Gaius Paulinus Maximus Posted September 8, 2009 Report Share Posted September 8, 2009 During the 4th century AD the large scale replacements of indigenous units with barbarian units, commanded by their own tribal leaders and fighting in their native styles, and the influx of barbarian officers and men into regular Roman units, which adopted barbarian equipment and fighting techniques, combined to make the empire's army less efficient, and more prone to desertion and treachery. In the 5th century AD Barbarization was curbed in the eastern half of the empire, but it was increased in the west, the east went on to survive whilst the west didn't. Do you think that the barbarization of the Roman army played a major role in the fall of the western empire? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonic Posted September 8, 2009 Report Share Posted September 8, 2009 During the 4th century AD the large scale replacements of indigenous units with barbarian units, commanded by their own tribal leaders and fighting in their native styles, and the influx of barbarian officers and men into regular Roman units, which adopted barbarian equipment and fighting techniques, combined to make the empire's army less efficient, and more prone to desertion and treachery. In the 5th century AD Barbarization was curbed in the eastern half of the empire, but it was increased in the west, the east went on to survive whilst the west didn't. Do you think that the barbarization of the Roman army played a major role in the fall of the western empire? Sorry GPM, I don't really agree with the statements made above, but am unsure where to start. Hmmm ... I am unconvinced by the common claim that the army became 'barbarized' during the 4th century. The evidence is sketchy and places too much emphasis on unit names, their derivation, and hence the assumed large-scale influx of barbarians into the army. Furthermore, the only evidence usually associated with the Eastern Empire and its 'curbing' of barbarian influence is associated with the revolt of Gainas in 400. This in itself is a one-off and should not be assumed to reflect political policy for the rest f the 5th century. If barbarization did play a role in the fall of the West, it was on a different scale and following different lines to those usually proposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted September 8, 2009 Report Share Posted September 8, 2009 Maybe we should try to better define "Barbarization"; if it just means "large scale replacements of indigenous units with barbarian (alien) units", it was arguably ongoing since the very beginning of the Roman expansion (the Latin socii). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost_Warrior Posted September 8, 2009 Report Share Posted September 8, 2009 It would only make sense that, as the empire grew, the army began to include members of conquered races. I think that a bigger problem was likely the breakdown of the leadership of Rome as a whole- leading to less effective management and leadership of the legions and therefore allowing for a weakening of defense and inevitable breakdown of the legions and eventually, the empire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGolomb Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 During the 4th century AD the large scale replacements of indigenous units with barbarian units, commanded by their own tribal leaders and fighting in their native styles, and the influx of barbarian officers and men into regular Roman units, which adopted barbarian equipment and fighting techniques, combined to make the empire's army less efficient, and more prone to desertion and treachery. In the 5th century AD Barbarization was curbed in the eastern half of the empire, but it was increased in the west, the east went on to survive whilst the west didn't. Do you think that the barbarization of the Roman army played a major role in the fall of the western empire? I think GPM's statement has merit and seems on point. In the 4th century, the extent of barbarian influence on the Roman army increased. And I think it did so in a number of ways. Fortunately, I just finished Alessandro Barbero's "The Day of the Barbarians" which addresses the barbarization of the empire. - Migration of Barbarians into Roman territories was not new to the Empire in the 4th century. It had been going on for many years. However the pace picked up in a significant way following the Battle at Adrianople in 378 and the peace accords reached under Theodosius following that battle. - Over the course of many years, the Roman emperors and functionaries came to need barbarians to flesh out its enormous army. From Barbero: ...the barbarians were increasingly seen as...abundant, low-cost manpower. The more the government attempted to bring its military units to full strength by recruiting within the empire, the more it risked damaging agricultural production, displeasing the great proprietors, and--gravest consequence of all--reducing internal revenue. The barbarians were a potential resource that should not be wasted. - The most severe pressure from this barbarization effort was in the Eastern Empire, and yet it was the East that survived and the West that didn't. From Barbero: After a while, the East decided it had had enough of the barbarian problem and wished to be free of it forever...the government in the East began working to transfer them a little farther west, making them promises and granting them concessions, provided that every time the barbarians took a few more steps westward. The West was governed badly, its energies consumed in the struggle to keep the barbarians across the Rhine at bay, and eventually it succumbed to this eastern policy. By dint of treaties and settlements that were always provisional and always subject to further debate...There, for a while, the western government managed to pay them and keep them happy; when it could no longer do so, in 410 the Roman general Alaric, wishing to show that he was serious, marched on Rome and sacked it. From this time on, the flood of barbarian immigrants, which grtew more and more violent and over which the weak western governments cease\d to exercise any sort of control, began moving steadily westward. - Goths had been hired as mercenaries for years, but this practice also increased dramatically in the years following Adrianople. This led to the rise of more organized barbarian tribes and a strengthening of barbarian power bases under official governmental auspices. Note that Alaric was a Roman general himself. - Wallace Breem's fictional "Eagle in the Snow" also addresses impact of barbarians within the Roman army. A key captain is exposed as having barbarian blood, and raises the spector of treason from within General Maximus' own ranks. It turns out that this "barbarian" is loyal but was betrayed by a barbarian ally. It's a subtle, but key plot point, that certainly hit home for me in a more significant way after ready "Day of the Barbarians". One thought that I'd like to add is that the barbarization of the Roman army was not, specifically, a cause of the decline of the Empire, but was, rather, a symptom of its failings. More precisely, the fact that the barbarians could no longer be effectively integrated and managed within the ranks, is a symptom of the Empires failings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) Before talking about "Roman" or "barbarian" "blood" (or any modern genertic equivalent) and maybe even diving into racism, we should remember that both "Roman" (Late Empire) and "Barbarian" were political, not ethnic terms. As Polybius pointed out and even their persistent enemy Philip V of Macedon admitted, if the ancient Romans ever had a characteristic trait from their very beginning in comparison with any other contemporary civilization, it was precisely the assimilation of the alien, from enslavement to military recruitment. Even in our oldest reports, alien units were already among the Roman soldiers; regarding specifically the Germans, they were recruited as auxiliaries at least since the time of Caesar; their reasons were presumably the same than at the IV century AD; "barbarians" were already militarily trained (usually since childhood) even if ill-disciplined, they were regularly cheaper than the Roman recruits, they had been loyal for years (even decades), and last but not least, they were entirely expendable. The system had worked for centuries and there was no reason why it shouldn't have continued working, as in fact it happened in the East to their very last moment; just remember the Varengian guard. Besides, the estimations for most migrant Germanic tribes of the IV & V centuries are in the order of the tens of thousands at best for the whole populations (children and women included), while the Imperial army described by the Notitia Dignitatum probably had more than 400,000 effectives. Edited September 9, 2009 by sylla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 Indeed the roman army always used soldiers recruited from outside the empire (that we call sometime barbarians) but after Adrianopole their number and strength grew and so did the political authority of barbarian generals. Having in mind that the end of the Western Empire was brought by the actions of the barbarian general Odoacru and his barbarian units I would say that the barbarization of the army played an important role in the fall of the West. Both the West and the East have realized this problem and tried to take some measures against it. The settlement of barbarians in the empire, especially of the victorious ones, and their often formal integration in the army makes the picture much blurry. The goths that were settled by romans in the Balkans first in bad condition and later in much better ones fought at Frigidus in the Eastern army and the raided the empire under the leadership of their chieftain/king and roman general Alaric as it was pointed above. Was he a barbarian invader with a barbarian army or a mutinous roman general? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) Indeed the roman army always used soldiers recruited from outside the empire (that we call sometime barbarians) but after Adrianopole their number and strength grew and so did the political authority of barbarian generals. Having in mind that the end of the Western Empire was brought by the actions of the barbarian general Odoacru and his barbarian units I would say that the barbarization of the army played an important role in the fall of the West. Both the West and the East have realized this problem and tried to take some measures against it.The settlement of barbarians in the empire, especially of the victorious ones, and their often formal integration in the army makes the picture much blurry. The goths that were settled by romans in the Balkans first in bad condition and later in much better ones fought at Frigidus in the Eastern army and the raided the empire under the leadership of their chieftain/king and roman general Alaric as it was pointed above. Was he a barbarian invader with a barbarian army or a mutinous roman general? Of the multiple caveats already noted for that thesis, probably the