Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total War: Attila
#31
Hi Aaron,

Quote:Rome went from using in house Italians because obviously that's where they started.

Exactly that. And they immediately incorporated non-Roman peoples. By those I mean all the groups and tribes who were living outside the city and had, at one time, been conquered enemies: Etruscans, Samnites, Greeks, Celts, you name it. All became nicely incorporated in the Roman state, first as allies, then as citizens. Why should the Romans, with that development in mind, have treated the ‘barbarians’ any different? Only with our modern hindsight do we see a difference, but treating this as a black and white difference would be painting it as a wrong image.

Quote:. No one with an Italia heritage wanted to join the Legions anymore. It was dangerous, dirty, no money in it, and if some disease didn't kill you most likely an opposing Army would.
Actually that included other citizens from other provinces: Greece, Spain, Gaul, you name it. It’s a common development for many empires. Notwithstanding that, it does not mean the end of any empire, as the East Romans proved.

Quote: After the extreme Roman failure of Adrianople, it was pretty much over as Italian armies were replaced with Barbarian mercenaries.
Sorry but that’s not an accurate description. The legions had for a very long time not been ‘Italian’ anymore. That’s just wrong. Non-Roman soldiers, mercenaries and allies had long been fighting in the armies, and many in the standing units too. Italian had become a minority for a long time, the rest of the provinces being the bulk of the troops. This did not change after Adrianople. What did change was the strategic decision not to risk large battles if possible. What also changed was the political decision to accept foreign groups under their own leadership. The legions were not replaced with barbarian mercenaries, that’s a myth.

Quote: Instead the Romans spit in their eye, and we got the sacking of Rome.
Alaric was denied a fixed position within the Romanpolitical landscape, based on a standing army command which would confirm his leadership over his ‘clients’. Racism had nothing (or very little) to do with the sack of Rome.

Quote: Only reason the East kept in power as long as they did was because of the Theodocian walls though Pope Innocent III helped out with that when he sent a crusade to it.
Wrong on all accounts.
The eastern Roman Empire lasted longer for many reasons, these being strategical, political, religious and economical. The walls played a part but they were not the only reason.
Pope Innocent III never sent a crusade against Constantinople. One of his conditions for the crusade was that no Christian city would be attacked. It was the venetians who, after the promised money as not raised (the French failed to live up to their promise) they first attacked Zara (well, the French again) and then Constantinople. Pope Innocent at first excommunicated the perpetrators when he learned of this afterwards but was forced to retract that to keep the crusade going.

Quote:Note: Didn't Edward Gibbons write the fall and decline of the Roman Empire in the 18th century? Thought he wrote it during the American Revolution or maybe before it. I'll go look it up.
You are quite correct there. I lumped him together with the many ‘scholars’ of the 19th century who wrote very silly things about the Romans. Smile
_________________________________
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR: Forum rules
FECTIO Late Roman Society
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#32
Quote:Tell that to the people who were at Aquileia when Attila besieged their city.

Aetius put thousands of Romans in Aquileia so when Attila came down through Noricum Mediterranae he couldn't keep going into Italy and be cut off by the Romans. Aetius had once again outsmarted Attila and forced him into a costly siege of Aquileia, which used up most of the campaigning season and almost forced Attila to abandon the campaign.

Quote:I don't remember reading about Gainas, or maybe he or they had a different name? However, it was no different then Fritigern or Alaric roaming the Roman countryside pillaging. When it came to besieging a Roman town or Garrison, it just wasn't viable. Alaric or Fritigern or anyone for that matter didn't know what to do.

Gainas was a Gothic general in Roman service, and with a combination of Gothic federates and Roman soldiers he attacked Constantinople in 404, but when he tried to cross a river (can't remember which one) he was defeated by the Roman navy.[/QUOTE]

Quote:Then you bring up Aetius. Funny story about Aetius that I'm sure you're familiar with was that as a young man as for a peace treaty, he spent some of his life with the Huns. There they grew to know each other, and became fond of one another to where Aetius could come and go within their tribe as he pleased. Now we both know Aetius told Attilas uncle Rua a few things about Roman's fortifications hence why Attila in the end ravaged any city he came by and passed their defenses with ease.

There's no evidence for that at all. Aetius and Attila did not know each other. The Huns probably learned siege warfare via their service alongside the Western Roman army.
Reply
#33
I'm about to go to Work here shortly and I do want to respond, but both of you are making me do some serious researching and I'm flying through some of my old history books. I do appreciate you guys taking the time out to answer my responses. I do find it enjoyable.

Magister Militum Flavius Aetius you're not familiar when Aetius was with the Gothic King Alaric for quite some time, then was transferred over to the Huns in care of Uldin and spent quite some time with the Huns?

I never said Aetius knew Attila personally. I doubt they did. Aetius was friends with the Huns and I'm suspecting his uncle Rua. Aetius with the Huns when Honorius died came to the West. He finally got consensus with Galla Placedia.

