"How did the 5th Century Barbarians overrun the Romans?" Topic

First off, and before anyone starts, I am well aware that this question is only somewhat less controversial than "Which is the one true religion? Be prepared to back your answer up with data." It is probably unanswerable. I'm not looking for a flame war, just some ideas.

Here's mine.

First off, this should not have been possible, based on the military situation alone. The (Western) Roman Empire, despite loss of territory was still more populous in the time of Stilicho and Aetius than was the Republic in the time of Marius and Sulla. Theoretically, its armies were also better trained, as they were professionals, rather than reservists called up at need. The science of tactics had also advanced.

The real problem was the mindset of the population. The Romans just could not field an army anymore. Aetius (probably one of the most brilliant Roman generals of any time, and certainly vastly underrated today) was only able to beat the Huns at the Catalaunian fields because he had the Visigothis foederati available, and was absolutely unable even to raise an army to resist them when the entered Italy 1 1/2 years later.

I believe that the problem was Rome's public dole, which steered the populace away from the army and turned them into a class of leeches. Why go die in Gaul when the government will pay you to sit in a major city and not riot? Life's too much fun.

For the same reason, the Romans could not afford to pay barbarians to defend them any more. Even that requires money, which in turn requires a tax base, which in turn requires that your people are being paid to do something more than consume.

Hmmm…sounds familar.

Long before the barbarians invaded and took hold of lands in the Western Roman Empire, the imperial government and army were already having a tough time fighting brigands and large roving bands of slaves and robbers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagaudae

The barbarians must have seen how this, plus all the usurping generals claiming the purple and setting up their own enclaves, simply paved the way to a total collapse (given the right pressure, of course).

Lack of cooperation between the East and West didn't help situations either.

CC

Intentional amputation of thumbs by men fearing recruitment was a clear indication that the quality of troops had gone downhill:

link

Even though they tried such things to avoid the draft, later emperors ordered that these thumb-less men be taken into the army anyway.

Recruits were coming, to a large extent, from large landowners who were not inclined to offer up their strongest and ablest.

Things were bad long before the barbarians flooded in.

CC

You might want to read Delbruck, The Barbarian Invasions, and then Vegetius. These are only two sources that give some reasons.

In my opinion, the major reason that Rome dwindled as time went on, was simply that the discipline in the ranks that made Rome so great, had simply failed to be maintained as time went on.

Both Delbruck and Vegetius address this.

- Greg

The problem with the public dole argument is that it mainly applied to the urban centers, especially Rome herself. The great mass of the populace was rural at that time and generally fed themselves.

There is little evidence to support the idea that the armies of the 4th Century were poor quality in comparison to the 1st Century. The field armies were well disciplined and won most of their battles.

I have read one argumeugnt that the 5th Century Army suffered the effects of the 'three disasters' of the 4th century-

1. Julian moved several Western units East to fight Constantius-these did not return home, but were used in the Persian campaign. Though the Roman troops fought well, the campaign was a disaster leading to a loss of maybe 1/3 of the invading army.

2. the next disaster was Adrianople. Though the troops were from the main elite Easter field army, the establishment of the Goths within the Empire had far reaching consequences for the West.

3. the 3rd disaster was the battle of the Frigidus river in 395 were the army of a Western usurper was defeated by Theodosius using the same Goths mentioned above!! Again the Western field army suffered heavy losses in men and equipment from high quality units.

soon after Alaric revolted and became a menace in Italy and the Suevi, Alans, and Vandals crossed the Rhine in 406. These overran Spain and the Goths finally ended up with southern Gaul and Spain after the Vandals and Alans moved on N. Africa. This deprived the Romans of their main recruiting grounds for the Western army.

One main myth of the Late Roman army is that it was a largely barbarian force. Only after 425 were very large numbers of barbarians recruited. Earlier most troops were provincials and citizens, even in many units of auxilia.

And of course Delbruck is right about the very small size of barbarian forces. many of the high numbers quoted in the ancient sources refer to the entire people including children, women, elderly, slaves, etc .The problem for the 5th century Romans was the inability to expel these groups.

I think that a big contributing factor was the loyalty of the rural population--it appeared, at least form what I've read, to be drifting away from Rome and toward either self or the local landlord/bishop/strongman. If you're a farmer and you begin to see your government as an oppressor (they're always showing up steali…err, I mean collecting taxes, and not providing the services those taxes are supposed to "buy" you), then you are more likely to try harder to NOT cooperate, which means hiding production, not enlisting, going into the underground economy, and similar actions--all of which end up creating a situation inwhich the government depends more on outsiders to bully its population which increases alienation and the cycle gets worse. I suspect, that by the mid-400's, many "Roman" citizens would not object too much to a change in rulers, if only to throw off the taxation and bureaucracy of Rome.

