Aetius decision

[taira1180]

After reading that Aetius had an army of 60.000 huns i wonder way he choose to force the visigoths to return to aquitania instead of exterminating them, or at least expelled them outside the empire? With such a big army he could have change many things. Any opinion about that?

[Comerus Gallus]

After reading that Aetius had an army of 60.000 huns i wonder way he choose to force the visigoths to return to aquitania instead of exterminating them, or at least expelled them outside the empire? With such a big army he could have change many things. Any opinion about that?

Perhaps.... a political calculation.... or he thought they can be use or be of help in certain situation....

And perhaps he thought that he need people to fight.... otherwise his life was in balance at home.....Perhaps?

Good question.

[Robert Vermaat]

No Roman commander ever destroyed the Goths, since they were a valuable source of manpower. Please be reminded that the Goths (or Tervingi in this case, the name Visigoths is not accurate for the group) were never a monolithic people that stuck together behing one king no matter what. All the time there were groups that tried their luck elsewhere, with the Romans mostly.

Destroying them with your Huns also meant that you had 60.000 Huns and no Goths to keep them busy.

Aetius did destroy the Burgundians though with 'his' Huns, but apparently (as a relatively recent arrival inside the Empire - the Tervingi had been there since the late 4th c.) they were much more of an uncontrollable nuisance.

[taira1180]

Basically a political problem.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

You are assuming that 60000 is accurate :o

[taira1180]

Even if his army was smaller (20.000?), that don't change anything since he did manage to defeat the visigoths (or any name you prefer to use), so why instead of sparing he didn't expel them?

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

As others say political reasons. I also think it would not have aided the empire militarily. The Visigoths were, to some degree, still willing to work within a sort of foederate framework. Who would the Romans replace them with?

[taira1180]

Yes, but earlier (in the III/IV century) the romans had the politic of exterminating/expelling the barbarians to solve one problem after the other. Keeping one vanquish tribe was inviting future troubles; why did they change their politics?

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

The Romans were settling barbarians within the empire from Augustus' time so the policy was not to exterminate or to expel to the exclusion of anything else. In the C4thAD Constantine, for example, settled many barbarians.

The Goths in Gaul were, I think, the big change. The Romans decided that they could not defeat them, or at least not without such a risk as to make it not worth trying. Therefore, they came to an arrangement. Previous settlements had been with defeated enemies.

Looks like the Romans were not in a position to crushingly defeat the Goths and additionally their manpower was needed.

BTW Burns' "Barbarians Within the Gates of Rome" casts some very interesting insights onto the events leading up to the Gothic settlement. If you haven't already I'd recommend you read it.

[Robert Vermaat]

The Goths in Gaul were, I think, the big change. The Romans decided that they could not defeat them, or at least not without such a risk as to make it not worth trying. Therefore, they came to an arrangement. Previous settlements had been with defeated enemies.

Yes, it looks like the Goths were a massive settlement during a time when the Roman army was maybe strong enough to exert Roman power, but maybe not Roman enough. These new groups were sometimes used as federate armies, and it took not very long for all of them to start wondering about their position. It dawned on them that they in fact did not need the Empire to be successfull, and that's the end of their attempts to integrate into the Empire. NOT Roman culture, mind you, that is still what they want to belong to. During the same period, we see e.g. in Gaul that provincials become aware that the Empire is not looking after them first, so gradually you see them changing their allegiance to family and city first, meaning they can cooperate with Franks and Goths and still be good citizens, not traitors.

For me, the end of the West is the moment when the most powerful man in Rome (Patrician, guys like Aetius, Ricimer, etc., who decided who became Western Emperor), the Burgundian Gundobad, decides that the position of First Man in Rome is not as good as the position of King of the Burgundians. The year is 474, and not much later the next in line (Odoacar) decides that he needs not bother to kill the young Emperor Romulus, but pensions him and his mother off to a villa.