constantine the Great or those of Gaiseric. For the taxpayers, a general like Gaiseric could mean a tax relief. And when Gaiseric stopped paying taxes to Rome or halting the shipping of food to Italy, he just acted like generals and usurpers before him.

For the Catholics of Africa, the rule of the Vandals meant persecution so I guess they did not care about semantics.

[aitor iriarte]

Brilliant, Robert,

I think that you've got the point! 8)

Aitor

[taira1180]

Your probably right. The only difference, is that all those foederati didn't wanted to reunite the empire, but only a small portion of it. So, instead of having a "battle royal" until only one survive as in the previous centuries, they cohabited, dividing the empire, and destroying (even if it wasn't their intention).

[Paullus Scipio]

Brilliant, Robert,

I think that you've got the point!

Aitor

I concur...very well put . Q.E.D, the question is answered very well. A laus for you! D

[taira1180]

Brilliant, Robert,

I think that you've got the point!

Aitor

I concur...very well put . Q.E.D, the question is answered very well. A laus for you! D

From me too!

[Theodosius the Great]

Vortigern,

to the people of the 5th c., nothing changed, it was the same as the other warring emperors of the 4th c., only now they were warring generals - big deal.

How can you say 'big deal' ? Some North African provinces suffered much more heavily than others. The country side was devastated. And you've said that North Africa never fully recovered from the Vandal conquest (on another thread)

For the population in the path of their armies, there sure was no difference between the armies of Constantine the Great or those of Gaiseric.

Again, how can a civil war compare to invading barbarians bent on conquest ? In civil war, Romans armies, afaik, did not scorch the country side. From the locals' point of view, being taken over by barbarians must have been a much more brutal business, I would think.
(Good point, btw, on Arians vs Catholics)

For the taxpayers, a general like Gaiseric could mean a tax relief.

The benefits of any tax relief would be more than balanced by the devastation to the land, though. The locals' fortunes were better off under direct Roman rule and higher taxes, IMO.

And when Gaiseric stopped paying taxes to Rome or halting the shipping of food to Italy, he just acted like generals and usurpers before him.

Yes, but it must be said that he attained a level of unprecedented power and influence because of his unassailable position in North Africa. Gaiseric was the most successful warlord after only Attila, IMO.

~Theo

[sonic]

Vortigern,

For the population in the path of their armies, there sure was no difference between the armies of Constantine the Great or those of Gaiseric.

Again, how can a civil war compare to invading barbarians bent on conquest ? In civil war, Romans armies, afaik, did not scorch the country side. From the locals' point of view, being taken over by barbarians must have been a much more brutal business, I would think.
(Good point, btw, on Arians vs Catholics)
~Theo

Actually, many accounts of civil war suggest that Roman troops did plunder Roman towns and villages as they passed by highlighting those generals whose control over their troops resulted in towns not being attacked.

Barbarians bent on conquest are likely to severely sack one town/city and then use the example to influence others to surrender or suffer the same fate. It is not in their interest to destroy what they want to take over.

The most likely reason for attack on civilians is for loot and for food: in this there appears to be little difference between Roman troops and barbarians. Didn't even Julius Caesar remind his men that the cities of Italy were 'friends' and not to be attacked, or is my memory playing up??