[gothic-l] Late Roman Empire Weakness (Including Cavalry Failure)

[Tim O'Neill]

On Thursday, March 28, 2002 1:26 AM, Bertil Haggman [SMTP:mvk575b at tninet.se] wrote:

> Thank you for your detailed reply to my latest contribution.

You're very welcome.

> I like to bring up Chapter 17 of Jones book. It is
> analysing the literary evidence. I concur with his
> outlook on the late Roman empire. The army was
> dominated by Goths and other non-Roman officers.
> The demilitarized citizens of the empire could no longer
> be coerced or cajoled into military service. The army
> was of course not totally ineffective and in numbers
> was still fairly large.

Hugh Elton questions Jones' conclusions regarding
the 'dominance' of non-Roman officers and the often-
made assumption that somehow 'barbarisation' of the
army lessened its effectiveness.  The army in the West
at the end of the Fourth Century was huge on paper,
but it's uncertain how much this reflected reality.  The
increasing need to supplement the regular forces with
barbarian federates in the fifth century is just one
indication that the Western Empire increasingly struggled to
maintain its military strength, largely because of
spiraling economic decline, manpower shortages due to
ongoing population decline and administrative and
political problems.

When late Roman generals had the resources they
needed, however, the late Roman army almost always
proved itself militarily effective.

> But it is not uncommon that historians and politicians
> make incorrect evaluation of the strength of an
> army based on numbers only.

The numbers of available troops and the dwindling
resources available to sustains and replace them were
precisely the problem.  The tactical ability of the troops
themselves, especially the elite cavalry units, was *not*
the issue.

> There was a massive need of replacements, and further
> troops to battle the usurpers who appeared in many
> parts of the empire. These replacements were to a
> great extent Goths, who soon came to dominate many units
> and then the higher command.

Not just Goths - Huns, Alans, Franks, Herulians, Skirians
and members of many other tribes were prominent in the
army.

> Certain groups exploited
> their privileged positions. For example Alaric and the Goths
> to capture Rome in 410 AD and the successful creation
> of a Visigothic kingdom in southern Gaul.

This is all very true.  But what has it got to do with
this supposed late Roman weakness in cavalry?

> Gainas the Goth was less successfull in Constantinople, where
> the greater diversity of military resources (for the time being
> managed to overcome the Goths.

The 'greater *diversity* of military had little to do with it.  The
Eastern Army was made up of essentially the same 'diversity'
of military resources as the Western Army, with largely the
same mix of cavalry troop types and infantry units.  What made
the difference in the East was economics - most of the wealth
of the Roman Empire was in the East - and administrative and
political decisions - the East became adept at deflecting
troublesome barbarian groups towards the West and adopted
a hardline policy on the absorption of barbarian troops into the
army and the control of 'barbarian' officers' ambitions.

The fact that the East and West had essentially very similar
armies (in terms of troop types) in the Fifth Century is another
nail in the coffin of this weird idea that the West fell because of
its 'weakness in cavalry'.  The question then has to be asked -
'So why didn't the East fall as well?'  The answer is that there
was no difference in the use of cavalry in the armies of the West
and the East - the difference was in the East's higher population,
vaster economic strength and tighter control of grand strategy.

Cavalry had absolutely nothing to do with it.

> Of course you are entitled to your opinion based on your readings

Oh, thanks.  I guess Southern, Dixon, Macdowell, Elton, Ferrill,
Jones and Burns are entitled to theirs as well.  I'm in good company.

> Certainly the downfall of the Roman Empire might have had
> other reasons.

'Might'???!!!


> The failure of the economy (as you menttion
> "largely economic and administrative")

Yes, I imagine this MAY have had something to do with it.
Which is probably why so many prominent historians think so
too.

Remind me - who exactly agrees with you on this 'the Empire
fell because of a weakness in cavalry' stuff?  You've been so
busy getting the discussion to drift away from that point that
you seem to have forgotten to address this point.


> but this does not
> exclude the possibility referred to by Professor Quigley
> in his book "The Evolution of Civilizations".

