Arvioustus

That's just it, while they were increasing in Foederati, they were also recruiting them for the regular army and legions. Also you need to remember, foederati are only enrolled for a campaign season then disbanded afterward so they would no longer be part of the army to 'revolt'. They were more like a quick conscription force used in times of war or crisis and meant only to be around till the campaign was over they were never part of the regular army, nor treated as such. The late empire suffered badly when it came to recruiting and recruiting provinicials and citizens was not only hard to do to begin with, but it was very expensive. The government had to pay for recruits, as in pay to the city or town etc who furished them, and then had to pay an extra sum to the local government as well for the loss of manpower if you will, (there is much more technical laws behind it), and in the case of volunteers, they had to pay the men themsevles the money twice. Barbarians on the other hand, were MUCH cheaper. This is not to say they were mercenaries, it was just simply to intice them to serve and cheaper overral to afford to keep large numbers of them. The Romans for the most part were not afraid of rebellions, because they rarely happened, and they felt they could control any situation. However, a prevailing sentiment in Roman society and culture kinda ingrained into Romans that barbarians were inferior, that they were lesser then Romans and that they could be treated like crap. This is what led to problems when they did arise and those that did cost Rome dearly. The barbarians, for the most part, who were incorperated as regular unit soldiers and not allied contingents under thier owen tribal leaders considered themselves Roman and were, argueably more loyal than many Romans. (I am using examples of high-ranking individuals). After the Goths were finally quelled in the late 4th century, the East made an all out effort to purge it's regular army ranks of barbarians. Whether by moving them to certain units and re-locating them or putting them in other work. Barbarian strength in the Eastern Army was always low and actually, the East had the hardest time recruiting. The West on the other had had little trouble and routinely raised many units due to thier proximity to Germanic peoples willing to serve. Usually, for every 1 unit that the East could muster, the West could raise 6-4. Which shows you the large difference in army strength and size and makeup as well. There were rebellions, ussually with frontier troops, such as the legions on the Rhine on more than one occasion. If I remember correctly one such rebellion in germania stopped the Romans from winning in Dacia.(troops had to be recalled)

The Ostrogoths are not "Western Romans"... and so Belisarius never fought Romans. Secondly, Belisarius excelled at the indirect approach, he fooled the enemy into thinking he had a far larger army than himself by using campfires at night and thus gained a major victory without a loss of life. He defeated Rome, and defeated a city ALWAYS gives major advantage to the defender, in Persia he had his cavalry run back and forth behind his front lines to make it seem the dust being kicked up was from a much larger army than was actually there and this made the Perisans want to discuss negotiations. Now, on the matter of barbarization of the army, I HIGHLY suggest you start to read actual texts on the matters and not continue the old trend of, 'Barbarians = bad, and so Barbarians + Roman Army =very bad'. While the late army was in decline, it still performed its job quite effectively given the circumstances. The failings came adminstratively when soldiers were not being paid and corruption rampant, training declined and so the army deteriorated NOT because of barbarization but because of corruption and a collaspe of the adminstrative and logistical structures of the army. I ask you cite where you are getting your information from, and where you claim historians placed barbarians on a pedestal for political reasons. And numbers are never overlooked... too often the little things are overlooked, such as in when people think of the fall of Rome, they blaim Barbarian invasions, when in fact it was an economic and fincincial collaspe and most of these 'invasions' were migrations of people who were ADMITTED into the Empire and so were never invaders. My sources are: The Late Roman Army The Rise and Decline of the Late Roman Field Army Barbarians and Bishops: Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom Corruption and the Decline of Rome Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD The Roman citzens of Naples certainly did(most Jewish) fought bravely against them fearing Christianity of Constantinople. Plus there were other Romans who favored the Goths over the Eastern Empire. Same sources ..plus historians like Tacitus who painted the barbarians as a much more noble race than the Romans.

Just what are you basing this on? While there is cases of overexaggeration in numbers of enemy, predominantly what is sourced is around the correct number. Why is it hard for you to believe that superior tatics, training and leadership cannot overcome simple superiority in numbers? Having a larger army does NOT mean you win. Alexander the Great used an army that was never more than 47,000 men in total to conqeor most of the known world. And there are MANY sources that cite this, both logisitcally and through textual data and archeogoical. If Rome did not field an army that was well fed, it could not train, nor do the exploits it acheived. And, if according to you they could not and they were lying, then how do explain Rome's dominance of Europe, Africa and part of Asia for hundreds of years? What i am saying is the historians just fabricated, of course they were well fed. Histirians cite a diet that was insufficient and gruel based alone.

