New Book from Adrian Goldsworthy: How Rome Fell

[Rumo]

David, many of those arguments are unconvincing.

For instance Goldsworthy states (p. 382):

• Some barbarian groups had been permitted to settle in imperial territory from 382 onwards. Of these a portion had subsequently migrated again, invariably moving into the lands of the Western Empire. Inevitably, we hear much less about any group that remained peaceful. Unlike their western colleagues, the eastern emperors were not forced to accept the permanent occupation by barbarian groups of substantial parts of their provinces.

How does Goldsworthy know that all migrating barbarians fled to West or that the remaining ones were not occupying substantial parts of the Roman provinces (compared to the West)?

And we have Jordanes, Getica, 264-7 accounting for several barbarian factions settled in the Eastern Roman territory during 5th and 6th centuries, some of them for quite a long while (like those Goths from the Nicopolitan region). Apparently Jordanes himself chose to "migrate" to Constantinople and become a "good Roman".

Also Goldsworthy gives this description of some Anastasian reforms:

• He seems to have made military service considerably more attractive so that volunteering was enough to satisfy the army’s needs. A little less use would be made in future of mercenary bands and allied contingents

What future? In Procopius' Wars we have many examples of barbarian mercenaries and generals (e.g. Mundus, Chilbudius) fighting for Romans and moreover, the lack of manpower was chronic in the east. Almost every war meant some other frontiers neglected, raided and eventually falling.