Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Whatever became of the Roman Army in the West
#16
Quote:I always was under the impression that the Teutoborg Forest was where most of the army was defeated and killed. The forces in Italy were probably for guarding the cities mostly and fielding an army was next to impossible. The guards wouldn't have been in the same class as the Legionary so would have stayed there and waited for the Hammer to fall. Every city to itself?
I am very interested as well!
Astiryu1, you are correct to think that the Roman defeat in the Teutoborg Forest in 9 AD was one of the greatest defeats experienced by the Romans. They lost three legions in that defeat, to put it into perspective. There were other great defeats in Roman history, though, Adrianople in 378 A.D. and the Valerian campagn against the Parthians in 260 A.D. are two defeats that immediately come to mind. As for victories, the Roman army was victorious in battle throughout its existence, to include well into the 5th Century. I guess one could make the case, however, that whereas the earlier armies generally were superior to the enemy in technology, discipline, leadership, and soldiering, by the late Roman era that superior state had pretty much gave way to a kind of operational and tactical parity. At the strategic level, the army could no longer execute the Roman grand strategy of defeating the enemy through forward defense (limitanei) and opeartional mobility in depth (comitatenses). Ironically, the East Roman Empire faired better, in spite of being less mobile. Geography played a great role in that success however, in my view.
Marcellus Valerius Gothicus (aka Dave Dietrich)
Reply
#17
I was in my above post explaining that the downfall of Rome was really noticeable (militarily) at this moment. I do know a little of Adrianople (Emperor was killed in battle right?) but because of the Western topic neglected to add the Eastern defeats but should have I guess. The two Empires are connected and will be more in depth when posting. I am learning much from this thread and hope to continue. By far this period is not one of my strong points! Big Grin
Craig Bellofatto

Going to college for Massage Therapy. So reading alot of Latin TerminologyWink

It is like a finger pointing to the moon. DON\'T concentrate on the finger or you miss all the heavenly glory before you!-Bruce Lee

Train easy; the fight is hard. Train hard; the fight is easy.- Thai Proverb
Reply
#18
Quote:I agree about the Roman habit to adopt successful practices or weapons from other peoples, but I must add that neither the spatha (Celtic) nor the draco (Sarmatian) were originally Germanic.

My apologies, I conflated Germanic with Barbarian. All Germans were Barbarians but not all Barbarians were Germans.

Quote:The Roman army had plenty of Roman recruits. their is simply put no evidence for a 'Germanised Roman army' other than the grumblings of a few historians. When we find names that 'Germanisation' is simple not born out by the evidence.

But how Roman is a Roman? If service in the military becomes a hereditary chore, and lots of Germans continually get settled on Roman lands on the contingency of military service then gradually the soldiers become more Germanish even if they are not recruited across the border. The fact they recruit extra soliders across the border for their routine civil wars just adds to the trend.

I would suggest a good analogy for the late roman army is the Afghan army, sure it probably has a paper strength of x but a military planner wouldnt count on them being a reliable manpower source. They are poorly paid (thus extremely corrupt and hated by the ordinary people) and poorly motivated given they really have no conception of loyalty to a abstract construct called the Afghan State. Compare that to the Taliban who are extremely well motivated and willing to fight. Once the NATO forces leave the whole construct of an Afghan state will collapse, the Taliban can wreck a weak economy with little effort, no economy equals no taxes. No taxes equals no army and no legitimacy.

Likewise the late Roman soldier has little chance of getting the big paydays like days of old through conquest (thus little prestige), poorly paid and thus extremely unmotivated. The ruling elite whose property the army is supposed, utterly despise the commoners (foreigners or citizens) who make up the army so the army has little love for the system. The sources often mention the army more interested in extortion than doing their job and this trend got worse in late antiquity. At least in the early empire the army was nasty but effective, the late army was nasty and useless. The sources mention that mercenaries such as the Huns were extremely well valued because they would actually do the job they paid for. No doubt when the Huns see they get recruited to do simple stuff like put down peasant uprisings they realise they can rob the empire blind.

This probably also partly explains the rise of private armed retainers the bucellarii. Local potentate surely could see the weakness of the central state and the ineffectiveness of the army and worry that greedy barbarians and uppity tenants might have designs to upset the social order and thus the incentive to create their own private militias.

