Whatever became of the Roman Army in the West

[elagababbalus]

Roman-ness could be ethnic, but it’s first of all a matter of the law.

indeed, from Caracalla on all free persons within the empire were citizens and the law codes of the successor states drew a distinction between roman and non-roman or better expressed between rulers and ruled (those who paid tax and those exempt.

What is really important legally however is the legal distinction between grades of citizens honestiores (honoured) and humiliores (humble-the lower classes). While the empire was always one of marked inequality and injustice the inequality and injustice grows and being a citizen of the later empire was a chore. It would have been hard to show any loyalty and identify with a system which allows you to get tortured and executed and robbed virtually at whim. No doubt, the rise of the church can in part be explained as a means of creating a counterweight to the arbitrary power of the bureaucracy.

In the earlier empire there were more competing sources of patronage and the emperor was more accessible so the provincials and even the lower classes could entertain some hope (perhaps a small one) that the government could address injustice. The early empire seems to have offered at least the opportunity for the lower classes to 'make it.' The later empire, no way. The legal system froze them in their spot with no room for social advancement. The humiliore risked severe punishment if he left his job.As the government took almost everything from certain occupations eg miners and the like there was no economic incentive to produce more. Technically the humiliore is free, but really he is little better than a slave.

By the later empire, the balancing act of provincial city elites and the roman state is gone. Paraphrasing Halsall 'in the early empire all roads lead to Rome, in the later empire all roads lead from Rome'

Any criticism of the emperor and his officials was considered blasphemy, with one other writer I think Symacchus getting sharply put in his place by the courtiers for daring to criticise the emperors appointments. If one of the richest people in the empire must watch what he says what hope for anyone else. 'Lese majeste' is in every system in every epoch the shield used by the ruling elite to protect privilege and hide corruption.

With the ordinary subject too afraid to voice criticism and the law courts only serving the wealthy the emperor would not get honest information, indeed his vast army of bureaucrats look to their own interests before that of the empire. The emperor was even forced to rescind laws passed under his name on the grounds that he didn't in fact pass them. Just like every modern authoritarian dictatorship, the empire was a seething mass of anarchy, inertia, incompetence, venality and apathy beneath a think blanket of red tape.

What does all this have to do with the fate of the Western army? If the governance of the empire was in such a shambles and the system was so unjust it would beggar belief the army would be any different. With an army supposedly far larger than the early empire and a government structure meant to supply the soldiers with food and equipment it should have been easier not harder to beat off incursions. While the barbarians become more hierarchical and better organised the average barbarian soldier is unlikely to have the same level of equipment and definitely didn't have the same level of logistical support as the roman.

The logical inference is that the army is beset by the same governance issues as the rest of the empire. Officers are afraid to show initiative lest they earn the ire of the courtiers for being too ambitious, the bureaucrats who supply the army siphon off resources meant for the soldiers and the officers withhold pay, hire out the soldiers for farm work or enforcers rather than training. I would suspect the soldiers who resist this trend the most are the limitanei, as they are protecting their homes. Perhaps this or that officer belonged to the 'old school' putting country first leaving office poor when he left than when he went in and perhaps this or that community of veterans tries to maintain the old values but they would have been few and far between and would be swimming against the tide.

Elton's suggestion of continued military efficiency can be responded by the fact that the barbarians never really want to destroy the empire, merely to secure their place in it on terms advantageous to them. Accordingly, the empire can use one barbarian group as a foil for others until the empire reaches the tipping point where it loses hegemony in the mid-5th century (due to loss of tax receipts)and then the western political system unravels as even the ruling elite no longer benefits from the system and looks to the new lords to protect their property.

I think it's a bad idea comparing the Roman army, at any time, with a modern army. The broader environment - socially, technologically and culturally - has changed a lot since the preindustrial era, let alone the Iron Age.

With respect, I don't see a problem in drawing analogies between social/political systems of different eras. I would suggest that any military's effectiveness can be reduced to a formula of Morale (motivation) + Training and Equipment + Leadership + Support (social and political) = Effectiveness.

Human nature hasn't changed and all other things being equal people react the same way to similar stressors. They show anger in the face of injustice. Apathy, resentment and 'learned helplessness' in the face of arbitrary and capricious power. They 'hedge their bets' if they don't know the system will protect them, and they display loyalty and devotion when shown respect and honour. People always look to their own devices and revert to primary loyalties (family and clan) when they fear a large scale political/economic system is starting to unravel (thus accelerating the collapse). They did in the later roman empire and they will when ours does.