Who is this 'Quigley'?  He's a specialist in late Antiquity?
Or is he an expert in the late Roman army?  I can't say I've
ever heard of him.  Who is he and what is his area of study?

> I have not claimed that the weakness of cavalry was
> "a major factor" but only pointed out that Quigley saw
> cavalry and the lack of efficient agriculture as result of
> a more effective use of the soil north of the Alps.

Your quote from this 'Quigley' which began this discussion
was as follows:

"The Roman army, which had conquered most of the known
world by means of the legion, was unable, and probably
unwilling, to transform itself into a force of heavily armed
cavalry when this became necessary in the late fourth century
of our era. As a result, the Roman army, and the civilization
it was supposed to defend, were wiped from the earth by the
charging horsemen of the [Goths and other Germanics], beginning
with the dreadful defeat at Adrianople. The inability of fighting
men to reorganize their ideas and their forces from infantry to
cavalry was one of the vital factors in the replacement of pagan
Classical civilization by Christian Western civilizations."

At best this is a collection of generalisations so broad as
to be effectively useless, studded with errors of fact and
generally informed by the outdated Nineteenth Century
romance of Charles Oman.  'Quigley' sounds like someone
who has little in depth knowledge of Late Antiquity and has
put together this pastiche of ideas from some rather dated
and high level second hand sources.

This statement of Quigley's is erroneous in its central point
 - the late Fourth Century was *precisely* when we find the
late Roman Army greatly increasing its strength in cavalry,
not only by the addition of heavy cavalry, but also by the
addition of cavalry skirmishers, mounted archers and other
mounted troop types.  His implication that the Germanic
forces were also largely made up of heavy cavalry is also
completely incorrect - the overwhelming majority of all
Germanic armies were foot warriors, and this was also true
even of those Germanic tribes (a minority) whose nobles
had adopted steppe horse tactics.  The rise in the role of
cavalry in the late Roman army was not in response to any
overwhelming use of cavalry by their barbarian opponents
but was a reaction to the need for greater strategic mobility
to deal with an increasing number of external and internal
threats.

> No, I wasn't expecting so much detail on the late 5th
> century AD but maybe you could help in providing. More
> details on cavalry strength around 400 to 476 AD seem
> not to be available so I cannot see why you are so
> sure of your point of view.

You keep trying to pretend it's *my* view.  The leading
military historians who have, independently, come to these
conclusions base it on the information on the *Notitia*,
which, in relation to the Western Roman army at least,
seems to have been updated well into the Fifth Century
judging from the evidence of the extant manuscripts.  In
addition to this we have other evidence, such as the way
the old (largely infantry) Praetorian Guard were replaced
by the (totally cavalry) *scholae*, or the way cavalry
actions and tactical details of the cavalry become
increasingly central to the battle narratives of historians
such as Procopius and Agathias.

Perhaps if you read the books I've recommended all this
will become a lot clearer.  I imagine they will prove rather
more informative on these questions than 'Quigley', if the
quote above is anything to go by.

> I also note that you concur conderning the strategic
> weakness of the late Roman Empire as a factor.

Of course it was a factor - I've been saying that from the
beginning.  But that weakness in strategy arose from
dwindling resources, a manpower shortage and poor
policy.  It did NOT arise from this supposed tactical
weakness in cavalry, since that is a complete fiction.

> Concering the _Storm over Europe_-series book I will
> be happy at a later stage to provide more on views
> of the prominent scholars who participated in creating both
> the book and the TV-series.

Great.  And that would be relevant because .... ?

> No, I am quite confident in replying at once to your
> contribution and will be happy to provide more material
> on the basic question of the downfall of the Roman Empire.

And as much as you keep trying to steer the discussion
towards that broader question and away from the original
point at issue, I can assure you I'll keep dragging you back
to the original point.  The quote above from your 'Quigley'
is the point at issue.  It's nonsense, but you tried to defend it.

Do you now agree it's nonsense?

> For the time being I think I have the answers I need.
> Thank you very much. Wishing you a pleasant Easter.

Enjoying it immensely so far, I can assure you.
Best regards,

Tim O'Neill

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4.
No Minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/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/