I believe these 'late Roamns' were not up to the standards of the original at all, like Caesars infantry. Look at the numbers, Caesar being outnumbered greatly routed them horribly at almost all occasions. Late stages Justinian sent a force(mostlyGreek and middle Eastern) under General Belisarius handing these 'western Romans' and Goths even more amazing losses in Italy and North Africa. Being outnumberd even more than Caesar was! These facts cannot be discounted but some anglo Europeans always try to rationalize away these defeats. The late empire was in a decline for a long time and the army too. The numbers were much less and the entry of 'barbarians' in reality made the army not as effective. Belisrius and Caesar had an easy time with the barbarians,especailly given the numbers. They were extreme. We are dealing with hand to hand where numeric odds carry an even greater role. The barbarians wre only effective when they outnumbered the Romans or Eastern Romans by extreme numeric odds or a trap. Justinian,Caesar and Belisarus new the 'barbarians' were not much of a fighting force . (some historians might have put 'barbarians' on a pedestal for poltical reasons) These great leaders would not have subjected their armies being so outnumbered unless in realty they felt like I do. Numbers do not lie. These facts are so often overlooked.

Even the ancient Egyptian army was better fed, soldiers receiving 4000 calorie a day diet,lots of meat and fortified beer was the norm. How could the Roman army be so effective on their diet unless as I suspect Roman historians just fabricate. Obviously the Roman soldier had to be an amazing physical specimen as some genetists say, their bone density was one of heavy muscle and heavy use.They had to be in the top of their form, combining quickness with strength.(only way a gladius could be used effectively- you need a man who is agile and quick) A poor diet would not facilitate this. Historians probably exagerate their diet to make the Roman soldiers seem 'Spartan like' . Also, the historians exagerated the fierceness of their adversary for the same reasons. Just does not make sense: their diet, their fierceness against amazing odds, covering so much territory on foot: something does not add up. Also being outnumbered in hand to hand warfare is much more severe than modern, where technology overcomes this. You only have two hands. the numbers the Romans were outnumbered against just do not make practical sense regardless of their fierceness and training. Why would a smart general like Caesar confront the Gauls and Germanic 10 or 20 to one? The historians had to be exagerating at every level. The Roman army proabbly engorged themselves with all kinds of meats and foods.

Very difficult topic to be sure. Perhaps we should look to the Eastern Empire to determine when the west really fall, if it ever did. I am not well versed with the Eastern Empire but am studying. Justinian sent Belisarius to contend with Goths and Germanic tribes in Nort Africa and Italy. In Italy as it seems it was very confusing who was 'Roman' and who wasn`t. Any account Belisarius took back a good part of Africa and Italy with a surprisingly small force. I mean surprisingly, were the Goths such terrible fighters? How did they defeat the Huns then? I do think the Huns and Goths were over rated however and Caesar would not have had any difficulty with either, just that at that time when they came on the scene there was such decline. Not sure of Justinians intentions either, he wanted the west back and wanted Justinian dead? Very confusing this era. My conclusion is that there must have been such a terrible decline in the west for a long time. This was not the Rome of Caesar or the legions of Caesar. Even the Germanic or Romainized Germanic legions were nothing like they use to be either. Otherwise how could Justinian do with he did with so few men and why not obtain a larger force? The era as a whole most have been a dark age of sorts long before historians made up the name 'dark ages'. That is why the capitol went to Constinople , which was the only way of just saving a piece of the empire.

Under his rule affairs were successfully conducted against the Germans. He himself carried on a war with the Marcomanni, which was greater than any in the memory of man (in the way of wars with the Germans)---so that it was compared to the Punic Wars, for it was exceedingly formidable, and in it whole armies were lost; especially as in this reign, after the victory over the Parthians there occurred a great pestilence so that at Rome, and throughout Italy and the provinces a large fraction of the population, and actually the bulk of the regular troops perished from the plague. Perhaps a city was not optimum way of life when one doesn`t have understandings of deseases and causes. (ex. fleas on rodents)

How different these Roman recipes are sofrom modern Italian cuisine ( at least in the US), or maybe not, perhaps we would all be slim if we lived on these Roman recipes.

Ancient Roman food seems worlds removed from modern Italian which is basically adopted in the US. Ancient Roman food seems like a few steps above neantherdal.

This length o0f service seems amazing coming from just a city state. How can you expect popultion growth and relplenishment of the army with this? Your army has to come from the provinces where the legions are at that point and not from Rome. You cannot expect soldiers in these provinces from abstaining obviously. This must have been considered in the senate.

You are relentless I must say:) I still have my beliefs however.

Some experts feel that the late Roman army really wasnt` Roman at all but mostly German or German blends. So the legions at their decline and even when they stopped the Huns there were few Roman left. I have read that Romans did every thing they can to not fight for Rome and even prefered the German tribes! Some say the population decrease and just the intense assimilation that occured that the 'Romans' just ceased to be. The Germans being the greatest in numbers became the Roman legions. Any truth?

We are still locked in the Roman units of measurement here: feet,yards, etc. The metric system is so much more intelligent.

