OccamsRazor

A very interesting thread.... I'm learning something new here!

caldrail

Constantine had the legions reorganised into units one sixth of the older size, a move consistent with the smaller scale raiding warfare becoming prevalent. There was more variety in the legions as well, as at least one legion was listed as using mauls in the 5th century. The Notitia Dignitatum contains a lot of useful information about legionary organisation for the late empire.

Regarding your point about barbarians, many had a vested interest in fighting for Rome and indeed in at least one late empire case barbarian legions were defending Rome against Romans. This was always the problem with the legions. Contrary to popular belief their loyalty was never fully reliable and when pay or other disgruntlement arose, they might mutiny, turn on Rome with a favourite general to be placed as Caesar, or simply vanish overnight. There is evidence that in the late empire absenteeism was endemic.

The situation in the late empire grew worse because the martial spirit that drove Roman success had evaporated. Commanders were struggling to find recruits, partially through religious objection as christian ideals became commonplace, but also because a soldiers life was no longer wanted in an empire that had become insular and inward looking. The majority of legions had become filled with long timers who were more concerned with feathering their own nest, which were more widely distributed due to strategic and political needs, and thus harder to oversee.

Mangekyou

This is something which very unfairly gets associated with the barbarian federates, during the late imperium. The fact of the matter is that a lot of federates were completely loyal to Rome, but due to the consistent decay in Roman politics and the rising paranoia, as usurpatios became a common occurence, they received a lot of suspicion, and were sometimes backed into corners.

A good example of this is the case of the Frankish general Silvanus, in the service of Costantius II:

Stilicho is a case in point on this topic. There was no evidence to say he was anything but loyal to Rome, but he was still mistreated and killed and his troops were persecuted, allowing them to fall straight into the hands of Alaric, whom had been subdued by Stilicho.

irishcrusader95

with the changes in their objectives such as defending rather then conquering it can be expected that change will happen. yet is it a possibility that because of their more loose structure and small unites the troops unit pride and moral went down because of all this which then had an effect on discipline.
that was a problem they always seems to have during the empire period yet got progressively worse as shown by the large number of emperors killed by their own troops in the late era. whatever the evolution of the army that problem still remained and if anything got worse.
what was it that lead to that state of affairs? when the empire was in its ascendancy soldier life was a viable option for people and somewhat attractive for the glory it promished yet that was gone by the late period. the fact that they had to make a law that said all sons of soldiers had to be soldiers themselves says how desperate they were for recruits. would the collapse of the middle class have anything to do with this as i have read that one of the reasons for he collapse of the empire was the collapse of the middle collapse as all that was left was the rich and the poor with a huge gap between leading to great social divide.

caldrail

The popular conception of the legion is built on the idea of political strength and military conquest which admittedly are very cogent ideas in the human psyche rather than the realities of the legions which I notice very few authors point to, preferring instead to repeat the standard litany, such as 'military machine' (which they clearly were not) because it sells books.

The reluctance toward military life was present throughout the empire and increased particularly as christianity gave dissenters a cause to confirm their sentiments. Augustus had after all once ordered Tiberius to find out how many men were hiding in rural slave barracks to avoid military service.

It is true there was something to offer the citizen for twenty five years service but the idea that military service was admirable was republican in emphasis given that they operated for most of that period as a citizen militia. Once the idea of standing armies and professional pay had become the norm, the soldiers of Rome were more concerned with pay & perks than loyalty to the state and during the empire were very easily led against Rome if the soldiers thought their general could bring them success and reward - the legions were after a feudal force. In fact, it was the prospect of regular pay that brought barbarians flocking to their colours (and also the cause of barbarian incursions as they wanted their slice of Roman prosperity)

Mangekyou

Yes, and I understand what you are saying. The landowners were certainly a prevailing power in the 4th and 5th century BC, but this does not mean there was no power politics.

The cloak and dagger work was still a big part of Roman life, and it does not mean that some of those non-Italian generals that reached the top were anything but loyal.

I provided two examples already. There is no evidence to state that Stilicho was anything but loyal to Honorious. He was not planning any coup, like was suggested. He even stopped his retainers from interfering from him being captured, so he could face the death. The followers of Radagaisus whom he defeated and whom he drafted into the Roman army, although they were persecuted and many did join Alaric because of this, there were still many who continued to serve the Romans.
Like Peter Heather stated, he just had the unfortunate position of coming to power when the Huns overturned the balance of power.

The other person, Silvanus, again, he was accused because he bribed barbarians and drove some others off. He was cornered. The story of him being a usurper is seen by some historians to be a fabrication, because there was no coins minted to show his rise to the purple, which most usurpers did (although the nearest minting centre closed it doors to him),, and most see him as being set up in a lie. Again, down to court politics, rather than him seeking the purple. He was a popular man, and actually, the rumours against him got quashed by his allies, although the news never reached him in time.


Ill offer a third one, from the Gallic born Roman, Rutilius Namatiamus, whom travelled to Gaul during its time under Barbarian rule, and wrote poems on his journey. Despite the presence of them, he believed in Rome triumphing and he himself had no feelings of sorriness.

So, my biggest deal would be, although there were landowners of power, the barbarians that did reach the top, and were shunned through this cloak and dagger, had false charges laid against them, because of paranoia of declining political machinations.

caldrail

The attitude toward barbarians was circumstantial. The goths that crossed the danube in the 4th century were ruthlessly exploited by leading citizens and local merchants because they were vulnerable and unable to prevent those machinations lawfully (which was why they rebelled).

That represents a clear example of Roman behaviour. We also know that in the same era legionaries led covert raids on german villages for profit. However, a man of barbarian descent would be taken very seriously if he had political clout (which was why the gothic leaders mentioned above were invited to a dinner so they could be assassinated, especially since Fritigern was personal acquaintance of Valens)

It is also true that the billeting of barbarian soldiery in civilian homes during the late empire did nothing for their popularity.

Mangekyou

With all due respect, I don't see how that counters what I stated. The paranoia and destabilisation of Roman politics, led them to make many a questionable decision. The same thing happened to Aurelian. Here is a man who had jut re-integrated the three renegade assets of Roman society, and was assassinated for his troubles, thereby eliminating any chance of stability.

The same thing with the Barbarian leaders that occupied the higher positions of power. If there is any evidence that either Stilicho or Silvanus, from my examples, of them respectively calluding for power, then I would like to hear it.

Im not saying it was like this with everyone, because there are examples to the contrary, only that it wasn't always based on a personal motivation of power and usurpation.

caldrail

Roman politics became unstable in the late republic and wobbled on a regular basis thereafter. Since this phenomenon was linked to the popularity of the leader (as indeed Augustus recognised it would be, especially since he effectively bribed Rome with games and civic beautification to support his reign, paid for with tax initiatives in the provinces - one of which causing one of Rome's greatest military defeats), the tendency was always personal.

This sort of wealth display and generosity changed emphasis in the late empire and turned toward attempts to dazzle people with personal display of grandeur (hence the period is also called the Dominate) rather than divert attention from the personal and accentuate the civic side of things. Rome's Caesar's had become potentates in other words rather than "First Citizens", though in truth the difference is slight becauise at the end of the day nearly all of them achieved their position by intiatives rather than birthright, which to me indicates a very strong tendency toward personal motive, particularly since the position of Caesar had almost no job security at all.

Mangekyou

This, I do agree with

Can I ask what you make of Diocletian's reforms?