Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Barbarization of the Armies (378 AD- 476 AD)
#1
Some of you tend to assume that the Barbarization of the Roman Armies was, in some way, one of the causes of the Roman fall, but I think it is not true.<br>
<br>
First of all, the best troops at the time were the Huns and the Alani, and Aetius himself made of them the core of his troops. The Roman troops were difficult to recruit and it's difficult to made good soldiers from peasants or farmers. Goths, Burgundians and Franks were warriors and farmers at the same time, and some of them were more loyal to Rome than Roman citizens, the Burgundians and Franks fought on the frontiers when no Roman troops did it.<br>
<br>
After Adrianopolis, the importance of the cavalry increased and by the way, part of the cavalry troops fighting on the Goths side were Alani associated to the Goths after their defeat against the Huns. Some Roman mounted troops could be recruited but the easier solution was to made from this Barbarian warriors Roman soldiers. The demographic collapse made difficult to have enough men for every purpose, and we have a lot of information about the high rates of desertions and mutilations to avoid conscription.<br>
<br>
The Roman Empire had no future, the German troops helped to keep it alive for 70 years and the collapse was more a social one than a military one. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#2
The Roman empire could have had a future but I think things became irreversible around 420-450 once the barbarians set up their kingdoms in roman territory. Before that the western half could have had a future. You mustn't forget the Eastern half survived and it had a long history! Indeed whatever model one uses to expain the Western downfall has to be able to explain the Eastern survival. If a model doesn't have anything to say about the eastern survival then it is most likely false or at best superficial. The Eastern half made a successful purge of barbarians from the high command. Of course it would be excessive to explain the eastern survival by this alone. The East survived more because it was richer economically, in man-power and culturally. It is certainly not a simple thing to explain the fall of the West, indeed it has a favorite topic of historians for the past 1000 years. Simple models are not going to be credible if they don't get the bigger picture.<br>
<br>
The barbarization of the army was one of the important factors that contributed to the political confusion in the West but it certainly was not the only important mechanism that led to the collapse. Another important reason was the antagonism bewteen the East and West. Things could have gone differently if there had been more collaboration rather than hostility.<br>
<br>
But, going back to the issue of barbarisation, I think that the barbarisation of the high command and the political suicide of not eliminating barbarian kingdoms are more credible mechanisms than those of an inept roman world trampled by the vigorous germanic warrior/farmers, the superiority of horse over infantry and/or hunnic or alanic (germanic) superiority over roman peasants. These seem to me far less important. They are little more than distorted discriptions of a confusing period.<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 12/30/01 7:35:59 pm<br></i>
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
Reply
#3
Salve,<br>
<br>
Barbarian farmer warriors were not prime fighting material. Among the barbarian peoples the nucleus of more or less professional full time warrior bands formed by the elite and their retainers would have been fleshed out with ordinary tribesmen farmers and peasants of low quality, usually not as well equipped, disciplined and trained as their Roman counterparts. Soldiers were not born, but had to be trained and this was true for both the empire and its enemies. The Roman army had long been quite succesful at turning peasants and farmers, both indigenous and barbarian, into soldiers and this did not cease after Adrianople. The advantages of the Roman logistical organisation allowed it to field better equipped forces that enjoyed superior discipline and training regardless of their soldier's origin. Overall the fighting value of Roman armies, even if formed by troops of barbarian extraction, continued to be superior to its opponents in the fifth and sixth centuries. Such regular troops were expensive to maintain however and the greater wealth at the disposal of the east allowed it to maintain its regular army in a better way when the western empire tried out defence on the cheap and hired barbarian federates for its campaigning forces.<br>
<br>
Elton, H., <i> Warfare in Roman Europe AD 350-425</i> (Oxford 1996) 312p.<br>
Haldon, J., <i> Warfare, state and society in the Byzantine world 565-1204</i> (London 1999) 389p.<br>
Haldon, J., <i> The Byzantine wars</i> (London 2001) 160p.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#4