I do not think any other Roman general was undefeated as Caesar was and faced the numeric odds he did. Late Rome not withstanding because that army was just a shell of itself and might have been mostly Germanic as some experts believe. Caesar had an abilty to train his men better than any other not just make them fearless. Fearless men die just as easy when outnumbered by the extreme but Caesar did not. This cannot be just great oratory but great training, surpacing any other Roman general.

What!? Alexander beat much greater odds than Caesar EVER faced... How can you say Alexander did not know how to train men? His army was perhaps the greatest in the world... Caesar did not have some secret ability to train men... he had an uncanny ability to get the most of his men and to inspire great loyalty, (in his personal legions). If his training was the reason for his success, then the 14th legion, (whom he raised and recruited and hand picked the centurions to train it), would not have been almost anihilated in Gaul. At Alesia the odds could have been more than 10 to one but in Germania it was even higher! That is why when he crossed the Rhine the tribes fled east in terror while he marched there for 18 days. I think it goes beyond ability to make men fearless...it was training. Fearless men die too when outnumbered by great odds. Caesar had an ability to make men fighting machines, no way a person in their twenties (Alex) can do that.

Perhaps, but Caesar is really undefeated and I love the undefeated. True he didn`t have much opportunity to go against bow/horsemen but he always had a strategy for victory. Plus I do feel he must have been an amazing trainer of men and much he must of kept secret. Somehow he turned men into fighting machines that beat the odds every time. Do not feel any other General had this ability. Alexander, great strategist to be sure but way too young to know how to train men. Hail Caesar!

I think the Romans went where the generals wanted them to go, ussualy for poltical advancement and riches. Too much advancement as in the case of Caesar poses risks, civil wars and the like. In Caesars case his troops realy had little fears, chariots in Britain or facing the huge numbers in Germania or trapped at Alessia. Caesar just went to the troops and gave a little speech and they attacked forces way larger than themselves. If they had fear their troops would have been the ones who fleed dropping their weapons as the German troops did. So you really think the Roamns feared the picts? I think they were really to well trained to have much fear. Caesar was stopped by poltics and economics. Not sure if the picts traded slaves to the Romans as the Germans east of the Rhine did but this would have kept the senators happy if they and perhaps been a poltical burden in Rome if these lands were 'illegally attacked'. (Caesar had a lot of explaining to do already)

A fact to look about Caesar facing the phalanx, he encouintered German troops using the phalanx and he handled them easily. Perhaps not the match as the macedonians in thir prime but it seems that Caesar found a way to overcome any army. ( but not the politicians)

The Science channel (BBC too) had a feature on recently claiming the average ancient Roman consumed a very dangerous level of lead. Through various cooking utencils and pans making many mainstay foods and drinks. Somwhere in the neighborhood of 30 ml. grams per day. This would have caused many problems including infertility and mental issues. They allude to this as a one of the main reasons for the slow decline and downfall of the empire. I say...maybe.

I can compare, Caesar defeated all, gauls,German tribes with an astonishing display of strategy but mostly an ability to train an army in a way that they cannot be deafeated.( seemingly so) I say train, somehow train...we know his charisma convinced them to fight to the death. Many Romans soldiers surpried even caesar when fighting the German tribes,sometimes hurling themselves into German 'phalanxes". However,even courage couldn`t do the job when you are so outnumbere. It was training. Training in a way that was not done before and never since. Caesar was innovative and confident, against all. Such confidence crossing the Rhine and just hoping for a fight after he humiliated all the Germans he fought to date. They fled in terror...trying to go far inalnad hoping Caesar would not go. Many chiefans asked for mercy. This is in the face of being even more outnumber than at Alecia. How can anyone not chose Caesar! He was magic.

Recently on the science channel they had a special where these 'expets' state lead was consumed by indirect menas through dishware..etc. to the tune of about 30 ml grams a day. This causes still birts, no births and mental instability. Romans cooked down grape syrups and other thing in lead on a daily basis. I know a lot of people detest this as a reason for the decline but chemistry is there. Perhaps this did cause a major decline...if humans consumed this today it would. Maybe Nero and others as they could have been born like this or develpoed it from lead. Perhaps. Also, the decline of enough Romans for the army (hence needing others) was at of neccessity. Perhpas?

Civil wars at th etime must have been disasterous for the the empire at the time. Would it not be plausable that these wars drained the empire near collapse? At that point Constantine thought Christianity would bind it ? It is true he has an enormous efffcect on western civilaztion but was it all positive?

I read somewehere that those who surrendered to Romans (males) were sometimes systematically raped by many. Please tell me that is not so!

Is it not impossible that these caould be Celts or Germans not even with the Roman army? There are many indications that the Celts and Germans were more than just 'barbarians' but excellent merhants.

Romans were a serious threat to other Romans and the loss of lives in these battles adds up to this.