No evidence that training was better in the empire than in the Republic. Quite the opposite, discipline declined during the empire compared to republican legions.
Never said that. Just pointing out what happens when soldiers are badly trained.
No evidence that training was better in the empire than in the Republic. Quite the opposite, discipline declined during the empire compared to republican legions.
Yes because it was still wealthy, had resources, and a numerical advantage. Take these factors away subsequently (gradually 4th/5th century), and they lose decisively. (I'll note the late 3rd century Empire was far less effective than the early Principate when these factors favoured the empire even more + tribal loyalty towards Rome had not totally diminished).
Severus is a good example of what I was talking about. The civil war caused a collapse in Roman security that Severus had to spend the entirety of his reign fixing, everything from his Parthian, African, British campaign/wars was about restoring Roman credibility which wouldn't have taken a loss in the early days of the empire, or late Republic. The late Republic endured decades of civil war, yet there were no real security problems in the wake.
The two are linked inevitably. If you have trouble finding enough soldiers, it's likely your soldiers aren't very good, because the whole culture has changed. Previously Rome was a very military orientated culture, this began to change with Augustus. In parallel to this, the quality of soldiers was maintained a while in the professional army even as the masses forgot about military matters. Then professionalism too began to wane due to the decline of military culture in general society (which is necessary to support it), and so you have not enough willing recruits, and crappy recruits at the same time, and so you must recruit increasingly foreigners.
To some, sure, to other Christians, he represented himself, and to some others, he was a saint.
So, all that talk about Romans being evil? Anyway, some Christians didn’t fight as some pagans didn’t fight, don’t you believe that at least some of them would not fight simply because they’d have stayed at home rather than get stationed in Britannia? It doesn’t have to be all about faith.
Poor people can’t run away from conscription, since the middle of the fourth century there were severe laws for those who’d cut their thumbs. The only way they could escape the law was under the protection of rich landowners, who sheltered them from service. Again, there’s a lot of reasons why people don’t want to join the army, then as now, it doesn’t have to be all about faith.
From your argument, it looks like the whole reason the empire fell was because of Christianity, which, come on, no matter what you believe, it couldn’t have been just that now could it?
You might want to consider how tenure works before you invoke it as the rationalization for ignoring the vast weight of scholarly evidence....
....Thus qualitatively, the Romans held a much decreased edge over their enemy for a variety of reasons by the late 3rd century onwards, after 50 year crisis.
I maintain qualitatively, their armies were superior in the early Principate, but this edge gradually began to decline until the late 3rd century, when Roman and barbarian armies were much more comparable.
I'd assume that generally "the killer of christ"--and the army the represented--was looked down upon by christians.
Not Romans just the Roman army. Of course some pagans didn't fight for various reasons. It's interesting though, that as long as the empire was predominantly pagan, finding citizen manpower for the army wasn't a big problem.
It's noteworthy that even the initial laws during that century weren't enough, since new laws later that century were deemed necessary to address the thumb issue....Evidently men were strongly motivated to avoid service--the promise of an "eternal reward" was probably a strong motivation. Oh sure, there had always been pagan draft dodgers. But again, this never seemed to have been a really serious problem as long as the empire was pagan.
Oh sure, in a perfect world, with no military threats, no invaders the empire would've lasted forever even if everyone was a christian pacifist. But inevitably you're gonna have problems...I've long been very impressed by the Empire's amazing ability to weather the third century crises. Everything went wrong, virtually simultaneously, all the factors supposedly responsible for the fall struck big time--yet it still bounced back. Everything that is, except christianity. Think about it.![]()
Unless he was only doing God’s plan. You can’t know what they thought of him, but fact is, he’s a saint.
Go tell that to Gallienus. I’m sure he was real happy to leave the East in the hands of a local warlord because he couldn’t spare the troops to defend it. And raising legions? Must have been another walk in the park for him.
Or, military service was more attractive before? In the third century a rank and file man, if lucky and capable, could expect to become a big shot, in the late fourth century, the best he could get was an unglamorous and rough stint in Gaul. Recruits would swell a general’s ranks only if they were sure he would win, otherwise they’d rather not die. Self preservation is the best of motivators.
