Where did all the Romans go?

[Gaius Julius Camillus]

I have been wondering about something. Where did all the great Roman generals go? What become of the brave soldiers who held the Empire together? At the end, when Romulus Augustus abdicated, and even before that time, the army consisted of nothing more than barbarian tribes serving in the ranks.

 

Were the Roman's breeding less, and thus the manpower was depleted? Did the best of that time opt for service in the new church theocracy, rather than seek glory and fame like those before them had done in the pagan meritocracy?

 

I am interested in the opinions of those on this site.

 

Thanks for your time

 

LJV

[Northern Neil]

As late as 360 Ammianus Marcellinus writes of Julian's campaigns againt the Allemanni and Persians, and the armies he describes are made up of Gauls, Raetians and Pannonians, Roman citizens in every sense. Later still Generals such as Valentinian and Theodosius (who would later become emperors) are conducting campaigns against barbarians and strengthening frontiers.

 

I think what happened in the 5th century was that the central government, suddenly strapped for cash, found that as a short term measure it was easier to employ ready made military units in the form of German and Alan warbands, to deal with immediate emergencies and pay them wiith promises of land grants, rather than to pay a standing army with diminishing tax revenues. Even then, Generals such as Stilicho and Aetius - regarded by us as 'Romano German' but considering themselves Roman generals - maintained the tradition into the 450's. After this of course we see characters such as Ricimer and Odoacer, barbarians through and through, taking entire control of imperial forces. So really, I think it was economics that killed off the Roman military tradition - in difficult times it was cheaper in the short term to employ barbarians, but the cost was giving up large swathes of land in return, thus diminishing the tax base, and allowing the problem to snowball. Peter Heather (Fall of the Roman Empire) regards this as a fairly rapid and sudden process, rather than a long and protracted decline. Certainly, Ammianus' description of the late 4th century army seems to bring to mind an army just as efficient and 'Roman' as any which had proceeded it.

 

However, even at this time we see 'proper' Romans such as Boniface leading campaigns against Rome's enemies, with some measure of success, although this was marred by quarrels with Aetius which further impeded the ability of Roman forces to combat the common enemy. Three generations later, of course, the great Roman general Belisarius reconquers Italy for the Empire, but many regard this as the start of a different tradition rather than the continuity of Roman military might, for Rome may have been reconquered, but now it was an outpost, not an imperial capital.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Northern Neil