[gothic-l] Fall Of The West Roman Empire

[Tim O'Neill]

On Sunday, March 24, 2002 2:30 AM, Bertil Haggman [SMTP:mvk575b at tninet.se] wrote:

>One example of the weakness of the empire was the
>custom of children emperors, who only exercised
>nominal power.
[snip]

Whether the Western Empire weakened is not under
discussion.  What I was disputing is this idea that
(i) this weakness was tactical and (ii) it was due to a
weakness in cavalry compared to the armies fielded
by the barbarians.

This weakness was economic and was due to a lower
population base in the Western Empire, declining
taxation levels, rising inflation, lower economic power
in the West as opposed to the East and a far higher
disparity in the West between the rich and the poor
with a corresponding concentration of wealth in the hands
of a few.

These factors weakened the Western Empire considerably,
caused an increasing regionalisation of power and
administration and a marginalisation of Imperial authority.
It also meant that in the Fifth Century the West had far more
difficulty sustaining the large armies it had inherited from
the previous centuries of reorganisation and attempted
consolidation than the East.

This meant the West adopted a long term policy of
diplomatic attempts to neutralise threats, playing
enemies off against each other (often with some
success) and taking advantage of the barbarians'
desire to become part of the Roman world by using them
as federate troops.  This worked in the short to medium
term but, as the economic decline and administrative
decay continued, these policies were doomed in the
long run.  Territory was lost to local warlords and
magnates (some of them barbarian and some of them
native) and Imperial authority was eroded to the point where
the Emperor became first irrelevant and then eventually
unneccessary.  Thus the events of 476.

There were very few pitched battles in all of this and the
few that were fought were largely won by the Romans.
Tactics and cavalry had little or nothing to do with this
decline and increasing weakness.  Population levels,
inflation and economics had a lot to do with it.

>Later the Goths set up a government of its own in Gaul
>414 AD with at puppet Roman emperor. In Brittany and
>the adjacent areas other peoples reigned (where were
>the legions and that cavalry?). Where was the Roman
>cavalry to oppose the Huns? Ricimer controlled the emperor
>Libius Severus. But how strong was the cavalry?

About as strong as it had been for the last 200 years -
roughly 30% of the army, well drilled and well equipped.
The problem was, the army overall was becoming more
and more difficult and expensive to maintain as things
declined economically, so increasing use was made of
federate troops to supplement the Army proper.  A
weakness in cavalry had nothing to do with the situation
in the fourth century.  A broad scale economic weakness
had everything to do with it.

>The Roman cavalry from Adrianople to 476 AD is the main point,
>I think, in the question of the strength of the Roman army.

>So how about the

>390s
>400s
>410s
>420s
>430s
>440s
>450s
>460s
>470s

>Any good sources there?

None as comprehensive as the *Notitia* unfortunately.
Though the fact that the copy of the *Notitia* which we
have seems to have been one used in the Western Empire
means that, while the unit lists for the Eastern Empire it
relates are 'frozen' at around 395 AD, the unit lists for
the West seem to have been updated up to around
430 AD, so we have a reasonable idea of how the Western
army continued to develop up to around that point.

Cavalry continued to play an important - indeed vital -
and increasinly central role.

Arther Ferrill's book on the fall of the Empire is a useful one
in many ways, though his broad conclusion that the fall was
primarialy a military one is generally considered fatally
flawed.  But since you've mentioned his work I should
draw your attention to his section entitled 'The Roman
Army in 395 AD' where he writes in great detail about the
rise of the importance, variety and effectiveness of cavalry
units in the Western Roman army in the late fourth to early
fifth centuries.

Another useful source on this point for this period is Vegetius,
writing as he was sometime between 383 and 450.  As
Ferrill writes:

'Among the many interesting points that Vegetius makes is
the fact that Roman cavalry was competitive with barbarian
cavalry.  Ironically, it was in infantry, for which the Romans
had been so famous, that the Late Roman Army needed
improvement.' (p 128)

While I'm quoting Ferrill, you can find this on page 144:

'Despite a view still popular in some circles, barbarian
armies relied mainly on infantry.  Although they usually
included some cavalry, Roman cavalry was at least equal
to that of the barbarians.'

It's important to note what we *don't* have from the fifth century
is any Roman historians noticing that their armies are deficient
in cavalry, or that the barbarian cavalry outnumbers and
outclasses theirs, or even that they keep losing pitched
battles against the barbarians due to tactical inferiority.  While
able generals like Stilicho, Ricimer and Aetius did what they
could with dwindling resources, winning all the battles
couldn't help them against the West's real enemies - population
decline, economic stagnation and slow erosion and
fragmentation of the central administration.

>Most likely Quigley has a point.

Most likely Quigley is no specialist in late Roman military
and economic affairs and is relying on second and third
hand interpretations of these matters which can be traced
back to Charles Oman's simplistic and discredited
nineteenth century myth of 'Gothic heavy cavalry' sweeping
away the outdated infantry of the corrupt Roman Empire.

Most likely technical points such as the relative tactical
strengths and weaknesses of the late Roman Army are
best researched by looking to specialists in that field and
examining what the sources, such as the *Notitia* and
Vegetius say.  They don't support any wrongheaded
romantic nineteenth century myths about the Roman army
being weak in cavalry - quite the opposite.

Tim O'Neill

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Access Your PC from Anywhere
Full setup in 2 minutes! - Free Download
http://us.click.yahoo.com/MxtVhB/2XkDAA/_ZuFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/