Roman reconquista of the west 430 to 480

The mass indenture of farm workers also meant that aristocrats living on Italian estates were loathe to let their workers go off to fight and die.

A much worse problem appears to have been a unwillingness to serve. Men would cut off their thumbs to avoid fighting. The population was still there but it scarcely supported the WRE.
 
The eastern empire lasted for a thousand years despite this.

It was initially much luckier in that the main barbarian trajectory was the WRE and it also lucked out c 447 CE when the walls of Constantinople were fixed just in time.

Mercs were in a sense ‘cheaper’,given they could be hired and dismissed with ease.

No army would rely mainly on noncitizens if citizens were willing to fight. Of course the Romans had long used mercenaries and foreign auxiliaries but the key difference was that in the past they augmented Roman strength, whereas in the 400s they were a substitute for it.

The Roman army had to be paid on a regular basis.

But this didn't prevent the Roman Empire from relying mainly on its own regulars for four centuries.


Manpower definitely tanked.Been so since Frigidus.A major reason why Alaric was defeated by Stilicho but never destroyed had a lot to do with the need to win Alaric’s troops over,not to kill them all.

Oh manpower tanked alright but only in the sense that there were few willing citizen recruits.

The amount of money Alaric extorted wouldn’t have been suffice to maintain an army to expel the barbarians.The empire wasn’t just fighting one group of barbarians,but many others.

Aurelian booted them all out and crushed internal or breakaway areas, despite quite limited financial resources or debased coinage. The difference was that many third century citizens were still willing to fight.


By the fifth century however,entire provinces in the west have been depopulated.

I don't think so, and even if population did drop somewhat I very much doubt it was the fundamental cause of military weakness. Look at the late third century. Despite massive population losses due to plague and invasion c 250-70 CE, just a few years later the Empire had adequate armies to master all external threats. The fifth century population may have been smaller than that of say 200 CE, but it too was theoretically adequate. I believe it was A.M.H. Jones who noted a "lack of public spirit" toward the end. That was the real issue.


Money and reinforcements from the east were also not forthcoming.WRE most likely would have been a vastly different story if the ERE sent 10-20k soldiers to Gaul during the Barbarian crossing of the Rhine for example.

The East did the best it could. About 6,000 of its troops were ambushed and destroyed by Alaric but...it tried, then and later, in , 430, 440 and 468.
 
It was initially much luckier in that the main barbarian trajectory was the WRE and it also lucked out c 447 CE when the walls of Constantinople were fixed just in time.
They had the money and manpower,that’s why it was able to fight the barbarians and the Sassanids,as well as quickly recover from disasters like Adrianople.


No army would rely mainly on noncitizens if citizens were willing to fight. Of course the Romans had long used mercenaries and foreign auxiliaries but the key difference was that in the past they augmented Roman strength, whereas in the 400s they were a substitute for it.

But this didn't prevent the Roman Empire from relying mainly on its own regulars for four centuries.


Oh manpower tanked alright but only in the sense that there were few willing citizen recruits.
You do realize that the army has been conscripting people to fight right?So it’s not a matter of whether there were enough citizens to fight,but more like there’s simply not enough strength to fight anymore.Things were so bad that Stilicho had to conscript slaves to fight Alaric at one point.

Told you,provinces are depopulated,not enough taxes to finance an army that could cover all the ground.The WRE is huge.


Aurelian booted them all out and crushed internal or breakaway areas, despite quite limited financial resources or debased coinage. The difference was that many third century citizens were still willing to fight.
Aurelian still had the Balkans,Hispania,Italy,Anatolia and the very rich Africa.The Balkans and Anatolia were ripe grounds for recruiting troops.The Emperors of the WRE only had control over half of the Balkans,it’s why Stilicho tried to take the entirety of the Balkans from the ERE militarily—so that they can have more manpower.



I don't think so, and even if population did drop somewhat I very much doubt it was the fundamental cause of military weakness. Look at the late third century. Despite massive population losses due to plague and invasion c 250-70 CE, just a few years later the Empire had adequate armies to master all external threats. The fifth century population may have been smaller than that of say 200 CE, but it too was theoretically adequate. I believe it was A.M.H. Jones who noted a "lack of public spirit" toward the end. That was the real issue.
Massive population losses which continued. Think of it this way,if the problem of manpower was bad in the third century, it’s even worse in the fifth century in the west. There’s also the fact that no sustained help was coming from the east.The east was always where 2/3s of the population lies.



