[gothic-l] Fall Of The West Roman Empire

[Bertil Haggman]

Certainly there were different factors in the downfall
of the West Roman empire and one of the main
factors was the failure to see that there was
a RMA going on.

As I pointed out in my first contributions in this
matter the economy contributed to the weak
empire's problem in fielding cavalry. Even if they
wanted the slave based agriculture and the
thin layer of earth prevented the rich grain
production needed for cavalry campaigning.

I wish the strength of some of the crucial battles
except those already mentioned could be presented
as proof of the myth of Roman victories. In the crucial
campaign of Alaric the strength seems to have gone out
of the legions alltogether. And where was the cavalry?

Where are the names of these glorius Roman cavalry commanders,
who so valiantly defended the corrupt empire? Not one
single name of a cavalry commander in the Roman has been
mentioned. The reason is that the commanders were mainly legionary
infantry ones.

When it comes down to the last century there is no proof
to back up the claims of a strong Roman cavalry.
None has been provided here.

Stilicho and Ricimer were Germanics and Aetius was saved
by the Visigoths.

The problem with "specialists" is their narrow view of
events. Your weak statements on general assumptions
and using a 30 percent figure for Roman cavalry overall for the
last miserable century of the Roman empire in the west
domonstrates the insecurity of the figures.

At the Catalaunian Plains Visigoths and Burgundians saved
the day for the Romans. Where was the Roman cavalry?
And the legionaries were huddling behind their shields
in great fear of the Huns and the Ostrogoths. Aetius let Attila slip away.

The reaction to the collapse of the West Roman empire was that of
the Gallic landowner Rutilius Namatianus, who returned home
in 417 AD. He had grounds for optimism. There was peace with
Visigoths.The priest Salvian wrote in 440 AD denouncing the
corruption of Roman society, which he contrasted with the
purity of the Goths and the Vandals. The surviving Roman land-
owners were described as tyrants as they extracted heavy and
unreasonable taxation from the peasantry. The peasants actually
sought protection from the Goths. Trier was for instance sacked
four times between 400 and 440 AD.

The lack of effective cavalry was an important factor in the downfall
of the West Roman empire. After all it is the military situation on
the ground that is decisive. If a state cannot defend its land it falls
prey to a conqueror. If you can't keep peace in your own land, there
is always someone to privide it, in this case the Ostrogoths.

Gothically

Bertil Haggman


> 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.

> 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.
>
> 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.
> 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 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.



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Access Your PC from Anywhere
It's Easy. It's Fun. - Free Download.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/BxtVhB/7XkDAA/_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/