Aetius and the Western Empire

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I'm not much impressed by Aetius. To me it seems that he was more concerned with his own position than with the strengthening of the Roman state - not different from any 'warlord' behind the throne from Arbogast and valentinian onwards, I suppose. He was mainly a military man, and that fact (comparing the supposedly 'soft' diplomats in the East) was part of the downfall of the West.

I disagree - somewhat. His interests were that of the landowning class, and he was arguably one of the best generals in roman history. Had he managed to re-take africa, well things would have been different, But without africa Aetius' only accomplishment was managing to prolong the existence of the Roman Empire.

[starman2012]

....he was arguably one of the best generals in roman history.

He certainly was resourceful, and great at getting help from wherever he could. In the 430s he used Huns to fight Visigoths; in 451 it was the other way around. Look at the coalition he put together at Chalons. Seems no less of a diplomat than a soldier.

Had he managed to re-take africa, well things would have been different, But without africa Aetius' only accomplishment was managing to prolong the existence of the Roman Empire.

After Africa was gone, nothing made much difference. The Seuvi took much of Spain and Aetius couldn't get it back in 446. Heather said he "couldn't use the full weight of the western field armies" in this effort because of the possibility of hunnic attack. I don't buy that. The Huns were then fully engaged in the East. I suspect what Aetius committed to Spain was essentially all he had.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

After Africa was gone, nothing made much difference. The Seuvi took much of Spain and Aetius couldn't get it back in 446. Heather said he "couldn't use the full weight of the western field armies" in this effort because of the possibility of hunnic attack. I don't buy that. The Huns were then fully engaged in the East. I suspect what Aetius committed to Spain was essentially all he had.

I don't think so - both the Alans and Franks are recorded to be very active in the 440s, so I think he probably sent a lot of his troops to Soissons (Which is halfway between the frankish activity in Tournai and Alans at Orleans). That area was also a producer of grain, and had multiple fabricae so was strategically more important.

I think he committed a portion of his troops to spain while the bulk of them were focused on defending the Gallic provinces from attack.

[markusaurelius]

he was arguably one of the best generals in roman history

I would lean towards disagreeing on that point. I think someone like Stilicho was just as good a general, and a far better "roman". As stated before Aetius worked to have the two other most powerful players at the time eliminated, specifically having Flavius Felix and his family executed, and marching against Bonifacius, ultimately loosing that battle. I think people have been reading too much of Edward GIBBON and his comments on Aetius seems to ring in everyone's head.

[starman2012]

and marching against Bonifacius, ultimately loosing that battle.

That doesn't speak too highly of Aetius. Imagine losing against someone who had just lost one or more tactical engagements in Africa before moving his forces by ship to Italy.

[starman2012]

I don't think so - both the Alans and Franks are recorded to be very active in the 440s

When in the 440s, and what battles between them and Romans (or their hirelings) if any, are recorded?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I don't think so - both the Alans and Franks are recorded to be very active in the 440s

When in the 440s, and what battles between them and Romans (or their hirelings) if any, are recorded?

Vandals at Panormus in 440
Franks at Tournacum in 448 (Majoran is recorded to have participated in that one)
Suebes in 448
Alans in 447

Probably more, I have to find the list I have.

Also - according to Hydatius the bulk of Vitus' forces were goths in 446, which suggests he didn't send a very "Roman" force at all.

[starman2012]

Vandals at Panormus in 440

Yes I knew that; I meant just Alans and Franks.

Franks at Tournacum in 448 (Majoran is recorded to have participated in that one)
Suebes in 448
Alans in 447

Were those major actions? Heather said Aetius kept much of the army in Gaul out of fear of the Huns, which doesn't sound plausible to me.

Also - according to Hydatius the bulk of Vitus' forces were goths in 446, which suggests he didn't send a very "Roman" force at all.

Yeah I was aware the force included Visigoths, and it wasn't surprising the bulk of the force consisted of them. Wouldn't be surprising if Aetius used them, or some barbarians, to fight Franks and Alans too.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Vandals at Panormus in 440

Yes I knew that; I meant just Alans and Franks.