Anyone have good data on the taxation rate under Rome versus "collections" under the Ostrogoths or Visigoths?

Rob

Very Very High – though when the Germanics conquered, the rich suffered loss of land. The poor in the west would have been no worse off – by this time they already were landless tenants working for an overlord.

Reasons the Empire Failed from my rusty old brain are mainly centred on Division.

The people were divided from the rulers, overtaxed, over regimented. Taxation in the empire had been agrarian, the cities were a net debit rather than a credit. The late empire tried to tax the cities, they depopulated damn fast. Meanwhile increasingly heavy and corrupt taxation lead to a flight from the land by free citizens, who took refuge with 'Patrons' who, in return for labour, offered protection against tax-collectors. This was the start of the Feudal serf in Western Europe.

The bed-rock of the middle empire had been the small but important middle class. These were divided against the state because they were the ones the new taxation fell most heavily on. Examples of this is the role of town councillor.It had been a position of honour and status. Then it was made hereditary, and the councellors had to collect the taxes, but were given no forces to collect them with. The armed rich would resist them with their new serfs, the poor fled from the land – no taxes collected – so they had to make up the shortfall themselves. One man convicted of a criminal offence was made a Town Councillor as a punishment. Result – extinction of the urban middle class.

Religious division is overstated, but certainly at this time Christianity still preached it was a sin to KILL per se, and Bishops would regularly oppose central authority to protect their flocks… especially from…. tax collectors.

'Do not any longer love this world or millitary service, for scripture's authority attests that whoever is a friend of the world is an enemy of god. he who is a soldier with the sword is the servant of death…. a soldier in war fighting not so much for himself as for another is either conquered and killed or conquers and wins a pretext for death' (Paulinus – Bishop of Nola)

Coinage devaluation was constant, so a coin buried in year 1 would be worth more twenty years later than the same coin invested in any enterprise. Result – collapse of the monetary economy, and a nice source of Late Roman coin hoards for archaeologists to discover. Constantine's Gold Coinage was very nice, but most people would never see an aureus in their lives. Without a monetary economy, organisation became more and more local.

The extension of the citizenship to all did not create equality – instead, a new class was created at Law – the Humble were given second class status at Law, the Noble better status – divisions again.

When the germanics conquered in Europe, the ruling classes would lose land on which babrbarians were settled, but would be left in place with what was left. The people suffered a new overlord, a local and rather more accountable one, who did not contstantly mulct them to pay for distant conflicts.

The key question – 'why did the west fall and not the east?' helps here – Cities in the east were centres of production rather than artificially planted settlements for pacification and rule. In the west you had the poor and then the super-rich. In the east you still had a competent middle class which could be taxed, organise local forces and run the system.

The west had the whole of the rhine and danube to guard, (more cost) the eastern only the lower danube. The Persian empire was a civilisation, it waged war but also abided by treaties for long periods of time, allowing troops to be shifted to meet threats in other areas. Barbarians that crossed the rhine or upper danube were IN the empire – there was no second line of defence before the Alps. On the other hand a force that crossed the lower danube had to pass through the tight passes of the Balkans (Adrianople is a stones throw from 20 other battlefields for a reason) and then the Bosphorus and hellespont had to be crossed.

An interesting point – from 360 to 476 there were two armed userpation attempts in the east – Procupius right at the start, and Basilicus right at the end. In the west in the same period there were twenty-nine that we know of, and they keep finding coins minted by usurpers we have never even heard of before.

Many valid ideas have been presented here. Another one to ponder. . .

After the principate the system of electing an emperor was almost entirely in the hands of the army itself. Creating multiple "emperors" and unmaking those they found too cheap.

Later Emperors were loathe to allow subordinates to take command of a sizable force. Making it harder to respond to actual threats. Civil wars, usurpers, & rebellions were a constant fear and sapped the manpower and focus of the Empire.

Looks like Sane Max, beat me too it and with a lot more info to boot. Interesting info about the amount of rebellions in the East vs. the West.

Hrothgar,

WHile I do not intend to get into an in depth discussion on this topic on TMP, I must respectfully disagree with you.

During the reigns of Augustus to Caligula Italy supplied soldiers in a ratio of two to one compared to that of other provinces. From Claudius to Nero it was about even. From Flavius to Trajan it was one Italian to three from the provinces, and from Hadrian to the end of the third century, the ratio was about one Italan to fifty from the provinces.

