05-17-2017, 11:17 PM
He was, but the Gallic Aristocracy was pretty much not influential in the court in Ravenna. Majorian was away from his army and his Gallic supporters, Ricimer persuaded the Italic aristocracy that he wasn't in their best interests (Ricimer was a Burgundian and Majorian had recently smashed their recent bout of expansion) and therefore he went caput.
Well yeah of course I would, but so do most authors. Unlike Stilicho or Belisarius, it's thought that Aetius really did run the empire. He managed almost every aspect of it barring some legislation and religion, which still fell under Valentinian III. He was an outstanding diplomat, administrator, and brilliant military tactician. He was also EXTREMELY pragmatic and recognized the limits of, well everything. Despite the financial losses, he recognized that after the fall of Africa these people could not afford their taxes and so gave them breaks and exemptions. Even when the possibility of uniting the Empire after Theodosius II's death was presented, giving the possibility of badly needed income and manpower from the East, he realized that even he could not lead a successful campaign against Marcian and told Valentinian III no. He probably also wanted to keep out powerful potential rivals like Aspar, Zeno, etc. at the Eastern Court.
Stilicho and Belisarius don't seem to ever reach the level of micromanaging super-general-administrator Aetius did. I'm not saying he was an angel: after all he did support an usurper, have his rival Felix brutally executed, and probably did instigate the conflict with Boniface in 432 to try and take complete control over the West. But it doesn't seem that any of his actions actually contributed it to the fall of the west. Many authors state that it was a testament to Aetius' ability that after his death it only took 22 years for the Empire to collapse. He, and his officers and bureaucrats who must have been capable men, held it together.
All nations rely on leadership. Aetius was a good leader. The empire didn't have the leaders it needed at the times of weakness that led to its collapse: Stilicho was obsessed with controlling the East when the Usurpers took Gaul and Spain and the Rhine was crossed in 406, while Ricimer wasn't acting in Roman interests at all.
It didn't help that the Huns effectively wiped out between 100,000-300,000 men and devastated the Balkans reducing the population and tax base either.
They solved the famine in North Italy though. It's just how they solved said famine that wasn't helpful...
Quote:Well you would say that!
Well yeah of course I would, but so do most authors. Unlike Stilicho or Belisarius, it's thought that Aetius really did run the empire. He managed almost every aspect of it barring some legislation and religion, which still fell under Valentinian III. He was an outstanding diplomat, administrator, and brilliant military tactician. He was also EXTREMELY pragmatic and recognized the limits of, well everything. Despite the financial losses, he recognized that after the fall of Africa these people could not afford their taxes and so gave them breaks and exemptions. Even when the possibility of uniting the Empire after Theodosius II's death was presented, giving the possibility of badly needed income and manpower from the East, he realized that even he could not lead a successful campaign against Marcian and told Valentinian III no. He probably also wanted to keep out powerful potential rivals like Aspar, Zeno, etc. at the Eastern Court.
Stilicho and Belisarius don't seem to ever reach the level of micromanaging super-general-administrator Aetius did. I'm not saying he was an angel: after all he did support an usurper, have his rival Felix brutally executed, and probably did instigate the conflict with Boniface in 432 to try and take complete control over the West. But it doesn't seem that any of his actions actually contributed it to the fall of the west. Many authors state that it was a testament to Aetius' ability that after his death it only took 22 years for the Empire to collapse. He, and his officers and bureaucrats who must have been capable men, held it together.
All nations rely on leadership. Aetius was a good leader. The empire didn't have the leaders it needed at the times of weakness that led to its collapse: Stilicho was obsessed with controlling the East when the Usurpers took Gaul and Spain and the Rhine was crossed in 406, while Ricimer wasn't acting in Roman interests at all.
It didn't help that the Huns effectively wiped out between 100,000-300,000 men and devastated the Balkans reducing the population and tax base either.
They solved the famine in North Italy though. It's just how they solved said famine that wasn't helpful...
Evan Schultheis | MODERATOR
Rhomaios Living History Society
Support us on Patreon
Rhomaios Living History Society
Support us on Patreon
