Rome Downfall Linked To Roman Army?

[Aurelius]

AVE..

 

Im just wondering whether the Roman army was a catalyst or one of the main reasons for the inevitable demise of the Roman state? By this i am referring to the downfall of the western roman empire, the fall of the eastern roman empire can also be discussed.

 

Did the excessive upkeep of these armies made possible the inflation of roman economy?..Did the 'barbarisation' of the army lead to the penetration of the external forces into the empire?..Did the increasing power of the military commanders bring about the concentration of power in the 'hands of the few' that led to bloody civil wars?..Other aspects can also be discussed.

 

I apologise if this topic has been brought up before..thanks for your time.

[Primus Pilus]

Did the excessive upkeep of these armies made possible the inflation of roman economy?..Did the 'barbarisation' of the army lead to the penetration of the external forces into the empire?....

 

Absolutely, military upkeep was a terrible drain on the economy in the later imperial period. As the legions evolved into a garrison army, not only did the costs remain as they always had, but it was no longer a source of revenue via conquest.

 

Its difficult to determine which came first... barbarization or penetration. I suppose its a chicken and egg question. The legions were barbarized in part because Rome needed to keep it's frontiers pacified allowing entry of various tribes, however many tribes had already entered the empire and their activation within the legions accomplished the same task (while also providing an untapped source of recruits). We've discussed this in many places, but here is a recent related thread that evolved from a discussion of citizenship and it's effects on the army... Citizenship

 

Did the increasing power of the military commanders bring about the concentration of power in the 'hands of the few' that led to bloody civil wars?

 

Yes, but civil war was nothing new in the later imperial period. Consider the wars of the late Republic, AD 69, AD 193, the chaotic third century etc. In theory the concentration of power and loyalty to the Princeps should have helped prevent civil war (which it did for the most part as Augustus established sole military power), but the instability of succession was more a problem I believe than the matter of concentrated military power. There was plenty of power concentrated in a few generals following the death of Domitian, but yet that was followed by nearly a century of relative political stability thanks to defined succession. Were governors and legates allowed to hold their positions for too long, establishing too much direct loyalty from their men? Perhaps we can see that in retrospect, but I do believe that some of the turmoil could have been avoided with stronger plans of succession. Of course, this would also be dependent upon strong central figures to establish these plans, which was sorely lacking in the 3rd century, but the 2nd century set a precedent showing that it could work. (and aside from AD 69 there were no civil wars in the 1st century either, though there was clearly a couple of problems with succession).

[Dominus Rex]

I don't know about this but I was once thinking that could possible the invention of stirrups lead to Rome's fall?

 

After stirrups were invented, then armies would begin to lean more heavily on cavalry, and the Romans still were not that good at it. Then, more cavalry based barbarian armies would have an advantage over Roman cavalry and thus a larger advantage in battle. Is this theory possible? Or do I just not know what I am talking about?

[Aurelius]

I believe that theory is wrong, sorry dominus, but the romans had considerable experience with cavalry-centred armies. The romans also drafted some of these 'barbarian cavalry' into their armies to boost their 'cavalry disadvantage'. In the Later roman empire, the romans had specialised units of cavalry, for example clibanarii and kataphraktio, especially in the eastern half of the roman world. So IMO, in short, the stirrup supposedly used by barbarian armies was not the main cause of the downfall of the romans, because as said above the romans knew how to deal with barbarian armies of this nature.

 

THank you Primus for that link, ill check that out. Yes, i also agree that the method of succession in the roman empire was not clearly defined. It did work out during the 'five good emperors' but after that was not practiced. the 'dominate' system was also good in merit and in theory, but was lousy in practice.

 

Another set of questions, Did the rise of frontier-based warfare, in the later empire, lead to the increasing depdendance and loyalty of the native population to local landlords(ie legates, governors,etc.) IF so, how did this affect the fighting capability of roman armies?. Did this decrease their 'mettle' or their 'edge' over other armies?.

[caldrail]

In a number of ways probably. The abandonment of the pilum, the exchange of gladius for spatha, the return to chainmail, the dilution of training, the decreasing reliance on centurion experience etc. I'm sure we could think of others.

[Arcturius]

I believe that theory is wrong, sorry dominus, but the romans had considerable experience with cavalry-centred armies. The romans also drafted some of these 'barbarian cavalry' into their armies to boost their 'cavalry disadvantage'. In the Later roman empire, the romans had specialised units of cavalry, for example clibanarii and kataphraktio, especially in the eastern half of the roman world. So IMO, in short, the stirrup supposedly used by barbarian armies was not the main cause of the downfall of the romans, because as said above the romans knew how to deal with barbarian armies of this nature.

 

THank you Primus for that link, ill check that out. Yes, i also agree that the method of succession in the roman empire was not clearly defined. It did work out during the 'five good emperors' but after that was not practiced. the 'dominate' system was also good in merit and in theory, but was lousy in practice.

 

Another set of questions, Did the rise of frontier-based warfare, in the later empire, lead to the increasing depdendance and loyalty of the native population to local landlords(ie legates, governors,etc.) IF so, how did this affect the fighting capability of roman armies?. Did this decrease their 'mettle' or their 'edge' over other armies?.

 

Hello, I'm new to this Board and a big Roman-History fan. Do you have any source references/links that talk about legions vs. heavy cavalry? This is a big point of curiosity/frustration for me. Many historical texts imply that legions just couldn't stand against heavy barbarian cavalry. The inferiority of heavy infantry on a cavalry-dominated battlefield eventually led the Byzantines to develop Cataphracts as you cite above and so on.

 

But I've seen drawings of legion formations either hurling pila at cavalry breaking their charge or standing with pila extended ready to receive charges. Maybe this was artistic license, but it seems to me a well drilled & equipped legion could withstand any cavalry attack. Any info on this subject would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[Neos Dionysos]

Hello, I'm new to this Board and a big Roman-History fan. Do you have any source references/links that talk about legions vs. heavy cavalry? This is a big point of curiosity/frustration for me. Many historical texts imply that legions just couldn't stand against heavy barbarian cavalry. The inferiority of heavy infantry on a cavalry-dominated battlefield eventually led the Byzantines to develop Cataphracts as you cite above and so on.

 

But I've seen drawings of legion formations either hurling pila at cavalry breaking their charge or standing with pila extended ready to receive charges. Maybe this was artistic license, but it seems to me a well drilled & equipped legion could withstand any cavalry attack. Any info on this subject would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

 

A heavy infantry formation, if properly trained and led could repel any cavalry attack. Horses are not dumb beasts that will simply charge into a solid mass... if Romans used the 'Repel Cavalry' tactic, (forgive me for not giving the exact name of the formation), any cavalry charging toward them would slow up and stop just before hitting the formation, horses are not going to throw themselves into it, plus if the formation happens to be causing a lot of noise and commotion, it may cause the horses to slow up and halt even more so, and a cavalry charge that loses momentum is as good as screwed. Heavy cavarly was good when used properly, the same for heavy infantry. The Crusanding Armies used Heavy infantry very well in the Middle East during the 'era' of knights and heavy cav, as did the Byzantines, an ingenious formation described by Arabs that the Byzantines as well as 'Franks', (refering to any Europeans), told of Heavy Infantry formed into a Hollow Box formation. The infantry was tight enough as not to allow cavalry to penetrate, but also hollow to allow friendly cavalry to stay within and so could suddenly open up to allow the friendly cav to sally out and make quick attacks and come back to the protection of the infantry. This is just an example, usually when cavalry adds to a crushing defeat on infantry its when the infantry cannot defend itself...

[Nikephoros Phokas]

There have been a number of books published in the last ten years that provide plenty of information about the military in the 4th and 5th Centuries. I suggest that anyone interested in the performance of the military read some of the following:

 

Warfare in Roman Europe by Hugh Elton

The Late Roman Army by Pat Dixon and Karen Suthern

Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather

Twilight of Empire by Martijn Nicassie

 

On the subject of barbarians, one must remember that the Roman military had a long history of recruiting from foreign and non-Roman populations. This was a trend established in the Republican era prior to the rise of Octavianus/Augustus. The majority of Imperial auxiliaries were non-citizens until 212 AD when citizenship was granted to all except slaves. Germans were a common fixture in the military well before the 4th Century. What was different in the later 4th Century was the admittance of the Goths after 376 AD without assimilation. The Goths followed by the Suebi, Vandals, Burgundians and Alans created autonomous states within the empire. These states within a state were instrumental in the collapse of the western empire; the extent of their influence remains a heated debate among historians. Tied to the loss of tax revenues to these barbarians was a decrease in the military as running a deficite budget was a modern concept. If the government could not pay its troops, then the troops did not serve.

 

While it is true that the quantity of cavalry did increase within the military, the majority of the soldiers were infantrymen. They were cheaper to employ and could be moved quite quickly to threatened areas. Cavalry horses tend to be particular in what they eat so fodder was required in large quantities to keep them healthy. Horses cannot maintain a constant rate of march like men. Moving long distances required a slower rate of march than if only foot soldiers were used. While this may be hard to believe, it is a proven fact. Nomads were faster because they fed their horses on whatever was available, although the lack of suitable fodder was a problem. Horses will not eat plants like sheep and goats.

 

The military did play a role in the fall, but was one of many factors in the demise of the western empire. Civil wars always made barbarian intrusions harder to contain. Several senior officers like Aetius and Ricimer did rely upon barbarians to retain power especially as counters to the power of the civilian branches of the central government.

[Felix Marcellus]

I would think anytime any country falls, that country's military plays some part in it. Either because they were unable to defend the country from an invader, they overthrew the government themselves, sucked up too much money from the coffers, etc.

 

I could be wrong. Maybe an ineffective or parasitic military is more a symptom of a nation in decline than it is the actual cause of their fall.

 

I think Rome fell because of a lack of accountability. Governors and armies were responsible for their little niche within the empire rather than being responsible to Rome for its overall defense. IE, the eastern empire survived and remained successful for a thousand more years where the rest fell. Lack of teamwork here people.

 

There's no "I" in Rome.

 

Satellite Communications and a digitized grid would've helped the Romans out a lot.

[Neos Dionysos]

Adding to this thought process, is that the West civic administration, (including the emperor), had no control over its military. The military was run by and controlled almost exclusively by the Magister Militum or other military stewards in the West, like Stilicho, Aetius, Odoacar and Ricimer. Yet compare this to the East, who though having a smaller army and no generals of notoration, (or if they did they made sure not to allow them to much success), the civic administration had complete control of the army and they were able to weather the terrible storms that would sink the Western Empire.

[Guest maximus_decimus]

If you would like to really gauge the full strength of Legion's cohorts against barbarian cavalry, just read the history in late Roman period between Emperor Valen's eastern Legions vs. Fritigern's Visigothic army at the Battle Of Adrianople in 378 AD.

But, let me remind everyone that by this time, the Roman Empire was already split into Eastern and Western halves. Although the Eastern Legion's (supposedly) had a better equipped soldiers, they were not in any way the same class of magnificence as those of Caesar's Legion's in the late Republic period. In 4th century AD Roman world, they were not called Legionnares anymore, but Comitatenses and had all but abandoned the strict discipline of the earlier Legionnares. No more pillums, gladius, nor lorica segmentata, but more of chain mail armour, barbarian-style shileds and swords. Don't even think that these men knew what a testudo was. Constantine The Great's reformation of Roman army into Imperial Mobile Forces was instituted in that discipline was sacrificed for speed as to quickly counter any barbarian incursion at moment's notice.

Romans never fully and trully appreciated the value of cavalry as to make them integral part of the army. For the Roman, the Legionnares are the signature of warfare for them. Caesar uses both Gallic and Germanic mercenary cavalries to support his Gallic Wars; the Schytians, Sarmatians, and Roxolanni, (and not to mention various Hunnic, Gothic, and Alans) cavalries all have served alongside the Roman Legionarres, but they were always an allae to the main army. Romans relied on infantry to their last days. The lessons inflicted on them by Parthians, Sassanians Persia, Visigoths, and finally by Attila and his Hunnic hordes, had never dissuaded them from their core belief that Legionnares are the best when thrown against others. They were unstoppable in the glory days of the Early Empire (Arminius of Germania might say a thing or two regarding this calim), but the Romans inability to modify the structure of the army certainly played part as to why in the Dying Days of the Empire there were no concrete Legions to discourage barbarians into attacking Rome herself. Hope this answers your question.

[Neos Dionysos]

Adrianople is a terrible example of Cavalry destroying Infantry supremacy... for the simple fact that the Roman Forces were already committed to battle when the barbarian, (they weren't Gothic, they were Alan and Hunnic mercs), cavalry came back on the scene, drove off the Roman Cav and was thus able to encircle and smash the Romans from the flanks and rear. This does not signify the death of heavy infantry and the emergance of cavalry as the mainstay of armies, because for the next couple centuries, infantry was still the mainstay.

[phil25]

When did Rome fall? Surely before we can answer the question we need to know what period we are discussing - long or short? early or late?

 

As the prologue to the film "Fall of the Roman Empire" suggests, Rome's fall took as long as her rise!!

 

The Army certainly played a major part in the transformation (fall?) of the republic - through generals (Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Pompeius, Octavian, Antonius...) using their armies for political ends; but also through the problems of finding land to settle veterans.

 

Much later (c 380sAD), provinces like Britannia were given problems by the withdrawal of legions on adventures by governors such as Magnus maximus.

 

But the army changed - over time it became less and less a citizen army of farmers with a stake in society; and more and more a professional force seeking citizenship as a reward.

 

Equipment and tactics surely represented a response to a changing world, emerging technology, different enemies, and a changed strategic and tactical requirement.

 

In Europe today (also the US with recent protests over "illgeal immigration"?) we see workers from poorer countries who initially demand less being brought in to do jobs that native Brits, French people, Germans won't do, or where there is a manpower shortage. Is this an indication that the "west" is "falling" or simply a response to economic pressures and challenges that has to be met and may have unforeseen consequences downstream?

 

In essence, I don't see the army as much as a cause of Rome's fall as a symptom. If it was a contributing factor, then surely it was not the army itself, so much as it's generals and leaders who misused it; and allowed discipline and conditions to deteriorate to an extent that soldiers could make emperors and mutiny to get their way.

 

This, to me, smells more like a loss of political will and direction; and an erosion of morale, both at the top - civilian and military leaders - and in society generally. Where was rome going once it stopped expanding? What were it's priorities? Did bread and circuses attract attention from defence and energetic maintenance of the frontiers; was morale sapped by easy living?

 

All questions, I'm afraid, but I am trying to drill down below the surface.

 

Phil

[caldrail]

As a conquest state, Rome had a 'virile' quality. It had pride and purpose. The decline of the army (hastened by Constantine) did indeed contribute to the fall of Rome, but it wasn't the only cause. It seems the civilian element declined too. Romes instability didn't help matters, but even after their resurgence before the end, it never regained that sense of uniform endeavour it once had.

[Guest hello_48]

I disagree with the earlier postes. There was no real barbarization of the roman army, it simply evolved. The Romans had always relied on forign cavalry, be it barbarians or fellow Italians. The only real "barbarian" element of the Roman Army was indeed the cavalry. Under Constantine, the Roman Army adeveloped into two seperate groups. These groups were the garrison soldiers of the frontiers and the campiagn soldiers under the direct control of the emperor. The frontier soldiers were not expected to be the "first-class" soldiers, they were simply a way of slowing down invading armies. If an army invaded, the frontier forces would slow down the invaders while the campaign army rushed into position to crush the incursion. The only real decline in the Roman Army comes from the massive decrease in those willing to join the army. At the Roman Empire's height, their was only around 400,000 soldiers in the empire. Compare this to 300,000 french soldiers under King Louis XIV. Simply put, the Roman empire collapsed in the west as it ran out of soldiers to throw at the invading tribes. As for the Romans being unable to hold out against heavy cavalry, the only reason the Romans were defeated by the Goths at Adrianople was due to lack of foresight and judgement on the behalf of the emperor. Valen's troops rushed forward to attack what they thought was a miniscule enemy. They were promptly surrounded by Goth horsemen. Caught unprepared, the infantry were destroyed, this battle showed poor judgement and strategy, not an overall lack of stength left in the Roman Army. It is only later, in the civil wars between the Caesars and Augustus's, would the old Roman army become insignificant. Later in the empire (4th or 5th century) the infracsture that supplied the Army and the Empire broke down due to invading tribes. This is what destroyed the Roman Army. Without the funds to properly train soldiers, the foot soldiers were unprepared and were crushed under goth horseman serving under the later eastern emperors. Therefore, it was the lack of funds and a lack of men that destroyed the Roman Empire and Army, not the other way around.