Quote:Whether the imperial army was made up predominately of Latin Romans, Provincials, Germanics, or whomever, is tangential to the larger issue of: what became of those tens of thousands of soldiers armed under the imperial crown? Again, I would think that somehow they would have been disarmed and disbanded—either by force or choice or both—or else reconstituted elsewhere.

Like the Afghan army, there is such a thing on paper, but it doesn't really have any worth in a meaningful sense when it gets put to the test. The army and the state are two sides of the same coin, when one sinks so does the other. To me, it seems implausible that the West could have been overrun so easily if the forces in the Notitia actually were all combat capable. The East was in a similar boat but didn't seem to have the wealth inequalities, demographic problems of the West and was lucky it faced a state like itself and was at peace during much of the 5th century, so there was no means that the East could collapse like in the West.
Andrew J M
Reply
#19
I don't know if this train of thought is useful to the opening post, and I don't know how credible the study or conclusion are, but it would be interesting if dna could locate anomolous populations that may identify settled legion veterans;

http://www.jogg.info/32/bird.pdf
Reply
#20
Quote:
Vortigern Studies:1j26n32q Wrote:The Roman army had plenty of Roman recruits. There is simply put no evidence for a 'Germanised Roman army' other than the grumblings of a few historians. When we find names that 'Germanisation' is simple not born out by the evidence.
But how Roman is a Roman? If service in the military becomes a hereditary chore, and lots of Germans continually get settled on Roman lands on the contingency of military service then gradually the soldiers become more Germanish even if they are not recruited across the border. The fact they recruit extra soliders across the border for their routine civil wars just adds to the trend.
Now you're being argumentative. As to the Germanic influx into the empire, even if we would take the highest estimates, these numbers are still dwarved by the number of Roman citizens. If what you suggest is indeed that most 'Roman' recruits were in fact men descended from germanic ancestors, I can only ask you where you found that information, because I can't think of any scholar who has suggested this development. 'Roman' can indeed mean Italian, Gaul, Greek, Pannonian, Syriac, Egyptian. But I would never go as far as dismissing all of these and state that most Roman recruits were also of Germanic descent. That would be overstating the evidence.

Quote:I would suggest a good analogy for the late roman army is the Afghan army, sure it probably has a paper strength of x but a military planner wouldnt count on them being a reliable manpower source. They are poorly paid (thus extremely corrupt and hated by the ordinary people) and poorly motivated given they really have no conception of loyalty to a abstract construct called the Afghan State. Compare that to the Taliban who are extremely well motivated and willing to fight. Once the NATO forces leave the whole construct of an Afghan state will collapse, the Taliban can wreck a weak economy with little effort, no economy equals no taxes. No taxes equals no army and no legitimacy.
In fact I agree. The Roman army, Republican or Dominate, can never be equated to effective military organisations such as the US Army. In fact, the Roman government has been compared in terms of effectiveness to that of a modern state like Zimbabwe. Whatever we think of the Romans, we should always remember that they were very close to the tribal Iron Age, not to industrialised Europe.
Beyond that I disagree. There is no evidence that the Late Roman army was a structurally poorly or unpaid demoralised ragtag bunch of thieves. If functioned up to standard whenever possible. Unpaid armies cease to exist, as we know from the very end of a Roman unit in late 5th c. Noricum. Sure, pay could be late, but we know that somehow it continued to arrrive. Of course there was corruption, but no more or no less than in other parts of Roman society - we never hear of the army being excessively corrupt. Also, loyalty was not a problem in the Roman army until the very structures of the Roman state in the West began to dissolve. Also remember that many Roman soldiers fought for their very homes.
The general comparison to the Afghan situation is not a good one. Society is very different, the eceonomic situation is different, the enemy is different.