Interestingly Vegetius suggested that farmers and other rural types were the best source of soldier material. Of course that is in the context of them ceasing to be farmers, etc. and being full time Roman soldiers.<br>
<br>
Aslo the original poster mentioned that after Adrianople cavalry became more important. Cavalry had always been an important part of the imperial army and had been increasing in importance well before Adrianople. You only have to look at Gallienus' creation of a cavalry army in the mid C3rd to see this.<br>
<br>
Lastly it is also worth pointing out that barbarians recruited into the Roman army became Roman soldiers. If you read Burns' "Barbarians Within the Gates of Rome" you will find a very persuasive (IMO) argument that the recruitment of barbarians by Theodosios and his immediate successors has been mis-interpreted and most can be regarded as Roman soldiers in regular Roman units.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Nik Gaukroger <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#5
Goffredo wrote:<br>
<b><br>
"The Roman empire could have had a future but I think things became irreversible around 420-450 once the<br>
barbarians set up their kingdoms in roman territory.<br>
Before that the western half could have had a future."<br>
</b><br>
<br>
I think this is mistaking symptoms for causes. The long<br>
term problems of dropping population levels and<br>
economic decline brought about an increasing localisation<br>
of power, a degrading of government infrastructure<br>
and a slow collapse of many aspects of the central<br>
administration in the West. The East, on the other hand,<br>
had a higher population, a better distribution of wealth,<br>
and a stronger economy. These factors predate any<br>
'barbarian' settlement by a century or more.<br>
<br>
The establishment of 'barbarian' successor states in the<br>
West was a <i> symptom</i> of its decline, not the cause<br>
and I disagree that the Western Empire still would<br>
have 'had a future' without the arrival of these<br>
newcomers (if that's what you were saying). The West<br>
was fragmenting and various successors were able<br>
to carve out smaller polities as a result. Some of them<br>
were local magnates like Syagrius in northern Gaul or<br>
'Arthur' and his predecessors in Britain, others were<br>
military commanders. And some of these military<br>
commanders and magnates were 'barbarians'. The<br>
Western Empire did not fall as a result of the rise of<br>
these people, 'barbarian' or otherwise. In fact it was<br>
the other way around - these people rose because the<br>
Western Empire was falling.<br>
<br>
Elton and others have also questioned the whole<br>
'barbarisation of the army' idea and many historians now<br>
find that thesis rather lacking in evidence.<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Tim ONeill / Thiudareiks Flavius /Thiudareiks Gunthigg

HISTORY FOR ATHEISTS - New Atheists Getting History Wrong
Reply
#6
Vey good points, my gothic friend.<br>
I was just being blunt, as my usual, to start an arguement. I love arguments. Anyway, the "cause and effect" approach is, in general, very difficult to apply to history. But we all naturally look for mechanisms and models. The difficulty of finding the right ones to describe history is what makes history so fun. Everyone can have something interesting to say and add to the complicated picture. In particular, in the spiraling downfall of Rome there were all kinds of feedback effects. The settling of kingdoms was certainly due to a drop of roman internal pressure. The "barbarians" occupied a vacuum. But once the "kingdoms" were in place their presence accelerated further the western down fall. In this very limited sense they were one of the "causes" of the downfall. The sudden transition from a slow but inevitable decline to a rapid downfall is what impresses so many and why the "cause and effect" approach seems so attractive. But with a little effort and further thought, deeper understanding can be obtained. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 1/15/02 6:12:26 pm<br></i>
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
Reply
#7
Salve,<br>
<br>
Not all federates gained a comparable independence like Alaric's host. In the eastern empire the federate units were assimilated into the regular army as the auxiliaries had been in the earlier army. Just as previously the <i> alae</i>, <i> cohortes</i> and <i> numeri</i> started out as allied and more or less barbarian units and evolved into permament units of regulars in which Roman citizens came to serve alongside foreigners, so did the eastern army's units of <i> foederati</i> come to include both Romans and barbarians and evolve into regular units integrated with the already existing formations.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#8
In the Late Roman times the term "barbarian" has to be taken with a more critical view than in earlier times. For example the famous general Stilicho is described as "semi-barbarus" by sources hostile to him. His mother was a Vandal. It's like accusing John Kennedy of being Irish. Stilicho was as Roman as Kennedy was American. Forget the hairy stuff, the beer and the battle axe: the man was fluent in greek and latin, wore fine silken garments and had court manners. In other words in was nothing but a high ranking, extremely wealthy Roman.<br>