most obvious is that the East didn't fall; in fact, as you said above, the Goths were settled in the Balkans, ie, the Eastern Empire. Edited September 9, 2009 by sylla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pompieus Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) A.H.M Jones says in his magisterial Later Roman Empire, p. 1038: "No career officer of German origin - as oppposed to tribal chieftains like Alaric and the two Theodorics who extorted high military commands from the government - is ever known to have betrayed the interests of the empire to his countrymen. The same applies to the rank and file. There is no hint in our sources that Germans recruited into the regular army and properly administered and disciplined were ever unreliable. The trouble was caused when, from the time of Theodosius the Great, barbarian tribes which had forced their way into the empire were given the status of federates." Edited September 9, 2009 by Pompieus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 (edited) During the 4th century AD the large scale replacements of indigenous units with barbarian units, commanded by their own tribal leaders and fighting in their native styles, and the influx of barbarian officers and men into regular Roman units, which adopted barbarian equipment and fighting techniques, combined to make the empire's army less efficient, and more prone to desertion and treachery. In the 5th century AD Barbarization was curbed in the eastern half of the empire, but it was increased in the west, the east went on to survive whilst the west didn't. Do you think that the barbarization of the Roman army played a major role in the fall of the western empire? Before all Berber is an arabic appelation for People who live in north africa as they'r known as Amazire Arabs are honored by their arabic (all arab civilisation is in their arabic) when they faced the Amazire they didn't understand their language so they called them berber as a humilation and as they found them hard to accept arabic Arabs are known already as History and civilization distroyers All arab civilization is in arabic so that the third and the last Sky religion from God and the last sacre book was chosen to be writen in arabic for the reason of its development The first enemies of the last Ibrahimian religion is Arabs The most known people about the incoming of a last prophet are Jewish and The first who help Islam were the christians from ithiopea and from Hidjez (syria and jurdani) Islam means in arabic to be on the peace El Salam=The Peace and one of God's names(but it become as dirt as them) Arabs thought that islam was only for them and because of them Islam and Quran contains all old sacred books and believes about all previous Abraham religion (Judaism and Christianism) and all prophets like Noe Moise Abraham Solomon Christ Meryam Jewish in Quran or Israelians (sons of israel ) are the preferated people of God and they are most known people Christians in quran are the most humble and a nice people. Hey i'm an Amazire from East Aures (Numidia Empire) we'r known as berbers and we'v got too much similarities with romans especialy Germans Pure Amaziren are great fighters they look like Elephants of cartagian fighters and like Haradrim in Lord of the rings the purest Amazire still exist people are the Touareg in big Sahara in Algeria Pure amazire Are slim peoples with high vision eyes similar to old egyptian very strong fighters and very lovely people they have only 2choices extreme adhision to whom we like and extreme heat for whom we dislike ... New Amaziren generations are merge of Romans (most probably Germans as Ariens) Ar in amazire means Lion in east Aures between Thamugad (timgad) and Thevest (tebessa) is situated babar (Lion's mouth) Powerful New amazire generation is a merge of Romans Cartagens Bizantic after been an Amazire (paralel to Jewish Persians arabs and Ithipians) -------- My questions are : Who are stongest Roman fighters? And What's the Romans big Tree and origin? Origin Celtic languages ? With some time precisions please ---------- i'm sorry for my poory english! ---------- Edited September 14, 2009 by Axel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryaxis Hecatee Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 The thing we can notice in the so-called barbarization issue is that up to the fourth century the barbarians were included in roman trained units under romanized leaders, soldiers being enrolled as men, even prestigious chieftains (who would be enrolled with a privileged rank, like Arminius who was enrolled as a soldier but also as an Equites citizen). This was the trend since very early on even when the romans enrolled large corps of mercenaries under their own officers and they made sure to always have roman officers in overall charge of the unit. What changed in the later empire was that the romans began to enroll chieftains and their retinue, or even their tribe, and let them keep their identity by leaving them under their own organization and leadership, with their own discipline even. This was first done because of the need to recruit troops then as a way to buy off barbarian forces striking in areas where roman power was waning. Also for the romans these kinds of recruiting also served to repopulate deserted areas with the expected goal that it would lead to an economic revival of areas devastated by invasions. But those tribes usually did not pay taxes, required money to stay put and also did not romanize as planned, not settling in urban and agricultural units of organization like those they or