Whatever became of the Roman Army in the West

[elagababbalus]

Now you're being argumentative. As to the Germanic influx into the empire, even if we would take the highest estimates, these numbers are still dwarved by the number of Roman citizens. If what you suggest is indeed that most 'Roman' recruits were in fact men descended from germanic ancestors, I can only ask you where you found that information, because I can't think of any scholar who has suggested this development.

No intention to be argumentative. What I am trying to say, perhaps poorly and insufficiently nuanced,is that shifting patterns of identity coupled with migration changes the self perception of those who serve (and the rest of the common folk). Of course there is no means of applying metrics to that assumption. Hopefully, my position isn't a case of having my cake and eating it too?

The West appears to suffer long term population decline attributable to the routine epidemics that hit, and, possibly the effects of declining agricultural productivity and climate change. The lands of southern Europe being typically more fertile and productive than the north lends itself to southward migration and this natural trend coupled with deliberate government policy would see a continual in-migration from beyond the border going over several centuries. That plus traditional sources of internal recruitment such as Illyricum get heavily damaged in several invasions would place a premium on soldiers from across the border.

My argument is essentially a class one which I know doesn't get much love these days. Being a 'real' Roman by the late empire is really a matter of class identity and religious orthodoxy. The issue of wealth inequality was always a severe one but got worse as the Empire grew older and the wealth divide is likely to be stronger in the West than the East. One source, I forget which says words to the effect that 'the rich barbarian wants to emulate the Roman and the poor Roman wants to emulate the Barbarian. There are always more poor than rich so there is only one way that trend can end.

Ethnic Identity is fluid, not fixed. It can shift over time based on circumstances and self interest, during periods of crisis identity differences can be sharpened or perceptions of identity can be changed.The process of becoming Roman as described by Tacitus falls over when the only social mobility is downwards. Roman identity as opposed to Gothic identity is sufficiently sharpened during the reign of Honorius that a pogrom of barbarians in Italy can occur but the fact the survivors went over to Alaric leaving Honorius with no army left (until he gets reinforced from the Eastern Empire) I think clearly shows the composition of the army.

I would suspect that polemicists such as Salvian really describe conditions in the empire very accurately. If preachers have to chastise their flocks for helping the barbarians locate the aristocrats treasure, there really is no love for the Empire and its ruling class and if the army is drawn from the same body of people cant see how they would share the same mindset. Even Ammianus, a minor aristocrat himself describes with disgust the social behaviours of the rulers. Of course, these behaviours were always there but become sharper as the government became more autocratic, less a partnership between regional urban elites and the state (as existed in the early empire) and more a command and control structure.

Also, I'de like to learn what sources 'often mention' that the army was 'more interested in extortion than doing their job and this trend got worse in late antiquity'. I think you're exaggerating wildly here. Some sources complain about certain trends, but we need to look at these complaints with caution, such as the complaint of Vegetius that the army refused to wear armour, which has been proven to be incorrect. Some sources liked to moan about the 'good old days'.

You statement that the Late Roman army was useless is nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

Thats a bit harsh. I draw on Ramsey Macmullen's work 'Corruption and the Decline of Rome' which draws out sources which mention military ineffectiveness and larceny, one from recall is Ammianus' reference to the North African scandal during the reign of Emperor Valentinian of the officer who got away with shaking down the provincials rather than fighting the enemy. MacMullen's thesis seems to find support from Adrian Goldsworthy as well. Given the paucity of the sources its always going to be a value judgement about how effective the army was. I find it difficult to imagine that the invasions of Alans and Vandals etc wouldn't have been able to be countered if an army of any reasonable capacity was in existence.

Like I wrote earlier [and what you either dismissed as nonsense or failed to read], the West was never overrun. It was hollowed out and at some point ceased to exist.

Not at all, I agree completely. Don't think there is any real acceptance nowadays of the West being overrun. A state ceases to be a state when it loses legitimacy and a different source of primary loyalty presents itself. In essence, Joseph Tainter has it best when it comes to societal collapse. The empire met its challenges by increasing complexity (more taxation and bigger (nominal) armies but this complexity had negative consequences which ultimately led to a dramatic decline in political and economic complexity when the returns on complexity were outweighed by the benefits.