Why did the Late Empire fail at recruiting italians for the army?

The rules specifically allow Citizens of the Irish Republic to volunteer, no dual citizenship required. Irish citizens can also vote in UK elections provided they are registered voters.
Not just Irish citizens.Anyone from a Commonwealth country can join.So I can basically try and join if I want to(I'm from Australia).
 
Every time I see this thread I think it says Why did the Latin Empire fail at recruiting Italians for the army?
 
Werent most people in even Italy too poor to think the army can't possibly have been better? Or did army life suck even worse then peasent life?
 
Werent most people in even Italy too poor to think the army can't possibly have been better? Or did army life suck even worse then peasent life?

During the late empire, a peasant was usually a tenant on the land of a landlord. He was bound to this land and not free to decide, where to go or what job to take. If he was not bound by law (serfdom), he was bound by debts.

If this tenant goes to the army or not is the decision of the landlord.
 
During the late empire, a peasant was usually a tenant on the land of a landlord. He was bound to this land and not free to decide, where to go or what job to take. If he was not bound by law (serfdom), he was bound by debts.

If this tenant goes to the army or not is the decision of the landlord.
Hm intresting. Would it be possible for the empire in its entirety to survive if they went fedual?
 
Hm intresting. Would it be possible for the empire in its entirety to survive if they went fedual?
Actually the medieval serfdom, which was one base of feudalism was invented by the romans and taken over by the germans. The germans knew just slavery initially.
Other elements of feudalism were also already (partially) in place.
- looking to the foederati, which have been the core of the army of the late WRE, the army was provided by warlords
- sometimes the magister militum himself provided a private army (bucellarii)
- for the foederati as well as for the roman emperors fealty ended with the death of one partner
- some german rituals (e.g. about faith and fealty) were undertaken

So the late roman empire was already a bit on its way to feudalism. But were these feudal elements beneficial or detriemental?
I would prefer a roman empire with a more developed ancient culture.

PS: Once a historian said: "If the WRE would have existed a bit longer, it would have been consecutive, if the big landlords, which became more and more warlords too, provide not recruits but trained and equiped full armies."
And now we got a feudal roman empire. Actually the the western roman state of the 5th century was already that desintegrated. How this could work together with the strictly centralistic approach of the roman emperors is an open question. Well, perhaps we should look how the ERE did this change after Herakleios.
 
Last edited:
Yeah but the land wasn't owned by a warrior elite like medival Europe

The land was owned by the roman elite. The roman elite after Diocletian had 3 options:
1. civil career (governor)
2. military career (officer)
3. no public career

So at least the 2nd group was the military elite of the roman empire. Usually land was owned by families / clans and you find a mix of both careers in every noble family.

Of course there are still significant differences between a roman landlord and a medieval landlord. But the medieval landlord/warlord and the feudal system in general developed by merging late roman standards with german tradition. Even the feudal titles are sometimes roman: Duke = Dux, Comte = Comes, ....
 
The land was owned by the roman elite. The roman elite after Diocletian had 3 options:
1. civil career (governor)
2. military career (officer)
3. no public career

So at least the 2nd group was the military elite of the roman empire. Usually land was owned by families / clans and you find a mix of both careers in every noble family.

Of course there are still significant differences between a roman landlord and a medieval landlord. But the medieval landlord/warlord and the feudal system in general developed by merging late roman standards with german tradition. Even the feudal titles are sometimes roman: Duke = Dux, Comte = Comes, ....
I thought nobles were banned from a military career after Severus?
 
I thought nobles were banned from a military career after Severus?

Only the senators.

The Equites, the knights, were still allowed.

And even before the prohibition of the senators leading armies most, if not all, the officer ranks were made up of Equites, because they had been considered more loyal, which in the long turn proved to be false with the rise of the barrack emperors.
 
I thought nobles were banned from a military career after Severus?

After Gallienus, iirc. But perhaps Severus initiated some first minor steps.

Therefore the equestrians took over almost all military careers and even many civilian careers. The equestrian class was at its height and the senatorial class was close to sink into obscurity. But with Constantine, the equestrian class suddenly almost disappeared and a very strong new senatorial class with 2000 senators in Rome and another 2000 in Constantinople arose like the phoenix out of the ashes.

What happened? Constantine simply redefined the classes with a scratch of his pen. From now on, everybody who just reached a certain point on the career ladder got a senatorial title. Regardless of his ancestors. So the nobility of the empire became more and more a noblity of buerocrats and officers. These guys became rich and invested in land as usual. Theirs sons were senators as well and could enter whatever career they liked.

Of course the old nobility partially survived. Most of them in the West. Some of them super-rich and untouchable. One of many reasons why the West fell, and the East, where this new type of nobility was more common and stronger, did not.

So I see no evidence, that Gallienus' measures still had a meaning in the 5th century.

PS: Hence I should had wrote in my post above: "after Constantine" and not "after Diocletian". Mea culpa ...
 
Last edited:
Top