Now whether you call these recruitment areas "barbarian" or not is up to you, but the ratio of Italians in the army steadily declined, and so did discipline. Records exist that show us the ratio of recruits by point of origin so again, it just depends on what you define a "barbarian" as.

I think Adrianople and Frigidus were results, not causes.

Vegetius specifically mentions the decline in quality of the Roman dicipline.

Regards,

- Greg

GRPitts says

I think Adrianople and Frigidus were results, not causes

While the Roman army of the Later empire had changed radically from the times of the late Republic and early empire, it was by no means "barbarized"

It still possessed a strong corps of officers, excellent logistics, and organization. When used correctly the Late Roman army was capable of dealing with most barbarian incursions.

Valens' handling of the battle at Adrianople was a giant miscalculation.
1. Marching his army for 8 hours over difficult terrain in very hot weather (described in the text as "burning")and moving directly to the attack

2. The biggest flaw that day was Valens assumed the Gothic cavalry was not present and had not planned to deal with them.

3. The infantry found themselves attacked from both flanks and were cut down in the route.

The defeat at Adrianople does not prove that the Roman army was incapable of defeating barbarians.

I did not want to hijack the thread, but this great discussion has made me think about something related:

TMP link

CC

There is no magic formula for this stuff.

I will address the Vandals -- not a big group at all but one that was able to pass through the Empire in times of instabilty into Spain. They didn't stay in Spain as things were a little too hot for them even there so they crossed into Africa. Africa IIRC was defended by a single Roman Legion (probably not a full strenth at that) at that time and was scattered throughout a huge area. By moving fast the Vandals were able to establish themselves in Africa before Rome could react. Indeed they crossed into Italy and sacked Rome before returning to Africa. At that time Africa supplied huge amounts of grain that Rome could ill afford to do without. The Vandals, sitting on one of Rome's carotid arteries, were paid to keep the grain coming.

IMO there was nothing special about the Vandals. Just in the right place at the right time. Had Rome not been involved in in-fighting the Vandals probably would have been crushed early in the game.

mjc

GRPitts,
I agree that the number of Italians in the army declined, but citizenship was widened under Marcus Aurelius and the Severans. Areas like Gaul and Spain were highly 'Romanized' along with N.Africa.

Also Vegetius was writing after the 3 great disasters mentioned. Vegetius comments on lack of armor, etc, may refer to the loss of difficult to replace equipment. It is also known that a number of fabricae fell into the hands of the Goths and others.

BTW-clearly the Romans at Adrianople were formidable troops or they would not have gathered about their standards and tried to cut their way out. Adrianople was in many respects a mini-Cannae. Ill disciplined rabble would probably have run at the sight of cavalry behind their flank. It also should be recalled that the Marian army suffered a disaster at the hands of the Parthians and the Augustan army suffered the calamity at Tuetoburger Wald.

Another factor to be noted in why the Eastern empire was unable to save the West: Sassanid Persia. The Persians were more aggresive than the earlier Parthian dynasty and this meant that troops otherwise able to reinforce the Western half could not realistically be moved out of the Eastern provinces for fear of the Persians taking advantage and pushing westward.

By the mid-5th century the Huns began to attack the east (430s-440s) also distracting Constantinople from helping Ravenna

Quidveritas,
You are quite correct concerning the Vandals. The two branches of the Vandals combined along with the Alans probably only had 80,000 total populace when they crossed into Africa. They may have been more numerous earlier, but were so roughly handled by the Visigoths that their numbers were diminished.

It is interesting that the Visigoths were attacking the Vandals and Alans at the behest of Rome, thus serving as a defacto field army!!

there is also the fact that the state was bankrupt.

Another thing is the imposed heriditiary job.

No more middle class.

The army was run by nobles only.

Inflation made keeping up a proffesional army expensive.

It looks like all the major points have been covered, so here is a summary:

1. The Roman Legions just weren't the same. They faded away by the beginning of the 5th century and were replaced more and more by barbaric 'foederati'. Military service, once an honored and respected profession, was reviled and hated during conscription (sounds familar some how).

2. Heavy taxiation and bad currency crushed the economy. Remember, there were a series of civil wars prior to the 4th Century and everybody needed money to pay the legions. That came from the civitias.

3. By the 5th Century the west was badly fragmented into emerging germanic and latin kingdoms. The central government was losing control to settling Germans and local landlords. Loss of control means less tax revenues and troops, thus the central government lost money, power, and the ability to recruit in those areas. That was the real war that Aetius was fighting in Gaul- to keep the providence under a central authority.