It bounced back because it stood united, and hadn’t been already exhausted by severe losses. If you think about it, how many battles did the empire lose in the third century? Aside from whatever happened to Gordian III, we have Abritus and Edessa. Just two major battles, and the empire threatened to collapse after that.
It managed to survive because it could still scrape some money, because after that it consistently won and because Gallienus didn’t give up on it. The empire in the fifth century could have equally bounced back somehow to survive some more, if Gaiseric hadn’t mopped the floor with Bonifacius.
Romans and barbarians were positively shocked by Adrianople, a completely avoidable clusterfuck of unprecedented scale.
Nonsense, Marcus Aurelius fought the Marcomanni and Quadi in person, and if he had died later, Czechia, Slovakia, eastern hungary, and Transsylvania would have become the new provinces of Marcomannia and Sarmatia.Hadrian, Pius, Aurelius were weak nobodies militarily speaking.
He may have been "rehabiliatated" at least officially when the empire sought christian support, or when some christians reciprocated at least in that very limited way. It's interesting that the christians disparaged jew as christ killers for a long time...
Gallienus came to power in the wake of a terrible defeat, and in the midst of usurpations that prevented his control over much of the empire. It's not that the Roman army couldn't come back--it obviously did by late in his reign--it's just that he was long unable to command much of it. There was little he could do himself in the East because there were usurpers in the Danube area. And Odainathus fought on behalf of Gallienus by striking toward Ctesiphon.
Gallienus btw did raise a force of cavalry. If you read Southern, she says he laid the groundwork for recovery.
In theory military service was anything but attractive in the third century. If self preservation were the key motivator then, the army would've hardly existed....In addition to huge losses due to defeats and civil wars, the coinage was debased so pay must've been pretty poor. In the fourth century the coinage issue had been rectified at least. A commoner could rise to the top in the fourth century-by them even men of barbarian extraction like Stilicho were generals.
Just two major battles?
Decius was clobbered at Beroe Augusta Trajana(sp?) before abrittus. The Romans were utterly slaughtered in the East before Edessa. And I don't mean Gordian III's battle of 244 CE, which I believe was a draw, I mean in the time of Gallus. Then there were civil war battles like Verona...
But actually, and interestingly, the Empire was not in danger of being totally overrun on account of those defeats, horrible as they were. Even after the awful shellackings in the East around midcentury, it was faring OK under Odainathus and even better under Aurelian. And by the end of Gallienus's reign Roman armies were again able to take on the barbarians.
The near "collapse" didn't result from defeat but usurpation.
The WRE could still "scrape money" even after 408, it still held north Africa. The problem wasn't lack of money to pay soldiers. Aetius had gold to pay Huns and others. Even later Majorian could hire men--again barbarians...The problem was that most citizens had no interest in fighting anymore....And after the stupid alienation of barbarians in the regular Roman army, the latter was no longer an important factor after 408.....
Why did Gaiseric "mop the floor" with Bonifacius? Because the latter was pitifully weak! The Notitia Dignitatum gave him around 10,000 comitantenses, on paper, but where the heck were they?? Bonifacius appears to have been utterly powerless to stop Geiseric. Just like Goldsworthy noted, Roman armies which were supposed to be looking after certain areas seem strangely absent...Well, not so strangely IMO, considering the effects of christianity.![]()
Yeah, Valens made a big mistake when he had his legions march for hours in the Thracian summer heat. And even so, the Romans could have done better, if Fritigern's cavalry had come too late. But he repeatedly sent men to parley, so he bought time.
Nonsense, Marcus Aurelius fought the Marcomanni and Quadi in person, and if he had died later, Czechia, Slovakia, eastern hungary, and Transsylvania would have become the new provinces of Marcomannia and Sarmatia.
Gallienus was already in power before then, and raising armies wasn’t easy at all for him.
Odainathus did fight for him, nominally, but there was not much Gallienus could do to oppose him in any case.
And I know Gallienus raised a new cavalry force of Clibanarii and cataphractii, he could do so because service in the army was attractive for hardy Illyrians, who were finally allowed to scale the ranks.
In reality, it was awfully attractive for people like Aurelian, Claudius and Probus. People of lowly extractions who were finally allowed to scale the ranks and become someone. What was the alternative? Get slaughtered by hordes of barbarians while tending to their flocks?
On the other hand, in the late fourth century only barbarian chieftains and Roman nobles could hope to become someone. The Senate was back in power. Stilicho himself was half Roman, with a presumably rich mother, considering Theodosius approved of his union with Serena. Aetius too was half Roman, with a very powerful mothernal ancestry which allowed him a great degree of protection and influence in Italy.
The defeat at Beroe couldn’t be that severe If shortly after that Decius could still engage the Goths in battle.
The near collapse of the empire came right after Edessa, the second severe loss of the empire and the only one that occurred in the East in a long time.
Usurpers rose because soldiers didn’t have faith in the empire to safeguard and pay them anymore.
The first time around, sure, but when Aspar had come with reinforcements, he stood a chance to win, and didn’t. He wasn’t that great a commander, albeit he beat Aetius at Rimini somehow.
He must have succeeded after dealing with Danubian usurpers, because the Roman army proved quite capable around the end of his reign and soon after.
Sure, but the problem was enemies closer to home. For the time being he was content to have Odainathus do what he could for Rome.
Right, and compare their attitude--even in the midst of overwhelming adversity--with that of over a century later....
If barbarians were bent on massacre in addition to looting (I don't think they were bent on massacre most of the time) fifth century citizens faced the same problem but reacted rather more passively as writers have noted....
I think it was pretty serious, and Decius needed many replacements before fighting again in mid 251. By the way, the manner in which third century commanders used their forces--which involved a risk of serious defeat--contrasts greatly with the more cautious approach of c 400 CE. The key difference was that third century commanders were confident of getting adequate replacements whereas fifth century commanders weren't.
Na the Romans army of the east was slaughtered in the time of Gallus about 8 years earlier. Near collapse had nothing to do with defeat (which had happened before) just a near-power vacuum after Valerian was gone.
Because Gallienus didn't have the same popularity (or commanding authority) as his father. If men didn't have confidence in the empire to safeguard and pay them anymore, they wouldn't have backed anybody, just retired to their own local communities and started a medieval existence already.
With Aspar, Bonifacius may have fought the Vandals to a draw but by that time, in fact by mid 430, just abut all of Proconsularis and Numidia etc had been overrun or looted.
Course he did, doesn’t mean it was easy.
The problem was everywhere. He really didn’t have a choice on the matter. I bet you, had he survived the attempt on his life, he would have gotten rid of the Kingdom of Palmyra same as Aurelian did.
They couldn’t scale the ranks anymore, power went back to the Senate after Constantine, of course they weren’t as enthusiastic.
Barbarians weren’t polite about their invasions in the third century. They pillaged and slaughtered people, they’d only occasionally spare them if cities accepted to provide them with supplies. In any case, barbarians in the fifth century weren’t invaders anymore, they were settlers, they didn’t want to loot the empire, they wanted to replace it, and at the end of the day, whoever his overlord was, the commoner’s lot in life didn’t change, so he stayed passive.
I completely agree with this. Still, Decius’ first defeat wasn’t nearly as crushing.
Which originated from defeat. You’re right about Gallus, but that only proves the point, he was usurped shortly after that.
Gallienus was way more popular than his father.
His troops adored him. When they heard he had died, they mutinied, Claudius was forced to pay them a generous reward to keep them quiet, and to order the Senate to abstain from killing Gallienus’ supporters and also deify him. The Senate hated Gallienus, maybe even some of his officials did, but the rank and file loved him.
Retiring and giving up is exactly what they did in the fifth century, since there was no one to pay them and protect them. In the third century however, soldiers could still count on usurpers to debase the coinage and pay them right away.
Mid 30? Bonifacius was dead by mid 30, he fought alongside Aspar in 431 or early 432 tops. Gaiseric had never set foot in the heart of Proconsularis then.
Even under adverse circumstances, he could still do it.
Oh he'd have tried but without the good generalship and preparations of Aurelian dunno if it would've worked.
They were strong even beyond that. Adrianople aside, the Roman army was mostly undefeated by foreigners.Emperors and armies were stil strong at least to Julian.
