Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Late Roman Army
#31
It is indeed hard to say what Romans were in the 6th century. There was no longer a Rome to belong to, so it was mainly culturally. The traditional view is that Roman culture disappeared, actually merged with the German culture, soon after the disappearence of Roman rule and soldiers. Pretty much every excavation in Gaul and the border provinces show us that the continuity was more than what we expected, or learned from previous excavations. I can give you numerous examples if you want.<br>
What we see is that there is co-existence between both groups, but that there are seperated cemetaries for Germans and 'Romani'. We also see a difference in pottery and other utensils. So there was a Roman culture, and we can recognize it up to the 6th century.<br>
And it has also been made clear that there was a certain continuity in military affairs. Garrisons and border troops remained where they were even when they were no longer paid by the Roman government. Limitanei were already partially autarchic and garrisons could be paid and supported by the towns that they were to protect. The growing power of local landlords could have played a role in their continuing use.<br>
Power was still very much fragmented in those days, and only ended with the powerful rule of Charlemagne. Nevertheless the Franks generally were in power over 6th century Gaul up to the Alps, and the remaining Roman units there were incorporated in the Frankish army.<br>
I have some information about it, lying around here somewhere, I will post some more if I come across it. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#32
Quote:</em></strong><hr><em>The traditional view of the late Roman army has been rectified in the last years. Nevertheless the old ideas about barbarisation and general decline can still be found in books like the following, which are in my opinion not as useful as those listed above.</em><hr><br>
<br>
Sander, what does that mean? Do we have a "revisionist view" today of "non-barbarisation" and "non-general decline," or is it that we have a new view of "specific" as opposed to "general decline?" Seriously here. I've spent the last few years focusing on the US Army ca. 1892-1916, and most recently in beginning research for my Ph.D. diss. on the US Army Tank Force ca. 1920-1940. I have litterally "lost the bubble" on the Late Roman Army... T'anks! <p>==========================================<BR><br>
"If there's one thing we don't want to see, it's Americans fighting Americans. I won't stand for it, not here, not anywhere." Sergeant Frank Tree, 10th Armored Division, Saturday, 13 December 1941... a little after 0701 hrs... somewhere near Santa Monica, Calif.</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=comeinnighthawk>Come in Nighthawk</A> at: 1/20/04 12:21 am<br></i>
Duane C. Young, M.A.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Late Roman Army during the 5th century Robert Vermaat 89 17,643 01-11-2024, 04:34 PM
Last Post: Magister_Officiorum13241
  Late Roman Army Ranks - Numeri/Limitanei jmsilvacross 14 1,896 11-17-2021, 01:42 PM
Last Post: Steven James
  Late Roman Army - seniores and iuniores Robert Vermaat 46 21,008 10-15-2020, 10:16 PM
Last Post: Steven James

Forum Jump: