06-25-2010, 01:55 PM
The Germanisation of the roman army or the Romanisation of the Germans to put another way was a very long process. Through service in the army as auxilliaries and trade across the frontier German society became more Roman like (greater hierarchy, more wealth inequality and the formation of ever larger tribal groupings).
Its seems axiomatic in history that opposing military forces given long enough time tend to resemble each other as they copy apparently succesfull tactics and behaviours of their opponents. For example, the Roman army adopts Germanic cultural norms such as raising leaders on shields, spatha swords, draco standards
It was routine to take captured Germanic prisoners and settle them on abandoned lands in the empire which start to be a problem from the 2nd century. These people eventually get absorbed into roman society. Perhaps they don't entirely lose their Germanness. When all people in the empire were made citizens the ethnic distinctions of citizen/non-citizen become less important. With rising income inequality the critical social marker in late antiquity was wealth and status not ethnicity. Things start to change from the Third Century Crisis on. More civil wars lead to more invasions in turn lead to more civil wars. Each civil war needs to urgently raise troops and the Germans are an easy recruiting ground. The empire becomes more regionalised and trade starts to decline meaning the Latin language starts to take on regional characteristics with one late Roman senator (Sidonis I think saying he cant understand the common people). The common people are still roman but they aren't as roman as they used to be, the only 'real' Romans at the end were the holders of the elite cultural values ie the senatorial class.
I would suspect that the late roman army (at least the field army) was probably mostly German (admittedly not an uncontested view). If most of the officers mentioned in the historical sources are Germanic I cant see how the rank and file would not be the same. As an occupation the military was a poor one with bad pay and harsh discipline. Elites don't serve (better prestige in the clergy or bureaucracy) and due to manpower shortages the poor have better options. The rich would readily remit the supply of recruits from their properties for a monetary fee which the government would use to recruit Germanic mercenaries. The house of cards starts to crumble when the Empire in a moment of weakness allowed Germans to settle in the empire under their own rulers ultimately leading to the Gothic king Alaric who held a roman military office sacking Rome because he wanted a better deal from the Empire for his people.
As a realistic source on the military units of the West I would suggest; although I have no real proof, that the Notitia Dignitatum indicates units in name only. Given the rampant bureaucratic corruption of the later roman empire and the extreme difficulty the empire had dealing with would have been relatively small invasions, the units mentioned probably were understrength with the officers pocketing the difference in salaries from real and reported strength and the military suppliers pocketing the difference between equipment produced and equipment supplied.
I could readily imagine the later roman empire as akin to the Brezhnev era Soviet Union with nothing working as it should, the bosses completely unaware of conditions on the ground being deceived by their blanket of bureaucrats and a ruling elite actively seeking official appointments to boost their prestige and milk the system dry. Probably the only real Roman military units to be effective would be the Limitanei (border troops) who would be defending hearth and home. If Procopius is right about Roman units in post Roman Gaul he's probably referring to the Limitanei.
Its seems axiomatic in history that opposing military forces given long enough time tend to resemble each other as they copy apparently succesfull tactics and behaviours of their opponents. For example, the Roman army adopts Germanic cultural norms such as raising leaders on shields, spatha swords, draco standards
It was routine to take captured Germanic prisoners and settle them on abandoned lands in the empire which start to be a problem from the 2nd century. These people eventually get absorbed into roman society. Perhaps they don't entirely lose their Germanness. When all people in the empire were made citizens the ethnic distinctions of citizen/non-citizen become less important. With rising income inequality the critical social marker in late antiquity was wealth and status not ethnicity. Things start to change from the Third Century Crisis on. More civil wars lead to more invasions in turn lead to more civil wars. Each civil war needs to urgently raise troops and the Germans are an easy recruiting ground. The empire becomes more regionalised and trade starts to decline meaning the Latin language starts to take on regional characteristics with one late Roman senator (Sidonis I think saying he cant understand the common people). The common people are still roman but they aren't as roman as they used to be, the only 'real' Romans at the end were the holders of the elite cultural values ie the senatorial class.
I would suspect that the late roman army (at least the field army) was probably mostly German (admittedly not an uncontested view). If most of the officers mentioned in the historical sources are Germanic I cant see how the rank and file would not be the same. As an occupation the military was a poor one with bad pay and harsh discipline. Elites don't serve (better prestige in the clergy or bureaucracy) and due to manpower shortages the poor have better options. The rich would readily remit the supply of recruits from their properties for a monetary fee which the government would use to recruit Germanic mercenaries. The house of cards starts to crumble when the Empire in a moment of weakness allowed Germans to settle in the empire under their own rulers ultimately leading to the Gothic king Alaric who held a roman military office sacking Rome because he wanted a better deal from the Empire for his people.
As a realistic source on the military units of the West I would suggest; although I have no real proof, that the Notitia Dignitatum indicates units in name only. Given the rampant bureaucratic corruption of the later roman empire and the extreme difficulty the empire had dealing with would have been relatively small invasions, the units mentioned probably were understrength with the officers pocketing the difference in salaries from real and reported strength and the military suppliers pocketing the difference between equipment produced and equipment supplied.
I could readily imagine the later roman empire as akin to the Brezhnev era Soviet Union with nothing working as it should, the bosses completely unaware of conditions on the ground being deceived by their blanket of bureaucrats and a ruling elite actively seeking official appointments to boost their prestige and milk the system dry. Probably the only real Roman military units to be effective would be the Limitanei (border troops) who would be defending hearth and home. If Procopius is right about Roman units in post Roman Gaul he's probably referring to the Limitanei.
Andrew J M
