10-02-2012, 09:04 PM
I thought Hugh Elton had disproven the idea that the late Roman army was mostly composed of 'barbarians.'
And the land issues rather complicated. It's common for newcomers to settle marginal land. For example, in the Balkans, both the Goths and Slavs followed this pattern, with early settlement on the foothills of the Balkan mountains and of what's now Sakar.
I think agricultural specialization might explain this. The Roman Empire was most focused on Mediterranean agriculture, with certain climates and soil types, and may have been less efficient at other styles of agriculture for other climates and soil types. So large areas [such as forested uplands, marshes, forests] might have been sub-marginal from the Roman point of view and slightly above marginal from newcomers' points of view.
Another complimentary issue is the tax system. A.H.M. Jones discusses it in depth, and suggests, if I'm not mistaken, that the Roman system overtaxed marginal land relative to valuable land, and had quite dysfunctional policies regarding abandoned land. The high relative taxation actually made some marginal land too expensive to cultivate, and the abandonment policies could result in cascading crises after major plagues [such as those of Marcus Aurelius].
And the land issues rather complicated. It's common for newcomers to settle marginal land. For example, in the Balkans, both the Goths and Slavs followed this pattern, with early settlement on the foothills of the Balkan mountains and of what's now Sakar.
I think agricultural specialization might explain this. The Roman Empire was most focused on Mediterranean agriculture, with certain climates and soil types, and may have been less efficient at other styles of agriculture for other climates and soil types. So large areas [such as forested uplands, marshes, forests] might have been sub-marginal from the Roman point of view and slightly above marginal from newcomers' points of view.
Another complimentary issue is the tax system. A.H.M. Jones discusses it in depth, and suggests, if I'm not mistaken, that the Roman system overtaxed marginal land relative to valuable land, and had quite dysfunctional policies regarding abandoned land. The high relative taxation actually made some marginal land too expensive to cultivate, and the abandonment policies could result in cascading crises after major plagues [such as those of Marcus Aurelius].