the previous invaders had destroyed. Thus their was no gain but a steady drain and a loss of military power. This was more the real barbarization of the later roman empire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 Before all Berber is an arabic appelation for People who live in north africa as they'r known as AmazireArabs are honored by their arabic (all arab civilisation is in their arabic) when they faced the Amazire they didn't understand their language so they called them berber as a humilation and as they found them hard to accept arabic [snipped the rest] Axel, please note that this topic is about barbarization of the Roman army -- not Berbers or Islam. Perhaps you misread? -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGolomb Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 During the 4th century AD the large scale replacements of indigenous units with barbarian units, commanded by their own tribal leaders and fighting in their native styles, and the influx of barbarian officers and men into regular Roman units, which adopted barbarian equipment and fighting techniques, combined to make the empire's army less efficient, and more prone to desertion and treachery. In the 5th century AD Barbarization was curbed in the eastern half of the empire, but it was increased in the west, the east went on to survive whilst the west didn't. Do you think that the barbarization of the Roman army played a major role in the fall of the western empire? Before all Berber is an arabic appelation for People who live in north africa as they'r known as Amazire Arabs are honored by their arabic (all arab civilisation is in their arabic) when they faced the Amazire they didn't understand their language so they called them berber as a humilation and as they found them hard to accept arabic Arabs are known already as History and civilization distroyers All arab civilization is in arabic so that the third and the last Sky religion from God and the last sacre book was chosen to be writen in arabic for the reason of its development The first enemies of the last Ibrahimian religion is Arabs The most known people about the incoming of a last prophet are Jewish and The first who help Islam were the christians from ithiopea and from Hidjez (syria and jurdani) Islam means in arabic to be on the peace El Salam=The Peace and one of God's names(but it become as dirt as them) Arabs thought that islam was only for them and because of them Islam and Quran contains all old sacred books and believes about all previous Abraham religion (Judaism and Christianism) and all prophets like Noe Moise Abraham Solomon Christ Meryam Jewish in Quran or Israelians (sons of israel ) are the preferated people of God and they are most known people Christians in quran are the most humble and a nice people. Hey i'm an Amazire from East Aures (Numidia Empire) we'r known as berbers and we'v got too much similarities with romans especialy Germans Pure Amaziren are great fighters they look like Elephants of cartagian fighters and like Haradrim in Lord of the rings the purest Amazire still exist people are the Touareg in big Sahara in Algeria Pure amazire Are slim peoples with high vision eyes similar to old egyptian very strong fighters and very lovely people they have only 2choices extreme adhision to whom we like and extreme heat for whom we dislike ... New Amaziren generations are merge of Romans (most probably Germans as Ariens) Ar in amazire means Lion in east Aures between Thamugad (timgad) and Thevest (tebessa) is situated babar (Lion's mouth) Powerful New amazire generation is a merge of Romans Cartagens Bizantic after been an Amazire (paralel to Jewish Persians arabs and Ithipians) -------- My questions are : Who are stongest Roman fighters? And What's the Romans big Tree and origin? Origin Celtic languages ? With some time precisions please ---------- i'm sorry for my poory english! ---------- There is some connection between berber and barbarian, but it mostly comes in the linguistic connection between the two. I'm not 100% sure what Axel meant above, but for what it's worth...from wikipedia: The Berbers of North Africa were among the many peoples called "Barbarian" by the Romans; in their case, the name remained in use, having been adopted by the Arabs (see Berber (Etymology) and is still in use as the name for the non-Arabs in North Africa (though not by themselves). The geographical term Barbary or Barbary Coast, and the name of the Barbary pirates based on that coast (and who were not necessarily Berbers) were also derived from it. The term has also been used to refer to people from Barbary, a region encompassing most of North Africa. The name of the region, Barbary, comes from the Arabic word Barbar, possibly from the Latin word barbaricum, meaning "land of the barbarians". and... The term Berber is but a variation of the Latin original word Barbarian, earlier in history applied by Romans specifically to their northern hostile neighbors from Germania (modern Germany). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 (edited) Edited September 15, 2009 by sylla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurion-Macro Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 I don't think they did. When they got paid, the barbarians were good soldiers. The one problem with the Roman empire was that they did not honor the deals they made with the barbarians, for example the Visigoths. But the idea is right though, after all, who would be better qualified to fight barbarians than another barbarian? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.