Quote: Likewise the late Roman soldier has little chance of getting the big paydays like days of old through conquest (thus little prestige), poorly paid and thus extremely unmotivated. The ruling elite whose property the army is supposed, utterly despise the commoners (foreigners or citizens) who make up the army so the army has little love for the system. The sources often mention the army more interested in extortion than doing their job and this trend got worse in late antiquity. At least in the early empire the army was nasty but effective, the late army was nasty and useless. The sources mention that mercenaries such as the Huns were extremely well valued because they would actually do the job they paid for. No doubt when the Huns see they get recruited to do simple stuff like put down peasant uprisings they realise they can rob the empire blind.
You are exaggerating here.
Money could be a problem but not consistently so. Pay was raised during several occasions and recruits were still attracted enough to man the ranks. Prestige was a problem at times, but also not consistently so. The attitude of the elite towards commoners never played any part in the loyalty of the army towards 'the system'. No evidence of such disloyalty exists. Also, I'de like to learn what sources 'often mention' that the army was 'more interested in extortion than doing their job and this trend got worse in late antiquity'. I think you're exaggerating wildly here. Some sources complain about certain trends, but we need to look at these complaints with caution, such as the complaint of Vegetius that the army refused to wear armour, which has been proven to be incorrect. Some sources liked to moan about the 'good old days'.

You statement that the Late Roman army was useless is nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

Quote: This probably also partly explains the rise of private armed retainers the bucellarii. Local potentate surely could see the weakness of the central state and the ineffectiveness of the army and worry that greedy barbarians and uppity tenants might have designs to upset the social order and thus the incentive to create their own private militias.
Private armies were a result of unrest among the general population, banditry and bagaudae. Not the uselessness of the army. I never heard of a case in which the army was used against bucellarii. Belisarius used his own bucellarii in the reconquest of Africa and Italy.

Quote:
MarcellusCCLXXV:1j26n32q Wrote:Whether the imperial army was made up predominately of Latin Romans, Provincials, Germanics, or whomever, is tangential to the larger issue of: what became of those tens of thousands of soldiers armed under the imperial crown? Again, I would think that somehow they would have been disarmed and disbanded—either by force or choice or both—or else reconstituted elsewhere.
Like the Afghan army, there is such a thing on paper, but it doesn't really have any worth in a meaningful sense when it gets put to the test. The army and the state are two sides of the same coin, when one sinks so does the other. To me, it seems implausible that the West could have been overrun so easily if the forces in the Notitia actually were all combat capable. The East was in a similar boat but didn't seem to have the wealth inequalities, demographic problems of the West and was lucky it faced a state like itself and was at peace during much of the 5th century, so there was no means that the East could collapse like in the West.
Like I wrote earlier [and what you either dismissed as nonsense or failed to read], the West was never overrun. It was hollowed out and at some point ceased to exist.
And what is written in the Notitia predates the fall of the West by about 80 to 60 years, and may not have any bearing on the actual form or size of the Late Roman army in the West by the later 5th century.

The main difference between the situations in the West and the east were that a) the East had a geographic advantage (in the sense that a rebel that managed to gain control of Asia, almost always failed to control Europe) and b) the East managed to forestall the leading role of generalissimos such as Arbogast, Stilicho, Aetius and Ricimer, whose struggle to gain and hold power did innumerably more damage to the strenght of the state than any invading Germanic army.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#21
Quote:Now you're being argumentative. As to the Germanic influx into the empire, even if we would take the highest estimates, these numbers are still dwarved by the number of Roman citizens. If what you suggest is indeed that most 'Roman' recruits were in fact men descended from germanic ancestors, I can only ask you where you found that information, because I can't think of any scholar who has suggested this development.

No intention to be argumentative. What I am trying to say, perhaps poorly and insufficiently nuanced,is that shifting patterns of identity coupled with migration changes the self perception of those who serve (and the rest of the common folk). Of course there is no means of applying metrics to that assumption. Hopefully, my position isn't a case of having my cake and eating it too?

The West appears to suffer long term population decline attributable to the routine epidemics that hit, and, possibly the effects of declining agricultural productivity and climate change. The lands of southern Europe being typically more fertile and productive than the north lends itself to southward migration and this natural trend coupled with deliberate government policy would see a continual in-migration from beyond the border going over several centuries. That plus traditional sources of internal recruitment such as Illyricum get heavily damaged in several invasions would place a premium on soldiers from across the border.

