Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Whatever became of the Roman Army in the West
#31
Quote: Very good explanations and arguments, as usual, Robert. Big Grin
Thank you. :oops:
Quote: Wasn't economic mismanagement (not really growing poverty) in the west part of the problem? You said the stronger west failed. I've read that in the 5th c. (I think after the loss of the biggest part of the African provinces in the 420s? I'm not sure.) the military budget alone of the east was bigger than the whole budget of the west. And that the budget of the west equates to the annual income of just 3 great (but not of the greatest) private latifundiae. That seems to have been a problem of misguided wealth, a false politics of taxes? Maybe understandable because the empire wanted to protect the backbone of the state but to no good efforts. I missed arguments about this problem f.e. in Peter Heathers book about the fall of the (western part of the) empire.
I'm not sure wjere you found those number about budgets so I can't really comment.
I said the west was stronger, but that was speaking of military strength. the east was more wealthy, which was of course a pro, and they developed a policy in which they tried to defeat a threat by negotiations and gold. Only when that was no longer possible did they use military force.
Another dvelopment was that in the east they managed to curb the power of the 'man behind the throne', strengthening the power of the ruling dynasty.

I can't say that the West mismanaged their economy. They lost large part of their territory, or rather the income through taxes, because of continued unrest within the borders. This made the budget even smaller, and the ability to maintain the army even more precarious.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#32
The numbers are from the small book "Die Germanen" by Herwig Wolfram, C.H. Beck, 9th edition, 2009, pg. 90f.. He states that the annual income of the eastern part of the empire was about 270.000 pound of gold (with 45.000 pound expense for the military) compared to just 20.000 pound of gold total income of the west. He also says that the usual costs of 30000 soldiers a year were near 12.500 pound of gold. And he says (here my citation from memory in the last post was wrong) that these 12.500 pound equal the annual income of just three rich senators from their manors (the conclusion about the critical proportion between public and private wealth seems to come from Alexander Demandt). Wolfram gives no exact year for the numbers (except mid 5th c.) and no source from where it comes. That's the reason for my question.

(And I wrote "latifundiae", after 9 years Latin in school ..., where is the next mousehole? :roll: )
Wolfgang Zeiler
Reply
#33
If I remember correctly, Warren Treadgold has some figures in his 'Byzantium and its army, 284-1081, in which he paid significant attention to the Incredible Shrinking Western Imperial Budget, if my memory serves me correctly. I can look them up, when I get home.

Very good book, by the way 8)
Andreas Baede
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  AD455 - the fall of the Roman west? Nathan Ross 15 3,626 05-18-2017, 02:43 AM
Last Post: Flavivs Aetivs
  Late roman army (west) liodari 15 3,348 03-08-2012, 12:14 AM
Last Post: Urselius
  5th Century West Roman / East Roman Armour SvenLittkowski 8 5,694 08-21-2008, 01:39 AM
Last Post: SvenLittkowski

Forum Jump: