Whatever became of the Roman Army in the West

[Robert Vermaat]

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.

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.

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.