In the third century, slaves sometimes joined the barbarian raiders, as their principal motivation was loot not killing. Plenty of fifth century barbarians were invaders--Vandals, Alans etc in Gaul c 407, and in Spain c 409, and Africa 429, Huns in Gaul 451 and in Italy 453.
But defeat in the east wasn't the cause of usurpation. It's just that a Danubian general won a good victory so his men, impressed with him, proclaimed him emperor.
There's no doubt that under Valerian there was relative internal unity, whereas usurpers started acting up under Gallienus.
It's my understanding that by c 268, the soldiers or officers had concluded that the emperor should be a Danubian just like most of them.
Soldiers received pay in the fifth century. Aetius paid his Hun and other hirelings gold. I don't think third century soldiers got coinage of comparable value....but they sure fought.
The Vandals actually tried to take Carthago as early as the start of 430. To reach Hippo Regius they had to turn back west, after already looting much of Proconsularis.
He was that good.
Gallienus was no slouch in the military aspect of things. Or else he’d have been killed way earlier.
They were strong even beyond that. Adrianople aside, the Roman army was mostly undefeated by foreigners.
All of them settled in those lands, save for the Huns. In the third century, none of the invaders did.
Yeah, because soldiers thought Decius was the better alternative to a failing general....
Because there were two capable emperors in both sides of the empire. With Valerian gone, Gallienus was left alone to face the massive shitstorm, he had to face more usurpers than most because he outlived more usurpers than most others did.
The officers, sure, the soldiers though? They weren’t happy at all to learn Gallienus had been killed.
In 444, Valentinian declared the empire was bankrupt, since the loss of Africa substantially cut the WE’s revenue. Aetius had to squeeze every ounce of gold the senators had to keep things stable. Despite the massive debasing, the empire in the third century could still hope to bounce back because it was whole and united.
The Vandals besieged Hippo for more than a year from 429 well into 430, and it was 20.000 of them. Where would they find the time to loot much of Proconsularis?
Or the attitude of many still citizens was.
I'd still pick Aurelian over him.
But by the time of Stilicho it was dependent on them. Prior to him, in the 380s the Romans just couldn't get the goths fully under control. They would've done much better in the past.
They were invaders before they were settlers. And in fact the goths tried to stay even in the third century, see the book on Aurelian.
Na, Decius wasn't much good as a commander; it was Aemilianus that overthrew Gallus after winning a victory.
As long as Valerian was around there were hardly any.
Didn't affect their fighting prowess, which appears quite admirable in the years just after Gallienus
Aurelian initially had anything but a whole and united empire behind him but he still had something in the end more valuable-plenty of citizens willing to fight hard.
The WRE didn't die because it lost Africa. It lost Africa and other turf because of a fatal pathology left it chronically weak.
Na the Vandals didn't besiege Hippo until 430--after they had already looted most of Numidia and Proconsularis, except walled Carthage.
Nonsense, Marcus Aurelius fought the Marcomanni and Quadi in person, and if he had died later, Czechia, Slovakia, eastern hungary, and Transsylvania would have become the new provinces of Marcomannia and Sarmatia.
Frankly I think this is absurd. The Romans gained a clear edge over their northern enemies before 275 and maintained it down to Adrianople. In the East Roman tactical proficiency improved by the late third century.
There was no steady decline. Roman soldiers were better armored by the early third century than they had ben in the time of Caesar or Trajan.
Economically the Roman world of c 400 CE was still OK. Heather argued against economic decline. The empire still had its wealthiest provinces like Proconsularis. The late third century army was very effective. It won big victories on land at at sea 268-69, repelled one barbarian attack after another c 270-71, and beat the "hitherto invincible horsemen of the East" in 272. Remarkably even all the catastrophes of midcentury the Roman Empire was actually in a much better position in the East in 300 CE than it had been in Severus's time.
But Severus didn't face real security problems. Neither the Parthians nor barbarians tried to exploit Roman weakness during the civil wars--at least not by attacking Roman territory in strength. Later of course that did become a problem.
But the Roman army remained big, powerful and professional at least to 362 CE. Julian's army was big and tactically capable. I agree cultural change was the source of the problem, but it wasn't really felt until the years after Julian.....![]()