10-09-2018, 05:49 PM
(10-07-2018, 12:52 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: So what other evidence might there be to support the idea that the post-Adrianople Roman army was still largely recruited from Roman citizens? During the Gothic invasion crisis of AD406, the Roman state was forced to enlist freed slaves into the ranks (CTh 7.13.16), which suggests that normal avenues of recruitment were no longer available.
Conversely, could we say that by c.AD400, the majority of men serving in the Roman army at all levels, from new recruits to the most senior commanders, were of non-Roman or barbarian origin, or would that be going too far?
I would say that we don't have evidences for both points. Part of the recruitment problem was for sure in the social reforms that had been put in place (see The Social History of Rome, Géza Alföldy, and the birth of serfdom), but even considering the reforms, it is absolutely hard to explain why there were so many problems. The defeat of Adrianople caused the death of thousands of men, but this was not the first defeat of a similar entity, and after decades it is not explicable that there were so many recruitment problems for that defeat.
In my opinion, the only way to explain what happened is to consider the power that Stilicho took, and his interest in maintaining this power. A "Roman Army" would have been faithful to the empire, or to a Roman official. Nothing of interesting for Stilicho, that instead preferred barbarian troops, faithful to him.
We should also ask where the Rhenish troops ended. It is said that Roman troops were withdrawn from the Rhine to defend Italy from Alaric, but Italy was invaded by another barbarian. So, where that roman troops where? Dismissed and replaced with other barbarians?