Robert. I do agree with you about using outside sources as the Romans source of men to pull from if needed for the legions. You said specifically that Rome intergrated them and made them citizens. Alaric and the Goth tried becoming citizens. Rome denied them. That was the difference between using Rome (I consider them Italians which is a broad brush. When I think of Rome I think of Illyria, The Greek states, Gaul; before the Goths and Vandals entered, and Spain) but they were Romans nonetheless.

I guess I should apologize for using Italians as a basis of being Roman. This is the first place I've come to where I've been able to debate about the Romans and their History. I'm way too excited. I may interpret things wrong or putting the proper wording down, but it's a learning experience.
"I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know." ~Cicero

Real Name: Aaron Phelps
Reply
#34
Aetius spent the years 405-408 at the court of Alaric, and 408-417 at the court of Uldin and his successor Charaton. In 423 Aetius, Cura Palatii, was sent back to the court of Charaton to retrieve foreign support for Ioannes for the Western throne, but showed up three days too late, skrimished with Aspar, and Theodosius II had no choice but to let Aetius stay and granted him command of the Gallic army.
Reply
#35
Quote: Robert. I do agree with you about using outside sources as the Romans source of men to pull from if needed for the legions. You said specifically that Rome intergrated them and made them citizens. Alaric and the Goth tried becoming citizens. Rome denied them. That was the difference between using Rome (I consider them Italians which is a broad brush. When I think of Rome I think of Illyria, The Greek states, Gaul; before the Goths and Vandals entered, and Spain) but they were Romans nonetheless.
I disagree - the Goths did not want to become citizens. who would have been at the command of the Roman state. Instead, Alaric asked for a commission, he meant to become a general with independent command over 'his' forces, who he meant to be provishioned from the state fabricae and supplies. I don't think Stilicho had much of an option, as agreeing would have meant that Alaric would have become a state within the state, and more powerful then he was.

Quote: I guess I should apologize for using Italians as a basis of being Roman. This is the first place I've come to where I've been able to debate about the Romans and their History. I'm way too excited. I may interpret things wrong or putting the proper wording down, but it's a learning experience.
Enthusiasm is good! But expect some folks to discuss back, so return fulled armed and ready! Smile
_________________________________
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR: Forum rules
FECTIO Late Roman Society
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#36
Quote:
Aaron post=365950 Wrote:Robert. I do agree with you about using outside sources as the Romans source of men to pull from if needed for the legions. You said specifically that Rome intergrated them and made them citizens. Alaric and the Goth tried becoming citizens. Rome denied them. That was the difference between using Rome (I consider them Italians which is a broad brush. When I think of Rome I think of Illyria, The Greek states, Gaul; before the Goths and Vandals entered, and Spain) but they were Romans nonetheless.
I disagree - the Goths did not want to become citizens. who would have been at the command of the Roman state. Instead, Alaric asked for a commission, he meant to become a general with independent command over 'his' forces, who he meant to be provishioned from the state fabricae and supplies. I don't think Stilicho had much of an option, as agreeing would have meant that Alaric would have become a state within the state, and more powerful then he was.

Quote: I guess I should apologize for using Italians as a basis of being Roman. This is the first place I've come to where I've been able to debate about the Romans and their History. I'm way too excited. I may interpret things wrong or putting the proper wording down, but it's a learning experience.
Enthusiasm is good! But expect some folks to discuss back, so return fulled armed and ready! Smile

Confusedmile: You guys are awesome. I want to learn about Romans. I can't tell you how excited I am to have people who state good solid arguments/rebuttals. I've learned a great deal so far off this site, and I've only been a member for around two weeks. I'm finally in a place where I feel I can fit in.
"I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know." ~Cicero

Real Name: Aaron Phelps
Reply
#37
Yeah this discussion has been a lot more civil than my arguments on the Total War forums, lol.
Reply
#38
I think this topic actually needs something about Attila: The Game.

I will say that while the historical accuracy of CA`s units int his game leaves much to be desired, the modding community greatly enhances the experience. Let me share some of the revamped roman units from the Fall of the eagles Mod. (Shields Variants change depending whether you choose to play as ERE or WRE

Clibanarii:

[spoiler]
[Image: kHHjSLo.jpg]
[/spoiler]
Bucellarii (note how some of the troops have a clear Hunnic origin):
[spoiler]
[Image: amqzWzH.jpg]
[/spoiler]
Auxilia Palatina (With Lance):

[spoiler]
[Image: Y1x3k10.jpg]
[/spoiler]

Cohors Palatina:

[spoiler]
[Image: jKSQEJO.jpg]
[/spoiler]

Herculiani et Iovani

[spoiler]
[Image: zppmCyD.jpg]
[/spoiler]

Limitanei:

[spoiler]
[Image: qLeLgZm.jpg]
[/spoiler]

Cohors Comitatensis (Spear):
[spoiler]
[Image: ftP3ep3.jpg]
[/spoiler]
Reply
#39
I'd say it's an improvement. Still a lot left to be desired, but that can't be done without actually making new 3D models, which I know the mod team and they don't have a 3D modeller.