The East did the best it could. About 6,000 of its troops were ambushed and destroyed by Alaric but...it tried, then and later, in , 430, 440 and 468.
Help from the east was sporatic at best,and sometimes downright hostile.Whatever help they have to the ERE,it was always confined to the Balkans,Italy and Africa.They did not for example send an expeditionary force to help clear Gaul and Hispania of barbarians.
 
So in the last century or so of the Roman Empire much of the territory was lost to Germanic invaders.

Is is possible however that with a strong emperor, no massive disasters or mistakes, and some degree of luck that the western territories could be reconquered.

Perhaps even in the same way and process as the Roman Empire conquered Gaul, Carthage, and Spain respectively

Is this possible? Could the rump Roman Empire in the west make a comeback?
Maybe the romanised Gothic kingdoms could have been integrated peacefully? Thus allowing the reconstruction of the Roman empire with less expense.
 
They had the money and manpower,that’s why it was able to fight the barbarians and the Sassanids

Well, the sassanians were pretty quiet in the 400s and most barbarians headed west. The ERE was clobbered by the Huns but even they ultimately headed west, so the ERE was luckier in that it didn't suffer permanent losses of territory then.

You do realize that the army has been conscripting people to fight right?

Sure, but it was ultimately futile because so many citizens--especially after the christian triumph--just didn't want to fight, or felt they couldn't. Men would cut off their thumbs to avoid service or combat. That's why they had to recruit so many barbarians, most still pagan.

Told you,provinces are depopulated,not enough taxes to finance an army that could cover all the ground.The WRE is huge.

I think it was A.M.H. Jones who concluded overpopulation wasn't very serious and that regardless of the number of people in the Empire it was surely greater than the number of invaders. In theory it was more than adequate. The WRE initially had the rich North Africa area and had financial resources.
The barbarians targeted the empire in the fifth century for the same reason they went after it previously--it had much more wealth. But agricultural output and other wealth couldn't be produced if most of the producers had vanished. In his tome on the fall of Rome, Heather cited evidence for continued prosperity c 400 CE.


Aurelian still had the Balkans,Hispania,Italy,Anatolia and the very rich Africa.The Balkans and Anatolia were ripe grounds for recruiting troops.The Emperors of the WRE only had control over half of the Balkans,it’s why Stilicho tried to take the entirety of the Balkans from the ERE militarily—so that they can have more manpower.

He wouldn't have needed it had more western citizens been willing to fight.

Massive population losses which continued. Think of it this way,if the problem of manpower was bad in the third century, it’s even worse in the fifth century in the west.

Why?? We know that despite the huge losses in the mid third century, Roman armies remained big down to at least 363 CE. Afterwards they became rather feeble and the state had to turn to barbarian recruits, mercenaries and federates. But the problem couldn't have been depopulation. There was no fourth century plague like the third century one nor were incursions worse. The only good explanation for increasing weakness after Adrianople was loss of support among the citizens. Again, Jones discerned a "lack of public spirit" toward the end.


Help from the east was sporatic at best,and sometimes downright hostile.Whatever help they have to the ERE,it was always confined to the Balkans,Italy and Africa.They did not for example send an expeditionary force to help clear Gaul and Hispania of barbarians.

The ERE did what it could for the most important area--North Africa.
 
Well, the sassanians were pretty quiet in the 400s and most barbarians headed west. The ERE was clobbered by the Huns but even they ultimately headed west, so the ERE was luckier in that it didn't suffer permanent losses of territory then.
Even if barbarians focused all of their attention to the ERE and had them clobbered,the ERE will just keep coming back because they've got the money and soldiers.It's worthwhile to note that while the WRE's army completely disintegrated in this period,the ERE's army continued to remain strong and even expanded.It's believed that by the time of Justinian,the ERE had an army of over three hundred thousand soldiers.The united Roman Empire had an army of only four hundred thousand at its' height.You get the picture how important the east was in regards to taxes and manpower.


Sure, but it was ultimately futile because so many citizens--especially after the christian triumph--just didn't want to fight, or felt they couldn't. Men would cut off their thumbs to avoid service or combat. That's why they had to recruit so many barbarians, most still pagan.
Pay in the army's pretty shit,so why should they fight?Unlike the republic and the principate, the army was no longer a glamorous job because the WRE can not pay the army well. As to your point about men cutting their thumbs,that happened in the ERE as well.It had a lot to do with the fact that once in the army,your descendants will have to be soldiers too.In the ERE however,it’s manpower for the army isn’t that much of an issue because it can afford to pay people well,unlike the WRE.Another factor is that even if there are citizens willing to fight,they wouldn't have fought well either,compared to the early Roman armies.Unlike earlier periods,the Roman army was progressively remodeling itself to an army that engages mostly in skirmishes and not field battles.This kind of warfare relies much more on individual skill rather than group fighting skill,as per earlier periods.This meant that a soldier would have to train much longer periods, so it was much harder to train troops.


I think it was A.M.H. Jones who concluded overpopulation wasn't very serious and that regardless of the number of people in the Empire it was surely greater than the number of invaders. In theory it was more than adequate. The WRE initially had the rich North Africa area and had financial resources.
The barbarians targeted the empire in the fifth century for the same reason they went after it previously--it had much more wealth. But agricultural output and other wealth couldn't be produced if most of the producers had vanished. In his tome on the fall of Rome, Heather cited evidence for continued prosperity c 400 CE.
Places like Aquitaine were ceded precisely because it was completely depopulated.The Romans actually negotiated from a position of strength when they forced the Visigoths into taking Aquitaine in return for military service. The barbarians targeted the Romans because while the Romans were poor,the barbarians were even poorer.Another thing is that not everyone was poor even though the WRE was in general poor.Large aristocrats still existed in the WRE and they generally avoided paying taxes and had private armies as well.If you want to blame anyone for the unwillingness to fight,you should probably blame them.It matters not whether the invaders outnumbered the local population or not because the percentage of people the empire can mobilize is always going to be smaller than what the barbarians can mobilize.The entire adult population of a barbarian tribe can be mobilized to fight whereas this is impossible for an entity like Rome.

He wouldn't have needed it had more western citizens been willing to fight.
The manpower pool has been depleted,and what remained of that is largely in the hands of the aristocrats.They are NEVER gonna yield their tenants to the army. Majorian got killed precisely for trying to combat this group.



Why?? We know that despite the huge losses in the mid third century, Roman armies remained big down to at least 363 CE. Afterwards they became rather feeble and the state had to turn to barbarian recruits, mercenaries and federates. But the problem couldn't have been depopulation. There was no fourth century plague like the third century one nor were incursions worse. The only good explanation for increasing weakness after Adrianople was loss of support among the citizens. Again, Jones discerned a "lack of public spirit" toward the end.
Most commoners don't give a damn about the good of the public. The empire has always either built up the army through incentives or physical force. The army was conscripting people after the mid-third century,that's why they managed to keep the army manned.That didn't work anymore because the manpower pool completely dried up.



The ERE did what it could for the most important area--North Africa.
Even before the WRE lost North Africa,they were already on life-support.
 
Last edited:
Even if barbarians focused all of their attention to the ERE and had them clobbered,the ERE will just keep coming back because they've got the money and soldiers.It's worthwhile to note that while the WRE's army completely disintegrated in this period,the ERE's army continued to remain strong and even expanded.It's believed that by the time of Justinian,the ERE had an army of over three hundred thousand soldiers.The united Roman Empire had an army of only four hundred thousand at its' height.You get the picture how important the east was in regards to taxes and manpower.

The WRE army mostly disintegrated in 408 CE because they alienated the barbarians they had become dependent on. Apparently the ERE didn't (but it was still defeatable; Stilicho had to bail it out and it was badly beaten in the 440s.) But the essential difference is that barbarians, in stages, deprived the WRE of land, population and money on a permanent basis. In theory, instead of going to Gaul, Britain, Spain and North Africa (and Italy), the barbarians could've gone from the balkans to Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt, in the process undermining the ERE. It just so happened the WRE was mainly targeted.


Pay in the army's pretty shit,so why should they fight?Unlike the republic and the principate, the army was no longer a glamorous job because the WRE can not pay the army well.

But the latter third century army was big enough and effective despite the lousy, debased coinage of the time.

As to your point about men cutting their thumbs,that happened in the ERE as well.It had a lot to do with the fact that once in the army,your descendants will have to be soldiers too.In the ERE however,it’s manpower for the army isn’t that much of an issue because it can afford to pay people well,unlike the WRE.

I don't know if conditions for troops in the ERE were any better. Anastasius, late fifth century, had to reform the army.

Another factor is that even if there are citizens willing to fight,they wouldn't have fought well either,compared to the early Roman armies.Unlike earlier periods,the Roman army was progressively remodeling itself to an army that engages mostly in skirmishes and not field battles.This kind of warfare relies much more on individual skill rather than group fighting skill,as per earlier periods.This meant that a soldier would have to train much longer periods, so it was much harder to train troops.

But there were field battles in the 440s and at other times. I think the problem was not with the concept of field battles but a lack of enough regular army troops for them especially after 408.


Places like Aquitaine were ceded precisely because it was completely depopulated.The Romans actually negotiated from a position of strength when they forced the Visigoths into taking Aquitaine in return for military service.

I assume you're referring to the resettlement of Visigoths there under Constantius c 418. But prior to then, around 407-9, the Vandals and others had been pushed down there by Constantius, and stayed a while, prior to entering Spain so they must've messed it up badly, well before the resettlement (the Roman population probably fled). The point is, Aquitaine wasn't necessarily representative of the empire or even just the WRE as a whole.

Large aristocrats still existed in the WRE and they generally avoided paying taxes and had private armies as well.

I think this was more of an effect rather than a cause of WRE decline. The central government couldn't do much anymore so why pay taxes and rely on it for defense?

If you want to blame anyone for the unwillingness to fight,you should probably blame them.It matters not whether the invaders outnumbered the local population or not because the percentage of people the empire can mobilize is always going to be smaller than what the barbarians can mobilize.The entire adult population of a barbarian tribe can be mobilized to fight whereas this is impossible for an entity like Rome.

But trained, professional Roman armies had long stymied barbarian encroachment, even in the third century when masses of them swarmed across the border.

The manpower pool has been depleted,and what remained of that is largely in the hands of the aristocrats.They are NEVER gonna yield their tenants to the army. Majorian got killed precisely for trying to combat this group.

IIRC the law tying peasants to the land had existed since the time of Diocletian yet Roman armies remained big for decades after that. Note that sons of soldiers had to serve but while this in theory should've just about sufficed, it obviously didn't work out...I don't think soldiers stopped having sons. The latter just wouldn't fight--Martin being an example.


Most commoners don't give a damn about the good of the public. The empire has always either built up the army through incentives or physical force. The army was conscripting people after the mid-third century,that's why they managed to keep the army manned.That didn't work anymore because the manpower pool completely dried up.

I don't think it did in the sense of manpower literally not being there anymore. Most citizens just would not serve anymore. Christianity probably had much to do with it. I read in LATE ROMAN INFANTRYMAN that recruits had to be locked up nightly while being transported to their bases. Faced with citizen unwillingness the empire finally just gave up and hired barbarians instead--but ultimately alienated most of them in 408.
 
Last edited:
How about this:

Theoderic the Great invades Italy earlier, but with only his half of the Ostrogoths. Ostensibly, he's doing it to remove Odoacer in order to enforce the authority of Julius Nepos. In actual fact, he's doing it for himself. He kills Odoacer, and Italy submits.

With less Goths to work with (remember, half of them stay behind in Thrace, under Theoderic Strabo), Theoderic the Amal (aka "the Great") needs to solidify his position (legally that of Magister Militum), and does so by attacking the Vandals, with the help of the Eastern Empire's fleet.

The Romano-Berber Kingdom joins him, and he's victorious.

Now you have a stable state, with a Gothic leader, a puppet Roman Emperor and a good army at its disposal.
 
The WRE army mostly disintegrated in 408 CE because they alienated the barbarians they had become dependent on. Apparently the ERE didn't (but it was still defeatable; Stilicho had to bail it out and it was badly beaten in the 440s.) But the essential difference is that barbarians, in stages, deprived the WRE of land, population and money on a permanent basis. In theory, instead of going to Gaul, Britain, Spain and North Africa (and Italy), the barbarians could've gone from the balkans to Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt, in the process undermining the ERE. It just so happened the WRE was mainly targeted.
The ERE can be badly beaten,but it can't be totally defeated or lose much lands because they can always rebuild their army.That's why whenever a barbarian group beats the ERE,they just ask for the money--because both the ERE and the barbarians knew that it's going to end up being much costly for both sides if they continued fighting.The army that these barbarian groups defeated also only a fraction of the ERE's army.The ERE still have armies in the Orient.

The essential problem with the WRE was one of not enough manpower and progressively losing land. The successive wars against the ERE cost manpower that the WRE could not replace adequately,and this vulnerability gave the barbarians a chance to take land,which further decreased the population and tax base the empire could support the army with.



But the latter third century army was big enough and effective despite the lousy, debased coinage of the time.



I don't know if conditions for troops in the ERE were any better. Anastasius, late fifth century, had to reform the army.
The empire was definitely close to crumbling in the late third century,the fact that the empire survived had a lot to do with the fact that they haven't reached pitch bottom yet. Apart from civil wars and enemy invasions which continued after the crisis of the third century,there is evidence that there was some kind of climate change,with the weather becoming progressively colder,so that further contributed to economic decline.The climate got so bad that the Rhine froze over and allowed the barbarians to cross.Even before the collapse of the Rhine frontier,the WRE was often raided by the barbarians,so that didn't make it a safe environment for citizens to prosper.


I think this was more of an effect rather than a cause of WRE decline. The central government couldn't do much anymore so why pay taxes and rely on it for defense?
There's more to that actually.Unlike the ERE,most of the WRE's aristocrats were less involved in the civil service and the army,therefore they weren't that tied to the fate of the state anyway.


But trained, professional Roman armies had long stymied barbarian encroachment, even in the third century when masses of them swarmed across the border.



IIRC the law tying peasants to the land had existed since the time of Diocletian yet Roman armies remained big for decades after that. Note that sons of soldiers had to serve but while this in theory should've just about sufficed, it obviously didn't work out...I don't think soldiers stopped having sons. The latter just wouldn't fight--Martin being an example.
As mentioned before,massive civil wars continued after Constantine's temporary unification of the empire.Even Julian struggled to scrap together an army to fight the Alamanni.The guy only managed to scrap together an army of fifteen thousand soldiers to fight against the Alamanni,that's how bad the situation was.


I don't think it did in the sense of manpower literally not being there anymore. Most citizens just would not serve anymore. Christianity probably had much to do with it. I read in LATE ROMAN INFANTRYMAN that recruits had to be locked up nightly while being transported to their bases. Faced with citizen unwillingness the empire finally just gave up and hired barbarians instead--but ultimately alienated most of them in 408.
Citizen unwillingness to serve is definitely there,but one of the reason why the empire hired these troops has to do with pragmatism as well.Since the early periods of the empire,the empire's prime source of recruits always came from the soldiers' children,given they are often trained from a young age. Once this source of manpower dries up(which is inevitable given the army got wiped out twice within a short space of time),the empire would have to recruit from the rest of the citizenry. These people do not form good troops.It's known that the quality of the East Roman army declined considerably after Adrianople for example due to the need to refill the legions through crash training courses.As mentioned earlier,the Roman style of fighting has changed drastically from that of the third century and favored troops far better trained in individual combat.The quality of barbarian troops has also steadily increased over the past few centuries due to increasing contact with Rome. Unlike citizen soldiers,this was already a trained source of manpower,so there's no need to spend money and time on training these troops,not to mention less need to disrupt the economy by mobilizing the citizens.

Nevertheless,the situation in 408 suggests however that citizens still formed a large part of the army. Olympus' coup against Stilicho was backed by military force. This force helped massacre the barbarian troops' families,suggesting that a sizeable Roman element was still in the army.Barbarian troops in the service of the empire wasn't really a problem. What really was the problem was when these troops serve under their own chieftains rather than being under Roman officers after 408.
 
Last edited:
Places like Aquitaine were ceded precisely because it was completely depopulated.The Romans actually negotiated from a position of strength when they forced the Visigoths into taking Aquitaine in return for military service. The barbarians targeted the Romans because while the Romans were poor,the barbarians were even poorer.Another thing is that not everyone was poor even though the WRE was in general poor.Large aristocrats still existed in the WRE and they generally avoided paying taxes and had private armies as well.If you want to blame anyone for the unwillingness to fight,you should probably blame them.It matters not whether the invaders outnumbered the local population or not because the percentage of people the empire can mobilize is always going to be smaller than what the barbarians can mobilize.The entire adult population of a barbarian tribe can be mobilized to fight whereas this is impossible for an entity like Rome.
I doubt that Aquitaine was completly depopulated. If so then who are the people living there now descended from? Can you give a source for your statement?
 
I don't think you can see that page. Also I'm not well versed enough about this period but from this AskHistorians post he confirms that the Romans would have vastly outnumebered the arriving Visigoths.
 
I don't think you can see that page. Also I'm not well versed enough about this period but from this AskHistorians post he confirms that the Romans would have vastly outnumebered the arriving Visigoths.
Book is called The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire By James William Ermatinger.On pg 143,they mention that Gaul,was depopulated after the barbarians invaded.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
Assuming Majorian can pull it off and reconquer most if not all the western empire(though just leave Britannia it's basically useless and a resource sink) how much longer could the empire last?

Could the best situation be that if a reconquest can be pulled off then the empire can last another hundred years or so and wait out the remaining migration period-eventually it will peter out and stabilize and the empire can recover.
 
Top