4. While we are at it: the Empire was very week in the sucession department. Granted, more modern kingdoms were able to carry off an hereditary monarchy (like Britian and France), however that was something that the Romans had trouble with. They didn't have a king who ruled by the grace of God, they had emperiors who ruled by the strength of their swords. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword and all that. Britain and France spent a lot of time cozing up with the church (or churches) and managed to convince the population that they ruled by devine right. Roman emperiors didn't bother with that… well, that faded away more and more by the 5th Century. By that time it was a race between warlords to see who could prop up the puppet emperor and have the real power. It was a political mess that many probably wanted to be rid of. So that was the choice: the barbarian who just wanted a comfortable life and the Roman who would tax you into the ground to become the next emperior. An easy choice for many.

5. The government dole? Maybe. Having a whole section of your economy that isn't participating in wealth creation and that feel that they have a right to things that they didn't earn couldn't help! At times power in the government depended on who could rule the mob and giving away freebies was a great way to become popular (politiicans do it even today). Unfortunately this, in military terms, reinforces defeat and doesn't reinforce sucess. A cause, but not THE cause.

6. Military defeats certainly helped. The Legions just weren't the Legions of old and the Barbarians weren't the Barbarians of old either. The Legions were worse and the Barbarians got better. If you look at illustrations of the period you'll see what I mean. By the 5th Century many 'barbarians' were former Roman soldiers or were led by Roman soldiers. They wore Roman kits from Roman factories, they were trained in Roman tactics, plus they were motivated to fight for a better life. The old Roman edge faded away to city walls and sneaky tricks. The writing was on the walls by the 450s to say the least.

So it was a combination of factors really. Rome just fell apart for a lot of good reasons. Just remember, we're talking about the Western Empire! The Roman Empire would endure until the 1400's in the East and during that time the Eastern Empire would rise to impressive greatness.

I would recommend Guy Halsall's "Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568" as a good read on this subject.

Hrothgar (or whatever your real name is) :-),

We shall agree to disagree!

All the best!

- Greg

One must also consider lead poisoning. The Empire had a lot of cities and they extensively used lead plumbing. One of the problems the Empire had was the declining birthrate. The Imperial population was declining while the barbarians were quite fecund. Note that these days advanced western nations have a fertility problem.

It makes me wonder if in the distant future people will look at our civilization and say something like, "They wrapped their food in plastic! Didn't they know?"

whitemanticore "Hmmm…sounds familar."

Lol! No, its not a wildly original theory, but I have yet to hear a better one. However, TMP is a good place to test it; it being somewhat rife with opinions and all.

MEPHISTOPHELES

"Part of that power which still
Produceth good, whilst ever scheming ill."

Hrothgar Returns "One main myth of the Late Roman army is that it was a largely barbarian force. Only after 425 were very large numbers of barbarians recruited. Earlier most troops were provincials and citizens, even in many units of auxilia."

True, in fact, the Imperial government actually kept cities from being built in Dalmatia/Illyricum so that they would always have a tough, rural people from which to recruit their armies, or so I understand. Have no source for that other than a Classics grad student who informed me years ago.

Wow, in-depth discussion here (and not a trace of religion or politics, yet).

I accept that the Western empire fragmented for a complex number of causes. Once fragmented, the Romanized bits survived or perished according to the tides of "fate." some were lucky and some doomed. To expect the declining number of Italians to be anything like a real cause of that delcine seems very simplistic to me. By the mid first millennium AD, "Romans" were any and all who identified with the culture, religion(s) and laws of Roman tradition. Whether or not they maintained actual political (taxation) ties with "Rome" isn't really important. The singlmost important ingredient to the "fall of Rome" was the fragmentation that occurred over centuries.

One point mentioned here with which I strongly agree is that the Roman army remained professional (at least relative to its enemies) to the end of the Empire.

Thus they had a hard time beating the Visigoths and Vandals (who were by this time equally professional soldiers) but Radagaisus' invasion, though it dwarfed the army Rome was able to put into the field, was handled in an almost curdory fashion. The Roman cavalry cut off the few military adventurers who gave the movement what cohesion it had, surrounded the rest and starved them out.

Lichtenstein says

"The army was run by nobles only."

I was under the impression that the Army of the late Empire was run by an elite corps of professional soldiers who spent their whole life serving as military men. Nobles makes me think of men who spent most of their life with a silver spoon in their mouth and dabbled in warfare. . . The way it appears to me is; most emperors of the in the 4th & 5th century were men who were capable & veteran military leaders. One doesn't see the Nero's or Commodus' gaining the Imperial purple as often as it occurred in the early empire.

