Aetius and the Western Empire

[Robert Vermaat]

The east was also lucky in that most barbarians headed west.

I would not say that. The Goths were also a major bother for the East, as were the Huns, Avars, Slavs, Persians always of course - many of these barbarians never turned West.

[starman2012]

I would not say that. The Goths were also a major bother for the East, as were the Huns, Avars, Slavs, Persians always of course - many of these barbarians never turned West.

The Huns were a nightmare for the east in the 440s. But in the fifth century at least, the others weren't such a problem.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I would not say that. The Goths were also a major bother for the East, as were the Huns, Avars, Slavs, Persians always of course - many of these barbarians never turned West.

The Huns were a nightmare for the east in the 440s. But in the fifth century at least, the others weren't such a problem.

I still have to dispute some of this - The East relied on shelling out tribute; the west didn't have that option, because they didn't have the money to support thier army, let alone pay off the huns.

The worst the East got was between 378-406 and then 441-449, that's about it. The West got the Invasions of 378, 406, 429, and 451/52

Aetius, in fact, was an excellent diplomat, but not as good as Avitus though.

The West used military force because they ahd no other option. They couldn't afford to concede territory or pay off barbari anymore.

As for the field army, I bet if Aetius had sent Marcellinus with the Illyrian Army, which is reputedly quite large and included hunnic mercenaries, than spain may have been re-taken.

[starman2012]

I still have to dispute some of this - The East relied on shelling out tribute; the west didn't have that option, because they didn't have the money to support thier army, let alone pay off the huns.

Certainly not by the 440s.

The worst the East got was between 378-406 and then 441-449, that's about it. The West got the Invasions of 378, 406, 429, and 451/52

Right and it's not just # of times but # of different invaders seeking permanent settlement/annexation.

The West used military force because they ahd no other option. They couldn't afford to concede territory or pay off barbari anymore.

The East tried militarily in the 440s but just couldn't cut it.

As for the field army, I bet if Aetius had sent Marcellinus with the Illyrian Army, which is reputedly quite large and included hunnic mercenaries, than spain may have been re-taken.

Then why didn't he? You'd think if he had a good force available in Illyria--presumably for some time--why turn to the Huns prior to 440? Or, if this great army of Marcellinus arose after 439, where did they get the dough to pay for it?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Certainly not by the 440s.

Right and it's not just # of times but # of different invaders seeking permanent settlement/annexation.

The East tried militarily in the 440s but just couldn't cut it.

Then why didn't he? You'd think if he had a good force available in Illyria--presumably for some time--why turn to the Huns prior to 440? Or, if this great army of Marcellinus arose after 439, where did they get the dough to pay for it?

Likely because if the huns attacked the west, Aetius could send Marcellinus against their camp.

By large I meant around 5-10000 men at most, which would be considered large at that time. Aetius probably sent about 5000 men into spain.

Remember, accordign to the Nov Valentinian the West lost 30000 infantry and cavalry from the Invasion of Africa (based on a figure of 30 solidi per annum which accounts for unit maintinence, equipment, and pay)

Tha tonly leaves Aetius with 30000 men total probably.

[Robert Vermaat]

Gentlemen, I must disagree about the idea that'The East had less problems and far more money'. Sure, after Atilla the Huns were no longer empire-breakers, but the kept being a threat from time to time (although some 'Huns' may have been Avars or whatever, lumped as usual under one generic name). The Ostrogoths were also a great problem until they moved West in the 6th c., and let's not forget the Isaurians, the Persians, Vandals (who also raided in the East).
As to money, it's not that the West did not have it, but they allowed the federates to collect their taxes, as well as use the money still available on the short-term hiring of more mercenaries! They had it, but they chose to spend it in a different 9and ultimately wrong) way. Aetius was part of that choice.

[starman2012]

The Ostrogoths were also a great problem until they moved West in the 6th c.,

Around the end of the fifth.

and let's not forget the Isaurians, the Persians

In the fifth century at least, the Persian front was quiet--certainly relative to what had transpired in previous centuries. Had there been major fighting there, precluding the interventions in the early 430s (Aspar), in 441, and in 468, historians would probably say Persia prevented the East from recovering North Africa hence was indirectly responsible for the fall of the West.

[starman2012]

By large I meant around 5-10000 men at most, which would be considered large at that time. Aetius probably sent about 5000 men into spain.

Including the Visigoths? Just 5,000--no wonder Vitus was whooped.

Remember, accordign to the Nov Valentinian the West lost 30000 infantry and cavalry from the Invasion of Africa (based on a figure of 30 solidi per annum which accounts for unit maintinence, equipment, and pay)

Tha tonly leaves Aetius with 30000 men total probably.

I suspect the pre-439 figure of 60,000 and post-439 figure of 30,000 were just on paper i.e. they could hire and pay that many but didn't necessarily have them.

[Robert Vermaat]

In the fifth century at least, the Persian front was quiet--certainly relative to what had transpired in previous centuries. Had there been major fighting there, precluding the interventions in the early 430s (Aspar), in 441, and in 468, historians would probably say Persia prevented the East from recovering North Africa hence was indirectly responsible for the fall of the West.

There was major fighting there (and what historians would say or not will forever remain a mystery) and it did effect actions against the Vandals even though it was not as heavy as the previous century. But keeping the frontier manned and ready would have been a constant worry anyway.

421 - War erupts in Persia (after the death of Yazdegird I), the Alan magister militum Ardabur campaigns against the Sassanid king Varanes (Bahram) V.
441 - Another expedition by Theodosius against the Vandals in Sicily turns back because the Persians invade the Empire.

[starman2012]

441 - Another expedition by Theodosius against the Vandals in Sicily turns back because the Persians invade the Empire.

The Huns were the main problem in 441.

[neutra]

Hero or vilain? I my oppinion it's more complex than this.

I read some critics he acted only for his own wealth or avidity for power. True, but who did not in Roman history? Cesar, Pompei, Constantine, ...

I have often raised the question how "roman" was Aetius actually? We judge his acts and policies based on a contemporary view of the roman history. But he had the view of his time, having knowledge of roman past glory through few accounts of writers.

He was born around 390-396 according to source, in an already weaken empire. He spent many years as hostage in the court of barbarians. When he was a young adult most of the western roman world had been devastated by barbarians and most part of the empire settled by them.

Being a roman in 430AD was a totally different feeling than in 370AD.

Therefore his use of barbarian troops is not strange at all, also bearing in mind that "native" troops often proove non reliable in the past (and still, I am conviced there were no native troops anymore after at least 420 except local militias).

Settling barbarians in within the former empire bordes probably contribued to it's final decline but was there another option? Maybe he considered their presence as a potential source of manpower when needed.

But I do agree that the title of "last of the roman" is more a romantic view by the modern world than wat he really was or tried to achieve.

Don't shoot me, it's just an opinion





:wink:

[starman2012]

I read some critics he acted only for his own wealth or avidity for power. True, but who did not in Roman history? Cesar, Pompei, Constantine, ...

Marcus Aurelius? mile: But your point is valid. Even someone with the best of intentions can't accomplish anything without staying in power.

Therefore his use of barbarian troops is not strange at all,

He was no stranger to Huns, having spent so much time with them.

(and still, I am conviced there were no native troops anymore after at least 420 except local militias).

That would also explain why Aetius turned to the Huns in the 430s.

Settling barbarians in within the former empire bordes probably contribued to it's final decline

I'll say...

but was there another option?

If they only the Romans had sufficient strength they would've killed or ejected them--with the exception of some settled on abandoned land.

Maybe he considered their presence as a potential source of manpower when needed.

Nothing new about recruiting barbarians by then but they didn't have to be within the empire, under their own kings for that.

But I do agree that the title of "last of the roman" is more a romantic view by the modern world than wat he really was or tried to achieve.

Aetius was very resourceful and repeatedly did what he had to do, including enlisting former enemies, in his own interest and in that of the empire--what was left of it.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Therefore his use of barbarian troops is not strange at all, also bearing in mind that "native" troops often proove non reliable in the past (and still, I am conviced there were no native troops anymore after at least 420 except local militias).

Settling barbarians in within the former empire bordes probably contribued to it's final decline but was there another option? Maybe he considered their presence as a potential source of manpower when needed.

There's still a lot of evidence that remnants of the Field Armies Remained intact. Someone once mentioned the Excercitus always travelled with Aetius (can't remember who or thier source).

Sidonius Appollinaris mentions that Aetius' force was "Once Roman Sources and Now the Flower of the Allied Forces" referring to that the Roman Soldiers were fighting out of Loyalty to Aetius, probably hoping that they'd get access to the "Pile of Loot" Attila gathered in his campaign accross Germany into Gaul.

The "Militias" were groups of Bucellarii hired by Landlords like Aetius. That can be exemplified in multiple instances. Control of Roman Lands (Notably Gaul) was based on whomever the Landlords were loyal to. If the Landlords in aquitaine were loyal to Theodoric, the Visigoths controlled the Area (and they managed to continue to do so). However, the landlords weren't always loyal to Rome - Tournai was loyal to Rome, but when the Franks attacked the Countryside on the border-lands (Vicus Helena) in 448 it was likely to do with the Landlords shifting Loyalties (and who they were paying taxes to).

[starman2012]

Tournai was loyal to Rome, but when the Franks attacked the Countryside on the border-lands (Vicus Helena) in 448 it was likely to do with the Landlords shifting Loyalties

No wonder; there wasn't much basis for confidence in the WRE by then.

[neutra]

The "Militias" were groups of Bucellarii hired by Landlords like Aetius. That can be exemplified in multiple instances. Control of Roman Lands (Notably Gaul) was based on whomever the Landlords were loyal to. If the Landlords in aquitaine were loyal to Theodoric, the Visigoths controlled the Area (and they managed to continue to do so). However, the landlords weren't always loyal to Rome - Tournai was loyal to Rome, but when the Franks attacked the Countryside on the border-lands (Vicus Helena) in 448 it was likely to do with the Landlords shifting Loyalties (and who they were paying taxes to).

Thanks for the info.
The whole complexity of (feudal) landlors/warlords power in the late roman times is fascinating.
But wat about the cities, or what remained of it? Were they also protected by bucellarii or did they have a call of arms to militiamen like in the later middle ages?