Later Roman Army: Barbarisation

[Anonymous]

Hi,<br>
<br>
I'm new to the forums, but I'm studying Later Roman history at university. I'm just wondering what your views are on the extent and effect of barbarisation in the Later Roman Army?<br>
<br>
There seems to be a lot of conflictory material with the view that barbarians crippled the army from the inside being replaced with a different view that barbarisation did not weaken the roman army or the empire in any significant manner.<br>
<br>
I'm just curious as to what your thoughts are on this.<br>
<br>
Cheers <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

"There seems to be a lot of conflictory material with the view that barbarians crippled the army from the inside being replaced with a different view that barbarisation did not weaken the roman army or the empire in any significant manner"<br>
<br>
Neither. The Roman Army was strengthened by recruits from non-Italians. Even Julius Caesar admitted that his german cavalry won for him at Alesia.<br>
<br>
Aetius, Stilico, and many other high-ranking officers were "barbarians", AND they were more loyal to Rome than the Romans.<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

Salve,<br>
<br>
A very good book about the late-roman army is:<br>
[url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198152418/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/103-0133438-1459817" target="top]"Warfare in Roman Europe, Ad 350-425" by Hugh Elton[/url].<br>
<br>
He states that the amount of "barbarians" in the Roman army was about 25% throughout its history, even during the late-empire. <p>-------------------------------------------------------<br>
A great flame follows a little spark.<br>
Dante Alighieri,The Divine Comedy<br>
</p><i></i>