Franks at Tournacum in 448 (Majoran is recorded to have participated in that one)
Suebes in 448
Alans in 447

Were those major actions? Heather said Aetius kept much of the army in Gaul out of fear of the Huns, which doesn't sound plausible to me.

Also - according to Hydatius the bulk of Vitus' forces were goths in 446, which suggests he didn't send a very "Roman" force at all.

Yeah I was aware the force included Visigoths, and it wasn't surprising the bulk of the force consisted of them. Wouldn't be surprising if Aetius used them, or some barbarians, to fight Franks and Alans too.

In chronicle of 452, I think it is, is the reference to Tournai in 448 with majoran. It says majoran was leading "Roman cavalry" in the battle, so it was indeed roman forces.

[starman2012]

In chronicle of 452, I think it is, is the reference to Tournai in 448 with majoran. It says majoran was leading "Roman cavalry" in the battle, so it was indeed roman forces.

From what I've seen, Aetius defeated (or stopped) the Salian Franks that year at a river crossing at an unidentified Vitus Helena. It probably didn't take many troops to defend a river crossing or narrow passage; no wonder the affair has flown under the radar of most histories.

[Robert Vermaat]

I disagree - somewhat. His interests were that of the landowning class, and he was arguably one of the best generals in roman history. Had he managed to re-take africa, well things would have been different, But without africa Aetius' only accomplishment was managing to prolong the existence of the Roman Empire.

We are talking ifs and but of course, but of course, anyone who would have defeated the vandals before 455 would have changed history to a point.
As to his interests, that's not what I meant - I wanted to point out that Aetius was a military man in the sense that he led armies to solve problems, where in the East that was only the last thing in a range of options. Aetius, like Arbogast, Stilicho, Constantius and Ricimer, was essentially a warlord behind the throne, instead of a shrewd diplimat. And yes, I don'nt doubt his military abilities as well as his diplomatic one (he managed to play a lot of barbarians against each other), his power was essentially exerted through military force. And that, i think, was one of the cause that sent the West over the edge whereas the East survived.

[Robert Vermaat]

I suspect what Aetius committed to Spain was essentially all he had.

I think so too. I fear that the Western armies were limited to some border forces essentially remaining in place (whereas in other regions federates had tyaken over their function), and that the field army was too small for operations outside Gaul. Moving the entire army would have been out of the question. So Aetius committed all he could spare.

[Robert Vermaat]

In chronicle of 452, I think it is, is the reference to Tournai in 448 with majoran. It says majoran was leading "Roman cavalry" in the battle, so it was indeed roman forces.

We don't know that. Roman commanders could very well partly Roman (i.e. regular army) forces, or even armies which were entirely recruited from non-Romans. Remember that in 425 Aetius himself arrived too late in Italy to support the usurper John with a totally Hunnic force.

[Robert Vermaat]

From what I've seen, Aetius defeated (or stopped) the Salian Franks that year at a river crossing at an unidentified Vitus Helena. It probably didn't take many troops to defend a river crossing or narrow passage; no wonder the affair has flown under the radar of most histories.

Yes and no. That was at vicus helena, and there was a battle at a bridge (commanded by Majorian) while Aetius held a crossroads:

Sidonius Apollinaris, Carmina, V.207–227:There was a narrow passage at the junction of two ways, and a road crossed both the village of Helena... and the river. [Aëtius] was posted at the cross-roads while Majorian warred as a mounted man close to the bridge itself.

[starman2012]

We are talking ifs and but of course, but of course, anyone who would have defeated the vandals before 455 would have changed history to a point.

Even better, beat 'em before 439, or 431.

As to his interests, that's not what I meant - I wanted to point out that Aetius was a military man in the sense that he led armies to solve problems, where in the East that was only the last thing in a range of options.

Like shelling out tribute. They were in a better position to do that.

his power was essentially exerted through military force. And that, i think, was one of the cause that sent the West over the edge whereas the East survived.

The east was also lucky in that most barbarians headed west.