metforce

The "Germanization" of the Roman army is probably slightly exaggerated. Many of these "barbarians' had served in the Roman legions well before the dissolution of the western empire. Franks served in Julian

More right-wing drabble. A professor of mine had a better explanation for what

I would agree with you regarding the loyalty of Stilicho. The difference in faiths was used as an excuse to get ride of someone who had high aspirations if not for himself then for his son. Alaric was wise not to make the same mistake as Stilicho though in the end he settled for very easy terms with the empire. In the end faith prevented most of the barbarians who were willing to serve the empire from fully integrating into the empire thus denying an important source of recruits. I also don't think Adrianople (or Frigidus for that matter, but you make a good point I hadn

In my mind the biggest change was from heavy infantry to heavy calvary. The other army organizations touched upon in this discussion are equally important (frontier troops, limitanei, and the shock horseman, comitatenses). It hasn't been mentioned here but most historians mark the battle at Adrianople and the destruction of the Emperor Valens army by the Gothic horseman as the end of the Roman heavy infantry and the start of the Roman decline. The change from infantry to cavalry would have economic repercussions since it costs more to maintain a horseman than an infantry man. Thus you see the general decline in foot soldier armaments (resource transfer from foot to horse units). My guess would be the shield changes and armor changes were an attempt to lighten the load and make the foot soldier more mobile on the field (also substitute spear for sword, less resources and more effective against cavalry). Organization changes also marked a general shift in army strategy. Prior to the third century most of the legions were stationed along the frontier. During the third century the limitanei were responsible for frontier postings and the comitatenses were stationed in the heart of the empire. The basic strategy was for the limitanei to hold the cities along the frontier offering minimal resistance to an invading army. The limitanei would cut off supply lines to the hordes and the comitatenses would finish off the invading army once its supplies had run out. This strategy usually worked well but had two repercussions. One, invading armies plundered the countryside at will causing hardship for most Romans. Two, troops were now being stationed in the heart of the empire draining resources and causing problems with the local population who often did not understand them or really want them around. Another big change also not mentioned here was the rise of Christianity. Most of the "barbarian" tribes had had contact with the empire for generations. The Romans knew them and they knew the Romans. Many joined in service willingly and often severed honorably. The link here is that while the Romans followed the catholic faith while most of the "barbarians" were of the Arian faith. This would prevent the barbarian tribes from ever fully integrating into the empire. The fall of Stilicho was partly predicated on this difference (no Roman would accept a heretic as an emperor). By the early to late 5th century most of the barbarian tribes in the empire were wary of the Romans and generally unwilling to fully back the Roman emperors who often used the different barbarian tribes as recruits and power bases.

I would respectfully disagree with the number crunching comment. By the early 5th century the Romans were huge number crunchers. Armies of accountants had to be employed to estimate the needs of the empire. Keep in mind soldiers and administrators had to be paid in currency (gold and copper mainly), rations and equipment had to be distributed (payments in kind), recruits had to be raised and equipped, and public lands and buildings had to be maintained. Each administrator was responsible for estimating his needs then sent his budget to the central authorities who somehow had to figure out how to shift resources around to even things out. This done on a yearly basis. To make matters worse a lot of the figures I've seen often were not rounded to the nearest whole number (they were using odd fractions like 5/8ths). Most taxes were based on land so surveyors had to go out often to assess landowner resources, grade the quality of the land then calculate the taxes due. Again an incredible task considering the number system they used and the lack of paper to record thier figures. The fact that the empire lasted so long is a testament to Rome's greatest attribute in my opinion, superior organization. The point I think you are trying to make is that Rome's lack of technological breakthroughs (like we see today) contributed to its downfall. That's a bit unfair. One could ask why didn't the industrial revolution happen in Arabia, China or MesoAmerica just as easily. All countries, like men, must die. Metforce