I have no idea what station or economic strata the officers of the Later legions came from. Does anyone have a theory or a source?

Quadratus "The way it appears to me is; most emperors of the in the 4th & 5th century were men who were capable & veteran military leaders. One doesn't see the Nero's or Commodus' gaining the Imperial purple as often as it occurred in the early empire."

By the 5th Century, that really applies to the Master Generals of the late Empire, such as Stilicho and Aetius, rather than to the Emperors. The last real fighting emperor of the West was probably Theodosius the Great. After him, they were largely a number of puppet rulers put up by this or that Master General, or beholden to some other political interest, rather than being effective rulers or soldiers.

@ Mephistopheles

I stand corrected. I was thinking of the wrong era. I got swept up in the Soldier emperors of the 3rd century. I like that Maximinus Thrax and his daily wine and beef consumption.

So by the end of the Western empire where were the noble families from? How did one get to the position of emperor? still intrigue in the imperial court?

@ Mephistopheles

Looking purely at a wikipedia entry it seems at least some of the emperors of the early 4th century are from "low born" families who rose to distinction in the military.

Maximian c. A.D. 305 family of shopkeepers, joined the army

Galerius c. A.D. 310 herdsman, joined the army

Maximinius c A.D. 313 Born of peasant stock, joined the army.

Again, my grasp of the Later empire is poor and I have no real in depth research to back any of this up, but it seems to me that Later emperors were more militarily minded and had probably spent more time on the battlefield than earlier Principate emperors. And that their nobility came more from their father's military prowess than their bloodlines.

Matt

Actually, if anyone is following the "History of Rome" podcast (and I HIGHLY recommend it--plus its free), they are doing a fantastic job explaining the impact that the social changes had on the military, and hence political situation.

Currently still on the Graccus period--but you are already getting a sense of the problems to come. One of the biggies was never solved--army loyalty was to the Generals, not to the Emperor. This is so unlike a modern state that it can take time to get one's head around all the implications of this. Especially in the very late stages of the Empire, when substantial portions of the populace are ethnically and culturally (and even legally!!) different than a "Roman". They have their own standing army of people who talk, think, and act just like themselves, in a system where power ultimately comes to rest with the generals, not the state.
That's a pretty dang big problem just waiting to happen.

Of course, the Romans slid down this slope only gradually, and the decisions leading up to it were quite logical and rational.

I also recomend Peter Heather's latest book: Decline of the Roman Empire. It gives an "alternative" point of view about the collapse of the Western Empire. Actually it just points out that the strength of the barbarians is generally underrated in this time period. These aren't 5th cent. B.C. Germans anymore.

Shan

Hi

These discussions always reminds me of Issac Asimov's phrase. He wrote an extensive version of "the fall of rome" as SF in the Foundation Triliogy. In the first book he observes. "Sometime in the future, historians will look back and draw a line here and say 'this was the fall of the empire".

And to be clear on my prejudices: I dismiss Vegitius and Delbruk! V had a political agenda and much of his "history" is "proving" something for current purposes. Similarly, Delbruk spends too much time filtering HIS opinon both thorugh his love of V AND his love of the Prussian Army. Too often he says "well my Prussians couldn't do this, therefore no one can!".

To talk about rome falling, we first have to define the term. In the 9th century various states in spain and Italy still considered themselves "roman".

A lot of the discussion above seems to see some magic in BEING Italian and how that affects the effectiveness of the army. In fact, no one at the time thought there was "italianess", merely "citizen and non-citizen".

Charles the Great?

"Holy Roman Empire".

We are drawing lines in retrospect and assigning them a value.

Rocky

Quadratus "Looking purely at a wikipedia entry it seems at least some of the emperors of the early 4th century are from "low born" families who rose to distinction in the military."

True, but in the 5th Century, you are talking about the Theodosian line, of which Theodosius was the only real general.

RockyRusso "To talk about rome falling, we first have to define the term. In the 9th century various states in spain and Italy still considered themselves "roman"."

C'mon Rocky, no point in purposely muddying the waters. Yes, I am aware that, at no point in 476 A.D. did somebody hear a loud crack and say "Damn! The Roman Empire just fell."

Still, the world becomes radically different politically and culturally at some point during the barbarian invasions of this period, and even period authors, (such as, for example, Augustine), spill a lot of ink regarding the shock to the public consciousness that accompanied Alaric's sack of Rome. More still, by others, over Attila's invasions.

Mephisopheles says

True, but in the 5th Century, you are talking about the Theodosian line, of which Theodosius was the only real general.

Point taken, I should have read more carefully :)

I appreciate the discussion.