Invasio Barbarorum III is going to be the thing to look for in terms of Attila mods, but that's about 3 years from now.
Reply
#40
Quote:
Aaron post=365911 Wrote:. No one with an Italia heritage wanted to join the Legions anymore. It was dangerous, dirty, no money in it, and if some disease didn't kill you most likely an opposing Army would.
Actually that included other citizens from other provinces: Greece, Spain, Gaul, you name it. It’s a common development for many empires. Notwithstanding that, it does not mean the end of any empire, as the East Romans proved.

Just curious ... there were probably some Italians in the late 4th/early 5th century Roman armies, right? It seems unlikely to me that there weren't any Italians at all in those armies, but it's not safe to assume anything.
I know they got a lot of their manpower from across the Rhine and Danube, but do we have any evidence of recruitment drives in Italy at that point?
Reply
#41
There was plenty of motivation to join the army still (Better pay, healthier lifestyle, recieved an honorary status of citizenship, etc.)

The issue was that landlords kept the population locked in with debt and other methods and when recruitment time came they paid an aedoratio just to avoid loosing laborers. Eventually the Empire began to abuse the aedoratio in order to raise funds when it needed money.

There were Romans in the army, I think it was Elton who did the estimate of 1/2 to 2/3rds of the army was composed of "Romans". Guy Halsall notes that his methodology is flawed but his results are sufficient.
Reply
#42
Quote:There were Romans in the army, I think it was Elton who did the estimate of 1/2 to 2/3rds of the army was composed of "Romans".

Just to be clear, when you say "Romans" you mean people from the city of Rome itself, right? I was talking about Italy, but this is even more specific.

Also, weren't there accounts of people cutting their thumbs off to avoid military service? That seems like an awfully extreme measure.
Maybe it was a relative standard-of-living thing? Maybe life in Italy was pretty good even for the landless poor, while life on the upper Danube in the later Roman period was both more perilous and impoverished, which made taking up arms seem more palatable?
I have read a lot about the late 4th century Roman army, and I'm still confused by this. Some historians make Roman military service during that period seem like a desirable occupation, and others make it seem like a fate worse than death.
From what I can tell, it seems like life as a Roman rank-and-file soldier was pretty bad during the early Republican period (Phyrric/Punic wars, etc.), pretty awful around the time of the Gracchi, very lucrative immediately after the Marian reforms, and then became gradually less and less fulfilling until the time of Trajan. After Trajan, they weren't conquering and looting foreign nations anymore, so being a Roman soldier became a much less glamorous and lucrative. Is this accurate?

Quote:Sorry but that’s not an accurate description. The legions had for a very long time not been ‘Italian’ anymore. That’s just wrong. Non-Roman soldiers, mercenaries and allies had long been fighting in the armies, and many in the standing units too. Italian had become a minority for a long time, the rest of the provinces being the bulk of the troops.

Robert, you and Evan disagree on this?

Note: I am working on a novel about a young man who joins the Roman army in 395 A.D. and gets swept up in Stilicho vs. Alaric, which I'm so narrowly focused on this specific time period. Feel free to recommend any books about Stilicho's army.
Reply
#43
Quote:Just to be clear, when you say "Romans" you mean people from the city of Rome itself, right? I was talking about Italy, but this is even more specific.

I'm talking about Roman citizens. There were no "ethnic Romans" at this time, hadn't been since like the 5th century BC. "Roman" became a superculture.

Quote:Robert, you and Evan disagree on this?

Somewhat yes and somewhat no. The Romans never had "mercenaries" in their professional units, because that completely breaks the definition of a mercenary. The Romans had ALWAYS recruited non-Romans into the army, in various forms. In the Principate they were the Auxilia, which were professional Roman soldiers.

In the Late Empire the army was entirely composed of professional Roman soldiers, they just weren't always recruited from inside the Empire.

Quote:Note: I am working on a novel about a young man who joins the Roman army in 395 A.D. and gets swept up in Stilicho vs. Alaric, which I'm so narrowly focused on this specific time period. Feel free to recommend any books about Stilicho's army.

Have you read Ian Hughes' book on Stilicho?
Reply
#44
Quote:
Quote:Just to be clear, when you say "Romans" you mean people from the city of Rome itself, right? I was talking about Italy, but this is even more specific.

I'm talking about Roman citizens. There were no "ethnic Romans" at this time, hadn't been since like the 5th century BC. "Roman" became a superculture.

What about people from Italy specifically? I know most of Stilicho's troops were from the upper Danube and the Rhine, but is there any evidence that people from Italy were still serving at this time?

Quote:Have you read Ian Hughes' book on Stilicho?

That's one of the few I haven't read. Is it worth getting? I do have his book on Belisarius.
Reply
#45
It's worth it, especially considering his books are fairly cheap compared to most.

I'm sure there were people from Italy in the army, but how many I don't know. I doubt we can ever know.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Rome..Total Realism Question and one for Total War version arklore70 1 1,081 02-15-2006, 12:06 PM
Last Post: Optio equitum

Forum Jump: