08-21-2004, 01:29 AM
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>
<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