My argument is essentially a class one which I know doesn't get much love these days. Being a 'real' Roman by the late empire is really a matter of class identity and religious orthodoxy. The issue of wealth inequality was always a severe one but got worse as the Empire grew older and the wealth divide is likely to be stronger in the West than the East. One source, I forget which says words to the effect that 'the rich barbarian wants to emulate the Roman and the poor Roman wants to emulate the Barbarian. There are always more poor than rich so there is only one way that trend can end.

Ethnic Identity is fluid, not fixed. It can shift over time based on circumstances and self interest, during periods of crisis identity differences can be sharpened or perceptions of identity can be changed.The process of becoming Roman as described by Tacitus falls over when the only social mobility is downwards. Roman identity as opposed to Gothic identity is sufficiently sharpened during the reign of Honorius that a pogrom of barbarians in Italy can occur but the fact the survivors went over to Alaric leaving Honorius with no army left (until he gets reinforced from the Eastern Empire) I think clearly shows the composition of the army.

I would suspect that polemicists such as Salvian really describe conditions in the empire very accurately. If preachers have to chastise their flocks for helping the barbarians locate the aristocrats treasure, there really is no love for the Empire and its ruling class and if the army is drawn from the same body of people cant see how they would share the same mindset. Even Ammianus, a minor aristocrat himself describes with disgust the social behaviours of the rulers. Of course, these behaviours were always there but become sharper as the government became more autocratic, less a partnership between regional urban elites and the state (as existed in the early empire) and more a command and control structure.

Quote:Also, I'de like to learn what sources 'often mention' that the army was 'more interested in extortion than doing their job and this trend got worse in late antiquity'. I think you're exaggerating wildly here. Some sources complain about certain trends, but we need to look at these complaints with caution, such as the complaint of Vegetius that the army refused to wear armour, which has been proven to be incorrect. Some sources liked to moan about the 'good old days'.

You statement that the Late Roman army was useless is nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

Thats a bit harsh. I draw on Ramsey Macmullen's work 'Corruption and the Decline of Rome' which draws out sources which mention military ineffectiveness and larceny, one from recall is Ammianus' reference to the North African scandal during the reign of Emperor Valentinian of the officer who got away with shaking down the provincials rather than fighting the enemy. MacMullen's thesis seems to find support from Adrian Goldsworthy as well. Given the paucity of the sources its always going to be a value judgement about how effective the army was. I find it difficult to imagine that the invasions of Alans and Vandals etc wouldn't have been able to be countered if an army of any reasonable capacity was in existence.

Quote:Like I wrote earlier [and what you either dismissed as nonsense or failed to read], the West was never overrun. It was hollowed out and at some point ceased to exist.

Not at all, I agree completely. Don't think there is any real acceptance nowadays of the West being overrun. A state ceases to be a state when it loses legitimacy and a different source of primary loyalty presents itself. In essence, Joseph Tainter has it best when it comes to societal collapse. The empire met its challenges by increasing complexity (more taxation and bigger (nominal) armies but this complexity had negative consequences which ultimately led to a dramatic decline in political and economic complexity when the returns on complexity were outweighed by the benefits.
Andrew J M
Reply
#22
Quote:I would suggest a good analogy for the late roman army is the Afghan army, sure it probably has a paper strength of x but a military planner wouldnt count on them being a reliable manpower source. They are poorly paid (thus extremely corrupt and hated by the ordinary people) and poorly motivated given they really have no conception of loyalty to a abstract construct called the Afghan State. Compare that to the Taliban who are extremely well motivated and willing to fight. Once the NATO forces leave the whole construct of an Afghan state will collapse, the Taliban can wreck a weak economy with little effort, no economy equals no taxes. No taxes equals no army and no legitimacy.

I think it's a bad idea comparing the Roman army, at any time, with a modern army. The broader environment - socially, technologically and culturally - has changed a lot since the preindustrial era, let alone the Iron Age.

