Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rome\'s worst military defeat
#31
All the Goths wanted was protection and distance from the Huns which is why they went to the Romans for help. If the Romans had treated them a little better then perhaps things would have been different. Many of the citizens in and around Rome were no longer willing to give their lives for the empire which showed a change in dedication and loyalty to the empire. I for one believe that Christianity was a major agent in this feeling as it eliminated the Pagan gods that were so crucial to the motivation of the Roman Army. They also thought of themselves as Christians instead of Romans. The Roman treatment of the Goths was what drove them over the edge, and like Vortigern said Aleric invaded Rome as a form of Revenge against a Roman General. In the end Rome was its own worse enemy as their government was unable to sufficiently run its enormous realm and also it was treating potential allies very badly which led to them turning into enemies. <p>THERE ARE NO STUPID PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY'VE MADE A MISTAKE</p><i></i>
"Freedom was at stake- freedom, which whets the courage of brave men"- Titus Livius

Nil recitas et vis, Mamerce, poeta videri.
Quidquid vis esto, dummodo nil recites!- Martial
Reply
#32
Pompeius, regarding the Goths I agree with you. The <em>local</em> Roman officials on the Danube were to blame for mistreatment of the Goths. But then Valens compounded the problem with his impulsive glory-seeking by engaging them in battle without waiting for Gratian to arrive on the scene.<br>
<br>
Of course I was only commenting on the period following the disaster. I think as long as the Goths remained together and led by their leaders that they could not be assimilated into Roman society. Or at least not for several generations.<br>
<br>
Regarding Christianity, I disagree 180 degrees. Recruiting for the army was an acute problem long before Christianity became the official religion. Starting in the second century AD, Marcus Aurelius went to such lengths as to draft gladiators and the increased use of vexillations. The army career simply wasn't as profitable as it had been when Rome was expanding. The incentive of booty wasn't there anymore. And the Legions became regionalized by being settled for so long in one place. The men placed roots into their assigned provinces by starting families. So their loyalties to the empire were already compromised. They became reluctant to be transfered even temporarily to hot spots around the frontiers. Emperors in the third century passed harsh laws for the recruitment of new soldiers and they relied more on barbarian stock. Remember this is the height of the persecution of the Christians. So I don't believe for a minute that Christianity feminized the men within the empire. That process started long before their preeminence and the process was almost complete by the time of Constantine the Great.<br>
<br>
The Western provinces became more urbanized by the time of the third century. The Eastern provinces were already highly urbanized for centuries. Wussy city-dwellers don't make good recruits as Vegetius said. Farm-boys from the country side were in Republican times the best recruits since they were used to hard work under the sun. The only great source for recruits during the later empire were the semi-civilized mountain folk of the Balkins and later the Isaurians in Anatolia.<br>
<br>
What happened to the mighty, sophisticated Greeks after they were conquered by Rome? They came to be considered the <em>most</em> effiminate men within the empire since their fighting tradition had died out. They became used to the protection provided by Rome from the barbarians and thus became like the later city-dwelling Romans. Effects of long periods of peace and stability are not all beneficial. By the time a major crisis occurs after such a period (the 3rd century) the situation worsens since the best men are used to confront the problem. When they die, who do you turn to to replace them ? The soft city men who are used to creature comforts. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=theodosiusthegreat>Theodosius the Great</A> at: 8/21/04 3:50 am<br></i>
Jaime
Reply
#33
Agree with you on the effect of long term peace on a society under the protection of another. However if you want to discuss recruitment problems it is a problem going back to the old days of the republic until Gaius Marius fixed the problem with the headcount. Back then however it was more of incompetant generalship with massive troop loss. In the last century of the roman empire it was a matter of lack of motivation to join than anything else so it became necessary for a mixed army, although the Romans had used the Italian Allies for troops before Marius. Even with the Byzantine empire that was a problem in their later years and led to their inability to protect their provinces. The Goths could very well have been incorporated into the empire, just look at the rest of the provinces who were thought to never corporate, Gauls are a good example of this. <p>THERE ARE NO STUPID PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY'VE MADE A MISTAKE</p><i></i>
"Freedom was at stake- freedom, which whets the courage of brave men"- Titus Livius

Nil recitas et vis, Mamerce, poeta videri.
Quidquid vis esto, dummodo nil recites!- Martial
Reply
#34
Theo,<br>
Assimilation was never seen as a big problem, the Goths were not one big happy tribe that trekked along in one big group, this is a picture which is not correct. Alaric sometimes commanded thousands, sure, but after some defeat many went their own ways and he would be left with a few hundred followers. Not all were Goths either, other tribes and even Roman citizens or slaves were to be found with the 'Gothic army'.<br>
Remember the 5500 cavalry that were 'drafted' from the defeated Sarmatians in 175? Bigger numbers had been entering the Empire, and assimilated successfully.<br>
<br>
What you say about 'Goths dominated the ranks and officer corp of the armies of the Western Empire into the 5th century'is not correct. The Goths did not belong to the regular army and such officers were individuals who had joined, they did not belong to Alaric's Goths. Nor were they ever present in such numbers that they dominated the army.<br>
<br>
Pompeius,<br>
I agree that Adrianople need not have happened, the Goths were treated abismally bad. But this was long forgotten after 400 I think, when the dynamics of the Gothic presence within the Empire had made them valuable allies, and all knew who depended on whom.<br>
I disagree about Christianity - the Goths were Arian Christians, so how would they be more 'motivated' than the Roman army? Christianity was sometimes a way to avoid the army (service was often impopular) but that was not accepted as a reason in most cases - you could be killed for refusing to serve. How's that for motivation? No, I doubt Christianity played the role advocated by Gibbon.<br>
<br>
Theo (back to you),<br>
the Empire, especially in the West, saw a sharp decline in urbanisation during the late 3rd and 4th centuries. Cities shrunk dramatically, which is witnessed by the new walls encosing a much smaller circuit.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#35
Hi Valerius,<br>
<br>
I stand corrected with the Goths. The situation was extremely fluid with them. Especially as you say after suffering defeat they began to disintigrate as an army and Gothic victories had the opposite effect.<br>
<br>
My remark about the Goths dominating the Western armies, I think I was confusing this with the Eastern army. If I remember correctly, the top Eastern generals were Arian Goths in the 5th century who were also king makers. Later, Leo purged the army of the Gothic elements, replacing them with Isaurians. The remaining Goths left the East to settle in Italy to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the Western Empire.<br>
<br>
About urbanization, I was refering to the 3rd century right before the era of the "barracks emperors". Urbanization in the Western Europe was a phenomina due to the effects of the Pax Romana. I cited this urbanization as a factor which devalued the Western provinces to a certain extent as breeding grounds for new recruits. It certainly wasn't the only factor as I stated in my last post.<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
-Theo <p></p><i></i>
Jaime
Reply
#36
When I was talking about the lack of motivation for Romans to join the army I was describing a change in attitudes towards the army in which I believe Christianity played a major part, as the motivation to join the army has changed since the times of the Republic quite drastically, even though troop quantity has been a problem throughout rome's history, Marius's reform of the Roman Army helped to get more troops into the Army, but even then outsiders were used such as Germanic Cavalry during Caesars drive into Gaul. All in all there are many different reasons for the fall of the empire, the Goths were a big reason for its fall and their drive towards Rome was more a conflict between Aleric and the Roman General, than Adrianople, the Goths were happy with their land. Don't overlook however the decay of the Western empire as the Huns were able to drive into the empire and seemingly defeat Roman army after roman army. Even though the Huns eventually dispersed as the Romans won some big battles, it showed that Rome was weakening, and encouraged its old enemies to join the Goths. So the reason for the lack of motivation is unknown, I was not asserting that Christianity was the only cause, but it did change the attitudes of many people, granted though the punishment for not serving, citizens who had the money were more willing to pay themselves out than to serve. <p>THERE ARE NO STUPID PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY'VE MADE A MISTAKE</p><i></i>
"Freedom was at stake- freedom, which whets the courage of brave men"- Titus Livius

Nil recitas et vis, Mamerce, poeta videri.
Quidquid vis esto, dummodo nil recites!- Martial
Reply
#37
I don't know that I can really say that Cannae was the greatest Roman defeat ever, but I do think that a few of the comments made about it ought to be addressed.<br>
I think it might be fair to say that the 'greatest' defeat should be one which had real consequences, but they need not be entirely negative. Certainly, Rome eventually won the Second Punic War, but would it be fair to say that they won it because, after the defeat at Cannae, they reorganized the way in which they fought? Once again, I'm not sure that I would answer that question with an unequivocal yes, but it's a question worth floating. <p></p><i></i>
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Rome - its own worst enemy, or everyone else\'s nightmare? Tarbicus 17 4,089 04-07-2007, 03:33 PM
Last Post: drsrob

Forum Jump: