Defences of the western Roman empire in 5th century

[Eleatic Guest]

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.

My thoughts exactly. The difference between Roman 'factionalist' generals of the 4th century and the Germanic tribes of the 5th were that the Germanic leaders were driven by ethnic particularism. At their heart lie their tribe, not the Imperium.

That again stresses the point that when you want real political unity it needs more than superficial consensus in terms of sterile 'interests', which are volatile by nature. It needs strong cultural, religious and ethnic ties which gives the cohort direction and a sense of community when things gets confusing.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

Hi Robert,

I see what you're saying but it was a political fiction at best. OK, from a legalistic point of view, sure, it looks good on paper. But the 'foederates' were de facto independent kingdoms and usually behaved accordingly, offering only lip service to express their loyalty to Rome.

Well personally I've been convinced by Guy Halsall's recent Barbarian Migrations book and similar that pretty much all the "foederates" were operating within the imperial political system albeit that the system was fragmenting on a regional basis due to tensions in the system itself highlighted by weak and/or child rulers.

[Robert Vermaat]

My thoughts exactly. The difference between Roman 'factionalist' generals of the 4th century and the Germanic tribes of the 5th were that the Germanic leaders were driven by ethnic particularism. At their heart lie their tribe, not the Imperium.

That's not correct. The 'drive' of each leader, as far as we are even able to know it, differed from person to person and was also depending on time and occasion. Roman leaders were after as much power as possible - as early as the 3rd c. they did not mind all too much if they id not manage to rule all of the empire. And from the Terarchy onwards the concept of a partitioned empire had become acceptable as well.
Nor were they particularly 'tribal' compared to ('multicultural'?) Romans. Tribes were happy to mix and take on board everyone, tribesman or Roman.

That again stresses the point that when you want real political unity it needs more than superficial consensus in terms of sterile 'interests', which are volatile by nature. It needs strong cultural, religious and ethnic ties which gives the cohort direction and a sense of community when things gets confusing.

Hope the lesson does not get lost on modern Western 'multiculturalists' who are intent of making of every Western state a small United Nations (instead of pressing for integration and assimiliation).

[/quote]

[Eleatic Guest]

My thoughts exactly. The difference between Roman 'factionalist' generals of the 4th century and the Germanic tribes of the 5th were that the Germanic leaders were driven by ethnic particularism. At their heart lie their tribe, not the Imperium.

That's not correct. The 'drive' of each leader, as far as we are even able to know it, differed from person to person and was also depending on time and occasion. Roman leaders were after as much power as possible - as early as the 3rd c. they did not mind all too much if they id not manage to rule all of the empire. And from the Terarchy onwards the concept of a partitioned empire had become acceptable as well.
Nor were they particularly 'tribal' compared to ('multicultural'?) Romans. Tribes were happy to mix and take on board everyone, tribesman or Roman.

And yet history proves the point that the Western Roman empire broke apart the moment foreign elements became so dominant that they couldn't neither be assimilated nor pacified by the indigenous Roman culture. And while Roman leaders were "after as much power as possible" for themselves, they also kept an eye on the integrity and interests of the whole of Roman empire. Otherwise rivals like Aetius and Bonifatius would have never saw a reason to cooperate so often and the Eastern Roman empire wouldn't have tried to support the weaker Western half for so long.

The difference between Roman warlords in the 4th and Germanic chieftains in the 5th century in terms of allegiance to the abstract notion of empire may have been gradual, but it was ultimately enough to make the difference between being and ceasing to exist for the Imperium Romanum. Being everything else equal, for the maintenance of the empire an Aetius (half Alan, but strong Roman affiliation) was always preferable over a Stilicho (half Roman, but IMO a bit less close to Roman culture) over a Geiseric (Roman hardly even de nomine).

You cannot upkeep a community in which people have no deeper interest into it than material gains, and Rome went down the drain the moment the people who carried its arms ceased to be identical with those who carried its culture. That is, despite all differentiation you correctly did, still the basic lesson to be learnt from the fall of Rome.

[Robert Vermaat]

And while Roman leaders were "after as much power as possible" for themselves, they also kept an eye on the integrity and interests of the whole of Roman empire. Otherwise rivals like Aetius and Bonifatius would have never saw a reason to cooperate so often and the Eastern Roman empire wouldn't have tried to support the weaker Western half for so long.

I totally disagree. West and East never 'supported' the weaker half, they had by the second half of the 4th c. entered into a dangerous state of competition that would lead to the fall of the western half. Time after time they did their best to undermine the other half.

Warlords like Aetius or usurpers like Julian never 'kept an eye on the integrity and interests of the whole of Roman empire' they first and foremost went for the top job. If that meant instigating barabrians to crosss the border and devastate the countryside just to destabilize their rivals, they had no qualms to do so.

That is, despite all differentiation you correctly did, still the basic lesson to be learnt from the fall of Rome.

And yet people keep coming up up with images of barbarians supposedly only after the fall of civilization and similar black& white scenarios.

The lesson to be learnt from the fall of Rome is that people still fail to read proper history books before drawing conclusions based on wrong interpretations of history.

[sonic]

That is, despite all differentiation you correctly did, still the basic lesson to be learnt from the fall of Rome.

And yet people keep coming up with images of barbarians supposedly only after the fall of civilization and similar black & white scenarios.

The lesson to be learnt from the fall of Rome is that people still fail to read proper history books before drawing conclusions based on wrong interpretations of history.

Actually, I'll jump to the defence of EG here and point out that there are many books out there, all claiming to be 'proper history books'. The trick is in finding the ones with conclusions based upon interpretation of the sources, not those regurgitating what somebody else said 20 - 100 years ago. Yet if you are unlucky, it is possible to spend many years reading the latter without realising that better options exist.

The two halves of the empire did occasionally support each other - immediate examples being the West supporting the East after Adrianople, and the East supporting the West in attempts to reconquer Africa from the Vandals.

However, surely the major question that hasn't been really addressed is: how do you differentiate between 'barbarians'/Roman generals dedicated to the service of the Empire and those who brought about its destruction with their policies being centred upon their own advancement??

Were Stilicho's policies towards the eastern Empire those of maintaining personal control, or were they more concerned with ensuring the integrity of the West?

Was Aetius bent on personal glory (achieved at the Battle of Chalons!) or was he attempting to establish Imperial survival in the centre of a whirlwind of attacks and the loss of Africa?

Was Gaiseric intent on finding a new homeland for his people or did he want personal advancement and position within the framework of the Empire? And if he wanted a homeland for his people, has history been right to judge him as a - well - Vandal? Surely that is putting the survival of the 'Empire' before that of the Vandals?

If we are ever to arrive at conclusions for these problems, surely we need to divorce ourselves from the 'wonderful Roman Empire' mindset and recognise that, whatever else happened, the leaders of the Germanic peoples that invaded Rome had just as much right to survive as the Romans?

We need to analyse the actions of individual leaders to arrive at valid conclusions regarding their motives. Simply to judge all of them by the same criteria is to pre-judge them as the simple, pathetic barbarians so loved by Victorian historians. Shouldn't we be approaching the problem by accepting that 'Barbarian' leaders were dynamic, intelligent individuals, not simply thugs intent on destruction?

Or am I being naive ..... ?? :lol:

[Theodosius the Great]

Only in the late 5th c. we see that even that position is not tempting enough when Gundobad the Burgundian rather takes the job of king at home rather than first man in Rome. For me that's the real Fall of Rome embodied.

The Visigothic King Euric seems to have arrived at the same conclusion a full 10 years earlier before Gundobad had abandoned Italy. In the mid 460s Euric was openly annexing territory and allying himself with other foederate kingdoms against the Empire.

I'd love to know what sources Heather used to reach the total of 'only' 300 ships.

Apparently, he's referring to Western Emperor Majorian's failed expedition to reconquer North Africa. In 461, Majorian gathered 300 ships which were to launch from Spain but Gaiseric got wind of the plan and launched a preemptive strike.

I too am struggling with this idea. How long would it take for a message from Boniface to reach the Vandals and for them to decide to act?

Part of the problem is that Procopius is quick to point to treachery whenever disaster strikes. Procopius has to find some explanation for his audience. Another example where he cites supposed treachery is when he blames the Eastern commander Basiliscus for the defeat of the expedition sent against Gaiseric in 468. Basiliscus was just incompetent.

West and East never 'supported' the weaker half, they had by the second half of the 4th c. entered into a dangerous state of competition that would lead to the fall of the western half.

When Theodosius II died Valentian III wanted to rule the whole empire since he was the last male of the Theodosian dynasty. But Aetius opposed his efforts and the Eastern Empire didn't want him anyway. After the death of Valentinian III, Constantinople didn't know who to support in the West since there was a revolving door of imperial usurpers who couldn't gain the support of the Gallo-Hispano-Roman families.

~Theo

[Theodosius the Great]

Now for some interesting estimates on the army of the Western Empire in the 5th C. :

Heather estimates that by the year 420, the Western Empire's field forces probably had a paper strength of 181 units, approximately 90,000 men, baesd primarily in Gaul, Italy, and Illyricum.

Outside of a decade later that number decreased to a paper strength of no more than 160 units, approximately 80,000 men.

As for the foederates and other invading Germanic tribes, they could field collectively about 120,000 fighting men. Heather extropolates his figures by looking at reliable sources like Ammianus and by sizing up one tribe's forces against another's based on 5th century conflicts in Gaul, Spain, etc...

So, the situation facing the Western Empire is all the more stark when we look at these estimates. Especially since the Empire's are only paper figures. hock:

~Theo

[taira1180]

Stilicho in one campaign a decade before had 20.000 men (field troops). Those were probably the maxime troops that the west could use- and in the next years, probably less.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

Now for some interesting estimates on the army of the Western Empire in the 5th C. :

Heather estimates that by the year 420, the Western Empire's field forces probably had a paper strength of 181 units, approximately 90,000 men, baesd primarily in Gaul, Italy, and Illyricum.

Outside of a decade later that number decreased to a paper strength of no more than 160 units, approximately 80,000 men.

As for the foederates and other invading Germanic tribes, they could field collectively about 120,000 fighting men. Heather extropolates his figures by looking at reliable sources like Ammianus and by sizing up one tribe's forces against another's based on 5th century conflicts in Gaul, Spain, etc...

So, the situation facing the Western Empire is all the more stark when we look at these estimates. Especially since the Empire's are only paper figures. hock:

And Heather's figures for the barbarians is equally just a paper figure - an estimate based upon assumptions.

One could rightly question how reliable the figures in even Ammianus are - based as they are in the Graeco-Roman traditional literary scheme.

[sonic]

Now for some interesting estimates on the army of the Western Empire in the 5th C. :

Heather estimates that by the year 420, the Western Empire's field forces probably had a paper strength of 181 units, approximately 90,000 men, baesd primarily in Gaul, Italy, and Illyricum.

Outside of a decade later that number decreased to a paper strength of no more than 160 units, approximately 80,000 men.

As for the foederates and other invading Germanic tribes, they could field collectively about 120,000 fighting men. Heather extropolates his figures by looking at reliable sources like Ammianus and by sizing up one tribe's forces against another's based on 5th century conflicts in Gaul, Spain, etc...

So, the situation facing the Western Empire is all the more stark when we look at these estimates. Especially since the Empire's are only paper figures. hock:

And Heather's figures for the barbarians is equally just a paper figure - an estimate based upon assumptions.

One could rightly question how reliable the figures in even Ammianus are - based as they are in the Graeco-Roman traditional literary scheme.

Everything is based upon guesswork! We don't have reliable figures, no matter how much individuals try to promote their pet theories!

But there is one further question that remains unanswered: as far as I know, it's never even been asked!! (If it has, please just snigger quietly to yourself! :lol: )

If there were 80,000 troops in the western army, and the organisation of the western army followed the lists in the Notitia Dignitatum, what happened to all of the high-ranking officers?? Were they pensioned off as the parts of the empire in which they commanded troops were 'given' to the barbarians? Did they carry on in service with all the titles and perks their status commanded (a bit like the large number of 'Admirals' currently serving in the Royal Navy, although there's only about ten ships :lol: :lol: :lol: )? Did they transfer their loyalties to the 'barbarians'? What happened??

I get the feeling that if we could trace a few to their 'natural' end we'd know a lot more about the end of the West!!

Hope this makes sense - I'm typing in a very limited time!!

[Theodosius the Great]

Stilicho in one campaign a decade before had 20.000 men (field troops). Those were probably the maxime troops that the west could use- and in the next years, probably less.

I disagree that 20,000 was all that Stilicho commanded. 20,000 men was probably the largest any Western commander could field into one army. The other field forces would have to remain in their provinces and could not be withdrawn for any reason (unless they decided to abandon a province, e.g. Britain). Britain, North Africa, and Spain needed their own field forces to repel Saxons, Picts, and Berbers (and to suppress local rebellions). So, even field forces were not that mobile compared with the limitanei.

One could rightly question how reliable the figures in even Ammianus are - based as they are in the Graeco-Roman traditional literary scheme.

Good point, but at least we can say that Ammianus was also a military man. Perhaps his experience tempered his literary flair.

Everything is based upon guesswork! We don't have reliable figures, no matter how much individuals try to promote their pet theories!

Exactly. Well, maybe that's a little too far. We do have the Notitia Dignitatum which is no small thing.

what happened to all of the high-ranking officers??

Sure, some did work for the barbarians. Orestes is a case in point. Former right hand man of Attila who transferred back into Roman service and then was executed. Hmm...I don't know any generals who died naturally but I suspect many may have fled to the Eastern Empire. That would be my choice ! :wink:

~Theo

[taira1180]

I don't understand your disagreement, i said the troops that the west could use in a campaign, not the troops that existed.

[sonic]

Everything is based upon guesswork! We don't have reliable figures, no matter how much individuals try to promote their pet theories!

Exactly. Well, maybe that's a little too far. We do have the Notitia Dignitatum which is no small thing.

I agree that the Notitia is important, but a list of units does not give us figures for manpower. We don't know what strength units were, if the units were up to or below strength, or if/when they ceased to exist. I might be edging towards the cynical here, but IMO the Notitia is sometimes used in a highly suspect manner.

what happened to all of the high-ranking officers??

Sure, some did work for the barbarians. Orestes is a case in point. Former right hand man of Attila who transferred back into Roman service and then was executed. Hmm...I don't know any generals who died naturally but I suspect many may have fled to the Eastern Empire. That would be my choice ! :wink:
~Theo

Would the Eastern Empire have wanted them? With the infighting amongst the buereaucratic and military ranks, would a Westerner have been welcomed and promoted/installed above people already in the system?

I'd love to know what sources Heather used to reach the total of 'only' 300 ships.

Apparently, he's referring to Western Emperor Majorian's failed expedition to reconquer North Africa. In 461, Majorian gathered 300 ships which were to launch from Spain but Gaiseric got wind of the plan and launched a preemptive strike.

But where did Heather get his numbers from? Majorian was only attempting to ferry an army across the narrows at the Straits of Gibraltar. Would he use all of the available ships or just as many as could be quickly gathered and used at short notice?

I'm still unhappy about many of the numbers being bandied about: it still all appears to be guesswork!

Cynical to the last!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Theodosius the Great]

Sorry, Fabiano. I misunderstood.

Yes, your estimate sounds plausible, IMO. It's too bad Stilicho returned so many of his troops to the Eastern Empire when he did.

But where did Heather get his numbers from? Majorian was only attempting to ferry an army across the narrows at the Straits of Gibraltar. Would he use all of the available ships or just as many as could be quickly gathered and used at short notice?

Heather is just using "300" as a base. You're right, the Empire could have perhaps raised more ships. The Visigoths were reconciled to Majorian so he may have had the additional resources to build a full scale invasion fleet with support vessels. But that would probably risk being noticed by the Vandals who were tipped off anyway. The Romans were clearly hoping to invade Africa using the same route the Vandals used decades earlier to approach Carthage from the West instead of directly from Sicily or Italy.

The number "300" comes from Priscus, the contemporary Eastern historian :

• "Majorian even attempted to cross over to Libya with a great force, after he had collected about three hundred ships. The ruler of the Vandals first sent envoys to him to resolve the disagreements by diplomacy. When the emperor was not persuaded, he laid waste all the land of the Moors to which Majorian and his troops had to cross from Spain and harassed the surrounding waters (Priscus, fr.27: Gordon trans., pp.116-117) (Quoted from this website)

I agree that the Notitia is important, but a list of units does not give us figures for manpower.

True. Units were rarely at full strength as we know from the early Empire. But official paper strength does give us some historical basis for modern estimates.

I'm still unhappy about many of the numbers being bandied about: it still all appears to be guesswork!

Well, it is. By definition that's was estimates are :wink:

I don't know any generals who died naturally but I suspect many may have fled to the Eastern Empire. That would be my choice !

Would the Eastern Empire have wanted them? With the infighting amongst the buereaucratic and military ranks, would a Westerner have been welcomed and promoted/installed above people already in the system?

The East lost so many commanders and men fighting the Huns - certainly far more so than the West lost. So, some "opennings", shall we say, may have needed to be filled :lol: . The West probably had more experienced commanders than the East. To answer your last question : it would depend, I think, on whether they were of barbarian stock / upbringing, in which case the East may have turned them away. In a short time the East would purge their forces of all Gothic troops and commanders.

~Theo