Another example from that period is the so-called "anti-goth" reaction in Constantinople when goths soldiers were massacred and expelled from the city. Apparently they weren't massacred for being Goths, but rather for taking the wrong side in a civil war. That alone proves their total assimilation, IMHO.. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#9
Salve,<br>
<br>
You are right in your observations on Stilichio as being Roman rather than the Vandal or barbarian that some modern works call him, but his mother was Roman and his father, a senior officer in the Roman army, was Vandal by birth.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#10
Well.. I didn't bother to check, so I had a 50/50 chance of getting it right..<br>
Can't win them all.. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#11
Hi All,<br>
<br>
A very interesting link, considering my own period of interest (350-600AD). A few comments.<br>
<br>
- Vanina Orso wrote:<br>
"First of all, the best troops at the time were the Huns and the Alani"<br>
I disagree with that. There were a lot of elite troops in the Late Roman Army, and post-Adrianople did not mean the cavalry suddenly became the measure of things. Though I agree that quality varied a lot, mostly between the Limitanei and the Comitatenses, it could vary between unit as well. Alani were not 'the best troops', but they certainly did well as part of the mobile field armies. Nor were the Germanic troops 'more loyal' than Roman forces. I would like to know where you got that idea from. Elton, as one of the few, vehemently diagrees with the 'Barabarization' of the post-Constantine army, and I agree with him that this is a very popular idea, based mostly on Germanic influences, but not on the sources.<br>
<br>
- Vanina Orso wrote:<br>
"Some Roman mounted troops could be recruited but the easier solution was to made from this Barbarian warriors Roman soldiers."<br>
I agree, but please bear in mind that A) this had been normal Roman practise since the days of the Republic (and therefore nothing really changed) and B) there were excellent elite 'Roman' cavalry units as well.<br>
<br>
- Vanina Orso wrote:<br>
" The demographic collapse made difficult to have enough men for every purpose, and we have a lot of information about the high rates of desertions and mutilations to avoid conscription."<br>
This is correct, but as Elton shows, it is never that much of a problem that we should think of a recruiting shortage. Only on a very few occasions is compulsory drafting ordered, no evidence suggests that Germanic troops were needed just to make up the numbers. Loyalty would also not be an issue to look over the border. However, professionalism (Germanic bands came trained, at least up to a certain level), mobility (they would be easier to move around, with no families to protect) enthousiasm and part-time issues (these groops could be disbanded more easily) would speak in their favour.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Robert Vermaat<br>
[email protected] <br>
<br>
Vortigern Studies<br>
www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/<br>
Wansdyke Project 21<br>
www.wansdyke21.org.uk/<br>
Robert's Arthurian Collection<br>
www.geocities.com/vortige...grarth.htm<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#12
Hi Goffredo,<br>
<br>
I think you see it a little too dark, my own (humble) analysis would be that the dividing line sooner lies around 460, when the mobile field army rebels. Barbarian 'kingdoms' were very dependent on Roman supplies, and the Roman administration used this knowledge. The Eastern administration used a different tactic: Liebeschütz has a nice study about the differences between the Gothic commanders Alaric and Gainas. By not engaging in any military conflict, the East witheld a reason for the the Goths (and the army as such) to gain too much importance. Gainas finally lost his cool and his support. His Goths (not THE Goths, they remained in service, even in high command!!) were expelled and defeated.<br>
<br>
I agree with you that the richer East had more chances to survive. As Elton shows, the loss of territory (and the taxes, mainly) made it impossible to keep an army large enough. I also agree that the East-West rivalry played its part. In fact, Alaric was persuaded to go West on behalf of the Eastern administration.<br>
<br>
I disagree, however, with your analysis that "the barbarisation of the high command and the political suicide of not eliminating barbarian kingdoms are more credible mechanisms". The high command was not the main cause, I can think of no event where the high command would have displayed any favourism or a like cause to damage the Western administration. They were loyal 8enough), in-fighting (which did far more harm) had been a common Roman 'disease' for a long time. Also, these Germanic territories would have been absorbed when some factors had turned out differently. Only woith our hindsight can we judge the reasons behind letting them exist.<br>
<br>
- Elton, Hugh (1996): Warfare in Roman Europe AD 350-425, (Oxford).*<br>
- Liebeschütz, J.H.W.G. (1990): Barbarians and Bishops, Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom, (Clarendon Press, Oxford).<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Robert Vermaat<br>
[email protected] <br>
<br>
Vortigern Studies<br>
www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/<br>
Wansdyke Project 21<br>
www.wansdyke21.org.uk/<br>
Robert's Arthurian Collection<br>
www.geocities.com/vortige...grarth.htm <p></p><i></i>
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#13
Hi Sander,<br>
<br>
This is not what happened in the Late 4th c. After the battle of the Frigidus, large parts of the Eastern army were retained in the West. Only after some time, Stilicho had to give them up, after which they returned east. But instead of a warm welcome, lo and behold, several commanders and units were detained, even executed. This became the spark of the Gainas revolt. The Goths (mainly) were denied a status of regular soldiers, which would have guaranteed them pay and supplies. gainas was, likewise, denied to surpreme rank of Magister Militium, to his great frustration (and I think he was right). But under the strict Estern policy of gradually downgrading the military forces, they also downgraded the danger of these troops in politics. So what Stilicho and Alaric did in the West (battle it out, effectively holding the West to ransom, with the final demise as a long-term result) could never happen in the East. the once proud army as displayed in the Orient section of the Notitia Dignitatum did not exist when the Occident section was updated for the last time. The Eastern administration succesfully bought of enemy after enemy (a *real Byzantine* policy!), but declined to upgrade any auxiliary elements into the regular field army. To the contrary, I would say.<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Robert Vermaat<br>
[email protected] <br>
<br>
Vortigern Studies<br>
www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/<br>
Wansdyke Project 21<br>
www.wansdyke21.org.uk/<br>
Robert's Arthurian Collection<br>
www.geocities.com/vortige...grarth.htm<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#14
Salve,<br>
<br>
Federates were still employed by the east in the period following the Gainas revolt and the purge of some barbarians did not result in the end of their enlistment into the ranks of the eastern armies. The eastern armies had a wider choice of barbarians to enlist, having access to 'internal barbarians' like the Isaurians as well as Arabs and renegade Persians. Enlistment of a greater variety of foreigners was beneficial since these were less likely to make common cause and rebel en masse like the Gothic host, whose disparate components were far more homogenous. The federate units (<i> phoideratoi</i> of the east Roman army had by the sixth century become part of the regular army and both foreign and indigenous troops served in them in a similar manner as the originally foreign <i> cohortes</i>, <i> alae</i> and <i> numeri</i> had become part of the earlier regular imperial army as time went by. The greater wealth of the eastern empire allowed it not only to buy off invasions but also gave them the opportunity to pay their troops, even though that was somewhat haphazard at times. This prevented the withering away of units for lack of pay attested for the fifth century. At least parts of the old army survived since some of the units listed in the <i> Notitia Dignitatum</i> are also mentioned in Procopius.<br>
<br>
Haldon, J., <i> Warfare, state and society in the Byzantine world 565-1204</i> (London 1999) 389p.<br>
Treadgold, W., <i> Byzantium and its army 284-1081</i> (Stanford 1995) 249p.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#15
Salve Sander,<br>
<br>
I guess we meant the same thing here, actually. But when you said "In the eastern empire the federate units were assimilated into the regular army as the auxiliaries had been in the earlier army" I could not agree, because we know that this was the whole issue of the gainas revolt: the mercenaries/auxilia were employed, yes, but not raised to the status of regular units. This did happen later, you are correct, with other kinds of troops, indeed in smaller numbers. But at the time we're speaking of, the late 4th c., this was a point of policy; the regular units were scaled down, and the Goths we not allowed to become regular units instead of federates.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Robert Vermaat<br>
[email protected] <br>
<br>
Vortigern Studies<br>
www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/ <br>
Wansdyke Project 21<br>
www.wansdyke21.org.uk/ <br>
Robert's Arthurian Collection<br>
www.geocities.com/vortige...grarth.htm <p></p><i></i>
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Barbarization? Nathan Ross 24 3,873 12-20-2018, 08:39 PM
Last Post: Brucicus

Forum Jump: