Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Late roman military recruitment crisis

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 846
  Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Late roman military recruitment crisis
    Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 15:04
Would Christianity also have played a role in the crisis? With most of the empire's citizens being Christianized, fewer would be willing to "do evil" such as killing enemies.
As early Christianity was certainly militanty pacifist.
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 19:38
The army Belisarios commanded had a large hunnish contingent but was still majority "native" east roman troops. 
 
I believe christianity played a part in the fall of the western empire, but there didn't seem to be a problem of getting christians to fight in the army.  Though I could be wrong.
 
The eastern empire used barbarians but, as far as I know, not to such an extent as the western empire.  Another subtle difference, is the eastern empire deployed its forces slightly differently than the west.  The eastern empire kept the majority of its troops as border soldiers (limitanei) versus the west which had a majority of comitatus (mobile field armies in the rear), some believe this is a reason for the wests' collapse and the easts' survival.  The east was also wealthier than the west.  Another point is the east could apparently recruit more native soldiers than the west, the balkans and anatolia were apparently more willing to join the army and fight well than say the iberian peninsula.  The eastern capital (constantinople) was also much easier to defend than rome, though the de facto western capital was Ravenna, which was also very difficult to take.  Also, the east was hit first by nomadic incursions, the east being wealthier could simply pay off the barbarians and make a stand, if the eastern empire could bribe off the nomads or put up a fight the nomads would simply head to the west and invade the western empire.  So you could say the western empire had a much more difficult time in defending itself, less wealth and arguably more enemies. 
 
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
dexippus View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 17-Feb-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 205
  Quote dexippus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 20:36
The assertion that Christianity somehow made the Roman army meek and mild is simply ridiculous. One only has to look a tough military emperors like Constantine, who threw tax cheats to wild beasts, and Valentinian who kept two bears, Innocence and Goldflake, to which he fed recalcitrant Frankish chieftains. Both men were sincere Christians, but both men were tough soldiers ready to do the kind of violence necessary to hold the empire together. Some ex soliders like Pachomius or St. Martin might leave the Army upon conversion to Christianity, but these were ascetics and holy men and therefore exceptional. 

Edited by dexippus - 05-Nov-2007 at 19:00
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900
  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 11:32
Originally posted by Patch

Isn't the reverse the case - the citizens didn't look to the barbarian states to protect them until the Empire was doomed.  Given that there were no more Roman troops to protect them they had to come to an accomadation with their new barbarian rulers or die.
Since 3rd century also rebellious movements based on an ethnic (not-Roman, of course) or religious specificity took place in the Empire: like the Bagaudes in Gaul (and in 5th century spreaded from Gaul to the south of Pyrenees), or the Circumcelliones in the North Africa. From 3rd century, the barbarians also started to be installed on Roman soil - the laeti, the foederati. Thus before the creation of the barbarian states, while the Roman army was still working, some Romans chose the "barbarian way" to escape the high taxation or for some other personal interest (some Romans had more contacts in day-by-day life with non-Romans than with Romans). If we're to believe Salvianus (a Christian author), by early 440s this was a widely-spread phenomenon.
 
 
Originally posted by Justinian

The eastern empire used barbarians but, as far as I know, not to such an extent as the western empire.  Another subtle difference, is the eastern empire deployed its forces slightly differently than the west.  The eastern empire kept the majority of its troops as border soldiers (limitanei) versus the west which had a majority of comitatus (mobile field armies in the rear), some believe this is a reason for the wests' collapse and the easts' survival.  The east was also wealthier than the west.  Another point is the east could apparently recruit more native soldiers than the west, the balkans and anatolia were apparently more willing to join the army and fight well than say the iberian peninsula.  The eastern capital (constantinople) was also much easier to defend than rome, though the de facto western capital was Ravenna, which was also very difficult to take.  Also, the east was hit first by nomadic incursions, the east being wealthier could simply pay off the barbarians and make a stand, if the eastern empire could bribe off the nomads or put up a fight the nomads would simply head to the west and invade the western empire.  So you could say the western empire had a much more difficult time in defending itself, less wealth and arguably more enemies. 
However in the West, the richness is in the hands of few careless aristocrats distancing themselves from the events of their time of the fate of the Empire. There were families with yearly incomes of over 5,000 gold pounds in a time when the Empire cannot find few thousand gold pounds to pay the mercenaries (such a payment could have avoided the sack of Rome by Alaric troops). And they spent carelessly this wealth in festivities and celebrations and luxuries.
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Nov-2007 at 21:51
Originally posted by Chilbudios

However in the West, the richness is in the hands of few careless aristocrats distancing themselves from the events of their time of the fate of the Empire. There were families with yearly incomes of over 5,000 gold pounds in a time when the Empire cannot find few thousand gold pounds to pay the mercenaries (such a payment could have avoided the sack of Rome by Alaric troops). And they spent carelessly this wealth in festivities and celebrations and luxuries.
Dead on, completely agree.


Edited by Justinian - 05-Nov-2007 at 21:51
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.