If you have to make a comparison, I would use a professional army of some preindustrial state.
Take for instance the Habsburg army between the late 17th and early 19th centuries: a professional army, but multi-ethnic in character. Most recruits would be 'native' Habsburg subjects, but there would be a lot of 'foreigners', even (or especially) in the officer corps, as the army drew in young aristocrats from all over Europe.
Preindustrial society or not, corruption or not, the Habsburg army was no pushover, even if its performance was sometimes militarily uneven (but hey, its biggest defeats were at the hands of Frederick the Great's Prussians and Napoleon's armies, an honor they shared with much of the rest of contemporary Europe).
Nor was it particularly known for corruption or disloyalty, though it probably would look bad when compared to the more disciplined modern armies.
Andreas Baede
Reply
#23
Quote: The West appears to suffer long term population decline attributable to the routine epidemics that hit, and, possibly the effects of declining agricultural productivity and climate change. The lands of southern Europe being typically more fertile and productive than the north lends itself to southward migration and this natural trend coupled with deliberate government policy would see a continual in-migration from beyond the border going over several centuries. That plus traditional sources of internal recruitment such as Illyricum get heavily damaged in several invasions would place a premium on soldiers from across the border.
I immediately agree that the population of the empire was under pressure, and territorial losses would not have been helpful either. But your initial suggestion was that most of the Roman army would have been made up of Germanic soldiers due to these being hired and the regular recruits being of Germanic descent as well. And as there is no evidence for the former (a much-repeated statement based I think it was Synesius? Or much later, Gibbon), there is not even a claim for that from ancient writers.

Quote: The West My argument is essentially a class one which I know doesn't get much love these days. Being a 'real' Roman by the late empire is really a matter of class identity and religious orthodoxy. The issue of wealth inequality was always a severe one but got worse as the Empire grew older and the wealth divide is likely to be stronger in the West than the East. One source, I forget which says words to the effect that 'the rich barbarian wants to emulate the Roman and the poor Roman wants to emulate the Barbarian. There are always more poor than rich so there is only one way that trend can end.

I don’t quite agree with your conclusions. Being ‘Roman’ was first of all a legal matter, and secondly a mind thing. Class nor religion came into it. Poor people felt as Roman as the rich, and one could be a Christian barbarian. To the contrary I would say, religion plaid it’s part in diminishing the sharp borders between roman and non-Roman. Poor barbarians also wanted to emulate the Romans, btw. I bet the source who said that wanted to make a point towards the fashion chances in the Roman empire that indeed saw emulation of what the Romans saw as barbarian characteristics. I don’t think for a minute that the Romans really wanted to emulate the barbarians.

Quote: Ethnic Identity is fluid, not fixed. It can shift over time based on circumstances and self interest, during periods of crisis identity differences can be sharpened or perceptions of identity can be changed.The process of becoming Roman as described by Tacitus falls over when the only social mobility is downwards. Roman identity as opposed to Gothic identity is sufficiently sharpened during the reign of Honorius that a pogrom of barbarians in Italy can occur but the fact the survivors went over to Alaric leaving Honorius with no army left (until he gets reinforced from the Eastern Empire) I think clearly shows the composition of the army.

Roman-ness could be ethnic, but it’s first of all a matter of the law. Only when barbarian groups managed to remain independently organized under their own leaders (I’m not talking about laeti or dedititii) do we see free non-Roman groups who saw themselves as different from the Roman population, ruled under different laws. That’s when the empire has ended and Roman law does not apply to non-Romans.
Your example about Honorius is wrong, because he was not bereft of troops, only of a majority of freely available forces. Most of the army could not be accessed that quickly, or Honorius did not trust them (after all he just had Stilicho killed).

Quote: I would suspect that polemicists such as Salvian really describe conditions in the empire very accurately. If preachers have to chastise their flocks for helping the barbarians locate the aristocrats treasure, there really is no love for the Empire and its ruling class and if the army is drawn from the same body of people cant see how they would share the same mindset. Even Ammianus, a minor aristocrat himself describes with disgust the social behaviours of the rulers. Of course, these behaviours were always there but become sharper as the government became more autocratic, less a partnership between regional urban elites and the state (as existed in the early empire) and more a command and control structure.

True, their was much disgust over the abuse of power by the rich. But still we do not find any disloyalty within the army or even a refusal to serve for that very reason. The army was not disloyal to the state because the lower classes felt abused by the rich. Ammanianus may very well criticize the misuse of power but he shows himself ever loyal, and does not describe any disloyalty by the lower classes either.

Quote:. I draw on Ramsey Macmullen's work 'Corruption and the Decline of Rome' which draws out sources which mention military ineffectiveness and larceny, one from recall is Ammianus' reference to the North African scandal during the reign of Emperor Valentinian of the officer who got away with shaking down the provincials rather than fighting the enemy. Given the paucity of the sources its always going to be a value judgment about how effective the army was. I find it difficult to imagine that the invasions of Alans and Vandals etc wouldn't have been able to be countered if an army of any reasonable capacity was in existence.


Are you saying that an invasion meant that the Roman army was ineffective? That would mean that this was the case for a very long time. Marcomannic wars, 2nd century?

I suggest you read Elton about the effectiveness of the army. It’s a straw man often set up to compare the legions of the Republic to the Late Roman army and compare effectiveness, without comparing the conditions. Every invasion of sorts was countered and neutralized up to the mid-5th century, after which the state of the army had deteriorated to such an extent that a reasonable defense was no longer possible. But we are discussing the Late Roman army, which I consider to be a period ranging from 280 to 480, and that’s quite a stretch of time. Most arguments given for the ‘uselessness’ of the army are not valid for that period, but only for the later part.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#24
All,

Ave! Having read Epictus' earlier reply to my question regarding, "Whatever became of the late Roman army in the West?", I purchased a copy of Chris Wickham's book, The Inheritance of Rome. Epictetus is correct, the book is very insightful and well-done. Wickham answers a lot of our questions. I, too, recommend the book. Thanks for the suggestion Epictetus! Big Grin

- Marcellus
Marcellus Valerius Gothicus (aka Dave Dietrich)
Reply
#25
Quote: Odoacar never became emperor of Rome, but he also did not become 'king of Italy'. he became ruler of his own Germanic followers and asked for leave to rule to Romans for Contantinople.
Robert, I think I know where you are going with this comment but Odoacer did become king of Italy. He apparently was slick about how he went about it. When dealing with Zeno, the Roman emperor in the East, he was careful to use the term, dux. However, in Italy he used the term, rex. See Wickham's book cited previously, for example. We are in full agreement, however, that he was not emperor in any way. Dave
Marcellus Valerius Gothicus (aka Dave Dietrich)
Reply
#26
Quote:All,

Ave! Having read Epictus' earlier reply to my question regarding, "Whatever became of the late Roman army in the West?", I purchased a copy of Chris Wickham's book, The Inheritance of Rome. Epictetus is correct, the book is very insightful and well-done. Wickham answers a lot of our questions. I, too, recommend the book. Thanks for the suggestion Epictetus! Big Grin

- Marcellus

I'm glad you liked it. It was one of the best I've come across in recent years.
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
Reply
#27
Quote:Roman-ness could be ethnic, but it’s first of all a matter of the law.

indeed, from Caracalla on all free persons within the empire were citizens and the law codes of the successor states drew a distinction between roman and non-roman or better expressed between rulers and ruled (those who paid tax and those exempt.

What is really important legally however is the legal distinction between grades of citizens honestiores (honoured) and humiliores (humble-the lower classes). While the empire was always one of marked inequality and injustice the inequality and injustice grows and being a citizen of the later empire was a chore. It would have been hard to show any loyalty and identify with a system which allows you to get tortured and executed and robbed virtually at whim. No doubt, the rise of the church can in part be explained as a means of creating a counterweight to the arbitrary power of the bureaucracy.

In the earlier empire there were more competing sources of patronage and the emperor was more accessible so the provincials and even the lower classes could entertain some hope (perhaps a small one) that the government could address injustice. The early empire seems to have offered at least the opportunity for the lower classes to 'make it.' The later empire, no way. The legal system froze them in their spot with no room for social advancement. The humiliore risked severe punishment if he left his job.As the government took almost everything from certain occupations eg miners and the like there was no economic incentive to produce more. Technically the humiliore is free, but really he is little better than a slave.

By the later empire, the balancing act of provincial city elites and the roman state is gone. Paraphrasing Halsall 'in the early empire all roads lead to Rome, in the later empire all roads lead from Rome'

Any criticism of the emperor and his officials was considered blasphemy, with one other writer I think Symacchus getting sharply put in his place by the courtiers for daring to criticise the emperors appointments. If one of the richest people in the empire must watch what he says what hope for anyone else. 'Lese majeste' is in every system in every epoch the shield used by the ruling elite to protect privilege and hide corruption.

With the ordinary subject too afraid to voice criticism and the law courts only serving the wealthy the emperor would not get honest information, indeed his vast army of bureaucrats look to their own interests before that of the empire. The emperor was even forced to rescind laws passed under his name on the grounds that he didn't in fact pass them. Just like every modern authoritarian dictatorship, the empire was a seething mass of anarchy, inertia, incompetence, venality and apathy beneath a think blanket of red tape.

What does all this have to do with the fate of the Western army? If the governance of the empire was in such a shambles and the system was so unjust it would beggar belief the army would be any different. With an army supposedly far larger than the early empire and a government structure meant to supply the soldiers with food and equipment it should have been easier not harder to beat off incursions. While the barbarians become more hierarchical and better organised the average barbarian soldier is unlikely to have the same level of equipment and definitely didn't have the same level of logistical support as the roman.

The logical inference is that the army is beset by the same governance issues as the rest of the empire. Officers are afraid to show initiative lest they earn the ire of the courtiers for being too ambitious, the bureaucrats who supply the army siphon off resources meant for the soldiers and the officers withhold pay, hire out the soldiers for farm work or enforcers rather than training. I would suspect the soldiers who resist this trend the most are the limitanei, as they are protecting their homes. Perhaps this or that officer belonged to the 'old school' putting country first leaving office poor when he left than when he went in and perhaps this or that community of veterans tries to maintain the old values but they would have been few and far between and would be swimming against the tide.

Elton's suggestion of continued military efficiency can be responded by the fact that the barbarians never really want to destroy the empire, merely to secure their place in it on terms advantageous to them. Accordingly, the empire can use one barbarian group as a foil for others until the empire reaches the tipping point where it loses hegemony in the mid-5th century (due to loss of tax receipts)and then the western political system unravels as even the ruling elite no longer benefits from the system and looks to the new lords to protect their property.

Quote:I think it's a bad idea comparing the Roman army, at any time, with a modern army. The broader environment - socially, technologically and culturally - has changed a lot since the preindustrial era, let alone the Iron Age.

With respect, I don't see a problem in drawing analogies between social/political systems of different eras. I would suggest that any military's effectiveness can be reduced to a formula of Morale (motivation) + Training and Equipment + Leadership + Support (social and political) = Effectiveness.

Human nature hasn't changed and all other things being equal people react the same way to similar stressors. They show anger in the face of injustice. Apathy, resentment and 'learned helplessness' in the face of arbitrary and capricious power. They 'hedge their bets' if they don't know the system will protect them, and they display loyalty and devotion when shown respect and honour. People always look to their own devices and revert to primary loyalties (family and clan) when they fear a large scale political/economic system is starting to unravel (thus accelerating the collapse). They did in the later roman empire and they will when ours does.
Andrew J M
Reply
#28
Well, yea...., the term 'Roman' was technically a legal term that changed over time. For example, the term 'Roman' during the time of Caracalla was far more inclusive and expansive than the same term used in the days of Tiberius. But so what? Also, let's not forget there was also a practical meaning of the term, 'Roman.' The practical meaning might have included the concept of being Latinized, perhaps even being Catholic (vice Arian) in one's religious thought. Arguably to be Roman was to embrace the culture and values of the empire at the time (and I realize the empire was multicultural and polyglotic, but still Latinization and Helinization defined it mostly), and of course to hold allegiance to the empire and to the emperor. So, one could be of barbarian ancestry (e.g. Stilicho) and yet be very Roman. Concomitantly, one could have been born a Roman citizen, may even have fought in the Roman Army for the emperor at some point, but later went over to the barbarian side, like fighting on the side of the Huns, for example. I think a good, modern-day analogy would be being American. One can be of, let's say, German ethnicity (as I am) but be an American, not a German national. Again, please understand my basic question, "whatever became of the soldiers in the imperial Roman army in the West, particularly after 476 AD?" I really don't care if they were or were not Roman citizens, nor if they were Sabine, Latin, Sarmation, or Gepid. I believe some of you have provided some very good, insightful replies on the intended theme though. Thanks guys! Big Grin
Marcellus Valerius Gothicus (aka Dave Dietrich)
Reply
#29
Quote: What does all this have to do with the fate of the Western army? If the governance of the empire was in such a shambles and the system was so unjust it would beggar belief the army would be any different. With an army supposedly far larger than the early empire and a government structure meant to supply the soldiers with food and equipment it should have been easier not harder to beat off incursions. While the barbarians become more hierarchical and better organised the average barbarian soldier is unlikely to have the same level of equipment and definitely didn't have the same level of logistical support as the roman.
Well then, since we know the army was NOT a shambles during most of the 5th century - I've limited the discussion to that period, because it would be too simplistic to even think of the 4th c. as such a 'shambles' - it may not have been that bad for Roman society after all. What you describe is indeed true, but not for everyone everywhere everytime. Excesses did happen, but socity was not reporessed in such a way that they turned their backs on Rome. No evidence suggests that. To suppose that is exaggerating.

Quote:The logical inference is that the army is beset by the same governance issues as the rest of the empire. Officers are afraid to show initiative lest they earn the ire of the courtiers for being too ambitious, the bureaucrats who supply the army siphon off resources meant for the soldiers and the officers withhold pay, hire out the soldiers for farm work or enforcers rather than training. I would suspect the soldiers who resist this trend the most are the limitanei, as they are protecting their homes. Perhaps this or that officer belonged to the 'old school' putting country first leaving office poor when he left than when he went in and perhaps this or that community of veterans tries to maintain the old values but they would have been few and far between and would be swimming against the tide.

That would be a logical inference, and since we have no evidence to support it, the original supposition must also be wrong.
Officers had initiave enough, as is proven time and again. Only as a high commander one should have eyes in your back, or else a powerful protector. Court intrige could indeed be deadly, but it was not a new thing at all. Theodosius the Elder was killed because he was too successsful, but his son manged to start a dynasty.
If commanders were not bold enough it was because of Adrianople and the realisation that it could all go in one defeat.

I respect your views on society, but that view of what the people on the ground felt and did is simply not proven by what we know for our sources. The French Revolution was still centuries off.

Quote:Elton's suggestion of continued military efficiency can be responded by the fact that the barbarians never really want to destroy the empire, merely to secure their place in it on terms advantageous to them. Accordingly, the empire can use one barbarian group as a foil for others until the empire reaches the tipping point where it loses hegemony in the mid-5th century (due to loss of tax receipts)and then the western political system unravels as even the ruling elite no longer benefits from the system and looks to the new lords to protect their property.
That's oversimplistic. the Romans were successful because the barbarians let them? Then you haven't been reading Elton. The Romans won most of the time, but by and by they became overextended. It's not a case of barbarians of giving up the fight as soon as a Roman detachment came into view, with a generous bargain. There were wars and raids, plenty of them. The ensuing lack of safety and the fall of trawe was what did the Roman empire in, after all.

I agree with the turning point from that view - it was the lack of safety that drove the provincials to look for other masters. And to them, these were no different than earlier barbarians with a Roman command. The Gallic nobilty was the first to rebel, then the Gallic field army, and only by and by did the population lose their fealing of being a 'Roman'. When this exactly happened we don't know. But judging from the lack of cheering masses greeting belisarius, it could have been rather quickly, I'd say before the century was out.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#30
Very good explanations and arguments, as usual, Robert. Big Grin


But I've one question. You wrote:

Quote:...

The main difference between the situations in the West and the east were that a) the East had a geographic advantage (in the sense that a rebel that managed to gain control of Asia, almost always failed to control Europe) and b) the East managed to forestall the leading role of generalissimos such as Arbogast, Stilicho, Aetius and Ricimer, whose struggle to gain and hold power did innumerably more damage to the strenght of the state than any invading Germanic army.

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. What do you mean?
Wolfgang Zeiler
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  AD455 - the fall of the Roman west? Nathan Ross 15 3,624 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 5,693 08-21-2008, 01:39 AM
Last Post: SvenLittkowski

Forum Jump: