Roman reconquista of the west 430 to 480

That’s why I am giving you the means of searching yourself. It’s a google book. The link works from my side.
Reading the piece it seems the author (the one who James draws on) takes a pro-Gothic, anti-Valens stance describing the defeat (or defeat to come; it's hard to make it out) at Adrianople is/was a foregone conclusion and was warranted by divine judgement. His talkings on it also seems quite exaggerated talking about how 'Except a few old men, all were born in captivity and siege, and do not desire the liberty they never knew' [sic]. I am not saying that he's not a source to be considered but I wouldn't use him as an example of a reliable narrator.
 
Reading the piece it seems the author (the one who James draws on) takes a pro-Gothic, anti-Valens stance describing the defeat (or defeat to come; it's hard to make it out) at Adrianople is/was a foregone conclusion and was warranted by divine judgement. His talkings on it also seems quite exaggerated talking about how 'Except a few old men, all were born in captivity and siege, and do not desire the liberty they never knew' [sic]. I am not saying that he's not a source to be considered but I wouldn't use him as an example of a reliable narrator.
It’s not really the source I originally read anyway,this just came up when I re-looked into the subject when you requested a source. I can’t really remember what I originally read.
 

elkarlo

Banned
By 430 CE the Western Roman Empire was too far gone for a comeback. I think the fundamental problem is that few citizens really cared for it anymore. That's why they needed barbarian mercenaries or "federates." When your own people don't support the state anymore, at the end of the day I don't think there's any hope.
Leadership wasn't the problem. Fifth century western leadership was often quite good--Stilicho, Constantius, Aetius, Majorian. The problem was lack of enough military resources they could count on.
I agree but it wasn't just a lack of belief in the state. It was protecting oneself. Why go liberate gual when barbarians were ravaging Italy. I'd rather protect my town or county than worry about what the western empire looks like on a map.
 
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.

In theory the WRE had armies in Gaul, Spain and North Africa yet the barbarians incurred little resistance in those areas. The Huns (and perhaps others) could've overrun much of the ERE after destroying its (best) Balkan forces. But the barbarians mainly targeted the west.

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.

It was at its nadir then, due to massive defeats and raids added to plague, civil war, inflation...At no time before or since did the empire face such a combination of daunting problems occurring more or less simultaneously. From the point of view of manpower losses, the plague--killing a high percentage of the empire's population--and massive defeats around midcentury, were much worse than fourth century setbacks. Yet Roman armies not only remained effective in the years immediately after the mid century crises, they were still very large at least down to 363.


Apart from civil wars and enemy invasions which continued after the crisis of the third century,

It's noteworthy that after the civil wars of Constantine's time, Roman armies remained very big c 351 CE and even after the high losses in the latter period, they were still big in Julian's time.

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.

But the Romans down to 407 must've revived after setbacks, as Gaul retained cities to then. I don't think the climate was great either throughout much of the medieval period but population increased much over what it had been in Roman times.


As mentioned before,massive civil wars continued after Constantine's temporary unification of the empire.

But loss of soldiers and population due to 4rth century civil wars were nowhere near as bad as third century losses. Why did the roman army do so well after 267, i.e. after many millions of deaths from plague, massive defeats in the Near East and Europe AND economic ruin, AND civil wars?
I just can't believe the factors which did not preclude revival in the third century somehow proved so debilitating in the fourth. There had to have been another factor.

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.

It couldn't have been that bad for just a few years later he led a very big army against Persia. And it was tactically proficient. Strategically the effort failed but that's beside the point. The Roman Empire, down to the real triumph of christianity in the later fourth century, retained ample military resources, and great recuperative powers.


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.

I'd assume after the catastrophes of the mid third century the Romans must've conscripted lots of peasants with no prior training or experience--which wasn't such a problem once they are trained--and the Roman army performed very well as early as 268-69.

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.

The decline should've only been temporary--in the past it would've been (rebuilt Roman armies had won from before the time of hannibal to past the time of Shapur). Unfortunately by c 380 other factors were at play, sapping the fighting spirit of citizen troops....

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.

That must've been after the disintegratian of regular roman forces.

The quality of barbarian troops has also steadily increased over the past few centuries due to increasing contact with Rome.

In the third century, Cniva's men seemed pretty proficient, but the Romans still ultimately beat the goths. Stilicho could also beat them.


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...

Ferrill would certainly has disagreed with that! In his view rigorous formal training and discipline had always given Roman armies an edge over barbarians.

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.

It doesn't take a very big or powerful force to massacre defenseless civilians.....Furthermore why didn't this "sizeable element" prevent the desertion of barbarians or break the sieges of Rome?? Why did the WRE seem so powerless after "the anti-barbiarian with hunt" as Ferrill put it?? Not just during the siege and sack of Rome but for years afterwards? It seems that by alienating barbarians, the WRE deprived itself of its key source of recruits, the implication being that the bulk of its own citizens would no longer fight for it.


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.

Of course, after the barbarians were treated like dirt in the regular army, they'd only fight under their own leaders--so called federates--or mercenaries who came without families.
 
Last edited:
In theory the WRE had armies in Gaul, Spain and North Africa yet the barbarians incurred little resistance in those areas. The Huns (and perhaps others) could've overrun much of the ERE after destroying its (best) Balkan forces. But the barbarians mainly targeted the west.
The thing is that Spain and North Africa had very few troops garrisoned in it traditionally. Gaul and Britain on the other hand were where a lot of the armies were posted in.The problem was that a lot of these armies were already sent and wiped out either in the Battle of the Save(Magnus Maximus was supported by the armies of Britain and Gaul) or the Frigidus River.


It was at its nadir then, due to massive defeats and raids added to plague, civil war, inflation...At no time before or since did the empire face such a combination of daunting problems occurring more or less simultaneously. From the point of view of manpower losses, the plague--killing a high percentage of the empire's population--and massive defeats around midcentury, were much worse than fourth century setbacks. Yet Roman armies not only remained effective in the years immediately after the mid century crises, they were still very large at least down to 363.
The thing is that after the Crisis of the Third Century,things in the empire barely improved,therefore the population and economy that's already low will naturally get even more depressed. A lot of Diocletian and Constantine's policies were sticky tapes at best and ended up screwing the empire even more on the long run.There simply wasn't a period in the west where the empire is at peace for a long period of time like during the first to late second century, in order to fully recover.


But loss of soldiers and population due to 4rth century civil wars were nowhere near as bad as third century losses. Why did the roman army do so well after 267, i.e. after many millions of deaths from plague, massive defeats in the Near East and Europe AND economic ruin, AND civil wars?
I just can't believe the factors which did not preclude revival in the third century somehow proved so debilitating in the fourth. There had to have been another factor.
Cause they still had control of Africa, the Balkans and a significant part of Anatolia.The latter two are where a large part of the empire's soldiers and war horses comes from,while Africa is the cash cow.Heraclius was able to rebuild his broken armies and beat Persia by just retaining control over parts of these areas,this shows just how good these provinces are to war effort.They’ve also lost the eastern provinces for a few years only at that point.Any extended loss of those provinces would have made it far less likely for the empire to survive.



It's noteworthy that after the civil wars of Constantine's time, Roman armies remained very big c 351 CE and even after the high losses in the latter period, they were still big in Julian's time.

But the Romans down to 407 must've revived after setbacks, as Gaul retained cities to then. I don't think the climate was great either throughout much of the medieval period but population increased much over what it had been in Roman times.

It couldn't have been that bad for just a few years later he led a very big army against Persia. And it was tactically proficient. Strategically the effort failed but that's beside the point. The Roman Empire, down to the real triumph of christianity in the later fourth century, retained ample military resources, and great recuperative powers.
You are forgetting the fact that civil wars continued under reign of Constantine's sons.And the civil wars of Constantine's time wiped out a massive part of the Roman army. It was undoubtedly the bloodiest Roman civil war. Constantine and his rivals had to strip the provinces bare to form their armies,which is possibly a reason as to why the population and economy further declined.

As for Julian,had the combined might of the two halves of the empire behind him. That's why he can build the 60k army.The fact that Julian struggled several years in Gaul with a small army shows that the manpower situation in the west was already pretty abysmal by his time.He wasn't able to build a stronger army when he had full control over Gaul.

As mentioned,takes many decades,if not a centuries for a country to recover from war.The western part of the empire rarely ceased having to fight any wars for significant periods of time between the time of the Crisis of the Third Century and it's final fall.

Take China for example, the rule of Emperor Wen of Sui was commonly regarded as a golden age. His empire collapsed during the reign of his son due to his tyrannical reign. The succeeding Tang dynasty had to rule competently for a century after theyhave unified China before population levels resembled that of Emperor Wen of Sui's reign.During this century of rule,there was no large scale military conflict within the interiors of China,with wars limited strictly to the hinterlands.

As to your point about the middle ages,agricultural techniques improved a lot during the Middle Ages,and there was a warm period during the middle ages as well.


I'd assume after the catastrophes of the mid third century the Romans must've conscripted lots of peasants with no prior training or experience--which wasn't such a problem once they are trained--and the Roman army performed very well as early as 268-69.
Cause at the time they were still fighting in the old legion style,which involves chiefly blocking enemy attacks with a shield war and stabbing the enemy with the gladius,this form of warfare requires far less training.


The decline should've only been temporary--in the past it would've been (rebuilt Roman armies had won from before the time of hannibal to past the time of Shapur). Unfortunately by c 380 other factors were at play, sapping the fighting spirit of citizen troops....



That must've been after the disintegratian of regular roman forces.



In the third century, Cniva's men seemed pretty proficient, but the Romans still ultimately beat the goths. Stilicho could also beat them.




Ferrill would certainly has disagreed with that! In his view rigorous formal training and discipline had always given Roman armies an edge over barbarians.
The entire MO of the Roman army has transformed from the 4th century onwards. It was no longer an army that primarily engages in field battles. It primarily engages in skirmishes and rarely fights any pitch battles due to the fact that the army can't afford to lose too much men,as well as the fact that the barbarians were reluctant to do so as well. They were primarily involved in fighting off raids.When there's a pitch battles,there's also a lot more cavalry on both sides.This meant that things like the scutum and the gladius were replaced with oval shields,spears and spathas. Formations were also much looser than earlier periods. Maurice's strategikon indicates that the army had to train more on individual combat as a result of these changes. The earlier Roman army can afford to be less trained because they were simply blocking enemy attacks and stabbing, and relied much more on superior doctrines and military formations.The new Roman army engages in combat that are far closer to how barbarians conduct theirs.Thus,they needed much greater amount of training.

Finally,it's much more expensive to train and equipment cavalry once you lose the cavalrymen or their horses.

It doesn't take a very big or powerful force to massacre defenseless civilians.....Furthermore why didn't this "sizeable element" prevent the desertion of barbarians or break the sieges of Rome?? Why did the WRE seem so powerless after "the anti-barbiarian with hunt" as Ferrill put it?? Not just during the siege and sack of Rome but for years afterwards? It seems that by alienating barbarians, the WRE deprived itself of its key source of recruits, the implication being that the bulk of its own citizens would no longer fight for it.

Olympius' coup started with an uprising of a Roman army.It's reasonable to assume that they wouldn't have started this if this army wasn't big. As to why this army didn't prevent the desertion of the barbarians or break the siege of Rome,that's because the barbarian force was also quite big,and when combined with Alaric's army,that gets even bigger.It's estimated that this barbarian force was around 30k.The empire also lacked capable leadership after Stilicho got offed.

A similar event actually occurred in the east around the same period of time,but they managed to completely liquidate the barbarian elements of the army due to the fact that native forces in the ERE far dwarfed that of the barbarian forces.
 
Last edited:
The thing is that after the Crisis of the Third Century,things in the empire barely improved,therefore the population and economy that's already low will naturally get even more depressed. A lot of Diocletian and Constantine's policies were sticky tapes at best and ended up screwing the empire even more on the long run.There simply wasn't a period in the west where the empire is at peace for a long period of time like during the first to late second century, in order to fully recover.

Constantine improved the coinage, and Heather cited evidence for prosperity even in the latter fourth century. The book on Aurelian mentions a period of relative stability around mid 4rth cemntury in which historical writing resumed.
I don't think the empire EVER enjoyed a long period of peace. Besides the civil wars of 68-69, there were the wars with Dacians, the Jewish revolt of 66-74, the Kitos insurrections, and bar kochba revolt--all very bloody affairs especially the Kitos one--and the troubles of 166-180, which foreshadowed the third century crisis.
The Romans didn't need long periods of peace to rebuild their strength. Look at the second punic war. Rome lost maybe 200k soldiers and sustained vast economic damage--with nowhere near the resources of its later western empire--yet still effectively fought at Cynocephale and Magnesia. Another example: Despite considerable losses in the civil war in 197 CE, Severus took Ctesiphon less than a year later.

Cause they still had control of Africa, the Balkans and a significant part of Anatolia.

But military weakness appears to have set in prior to the division of empire in 395 CE.

You are forgetting the fact that civil wars continued under reign of Constantine's sons.And the civil wars of Constantine's time wiped out a massive part of the Roman army. It was undoubtedly the bloodiest Roman civil war. Constantine and his rivals had to strip the provinces bare to form their armies,which is possibly a reason as to why the population and economy further declined.

Oh I see....how strange that the armies of 351 CE were still so big, despite the enormous losses of Constantine's time (e.g. Maximinus II Daia lost his big eastern army). And Julian's army of 363 was still big despite the huge losses of 351. In light of history, I just can't believe population decline caused the loss of citizen soldiers between c 363 and c 400 CE. The army had to recuperate repeatedly during bad times from the punic wars down to the mid fourth century. Rebuilding armies never seemed to be such an issue. Only when christianity really spread did the army become enfeebled, then barbarian. From what I've read, historians like Ferrill, or his sources, say that while the population probably shrank somewhat, it didn't do so catastrophically.

As for Julian,had the combined might of the two halves of the empire behind him. That's why he can build the 60k army.The fact that Julian struggled several years in Gaul with a small army shows that the manpower situation in the west was already pretty abysmal by his time.He wasn't able to build a stronger army when he had full control over Gaul.

Ferrill said that was because much of the available manpower consisted of limitanei whereas he needed comitatenses. And his army proved adequate.

The western part of the empire rarely ceased having to fight any wars for significant periods of time between the time of the Crisis of the Third Century and it's final fall.

That wasn't a problem. Stilicho could handle invaders, he even helped the ERE. Ultimately the problem was lack of enough citizen support. The WRE could look after itself until it goofed in 408 and alienated its barbarian troops. After depriving itself of essentially its only source of troops it was living on borrowed time--probably lucky it didn't go down the tubes even faster.
I'm sure the Romans c 400 CE would've far preferred to rely on citizen troops than barbarians--were that only possible--just as it had for centuries.

It primarily engages in skirmishes and rarely fights any pitch battles due to the fact that the army can't afford to lose too much men,

Right, exactly. The crux of the problem was insufficient manpower, or citizens willing to fight, so they couldn't count on replacements. I don't believe the population shrank so drastically the entire WRE couldn't build big armies. Look what republican Rome could do without half the territory and population. That was when citizens were really willing to serve.
What if the combined population of both empires c 400 CE was 25 million--at most half of what it had once been, and just a third--8 million--were in the west. In theory it could raise 800,000 troops. But let's suppose for various reasons it could only raise 200,000, half to 2/3 of them comitatenses. That would've been enough, but apparently just wasn't possible, or no longer possible after christianity won out.....


Olympius' coup started with an uprising of a Roman army.It's reasonable to assume that they wouldn't have started this if this army wasn't big. As to why this army didn't prevent the desertion of the barbarians or break the siege of Rome,that's because the barbarian force was also quite big,and when combined with Alaric's army,that gets even bigger.It's estimated that this barbarian force was around 30k.The empire also lacked capable leadership after Stilicho got offed.

Sure the nonbarbarian forces just couldn't stand up to the barbarian ones, which speaks volumes about loss of martial spirit among citizens at the time...I don't believe the nonbarbarian population of the WRE had become an endangered species, they just no longer supported the Roman state--ancient authors have noted their indifference to it btw.

A similar event actually occurred in the east around the same period of time,but they managed to completely liquidate the barbarian elements of the army due to the fact that native forces in the ERE far dwarfed that of the barbarian forces.

After the christian triumph the ERE seemed better able to retain the support of its citizens.
 
Last edited:
Top