Augustus vs Julius

[vogtmurr]

Maiorianus wasn't even remotely 'barbarian'. Stilicho's Vandal patrimony seems not to have affected contemporaries' perceptions of 'Romanness', whatever that means. Aetius was even less 'barbarian' than he was, being a descendant of Romans that left Dacia when that province was abandoned generations before. None of these emperors, further, can serve as a particularly good barometer of supposed 'barbarization of the Roman army'; the best example of that is the period of Isaurian domination in the Eastern Roman Empire. So it's even further useless if you want to claim that it helped cause the collapse of the Western Empire; it didn't.

No, I wasn't saying all of that. I pointed out they were some of the best too, but it was an observation that the influence of Rome's barbarian neighbours must have been felt in the frontier armies by this time as well. And these provincial origins could lead to provincial loyalties - far too often in the 4th century AD the 'Romans' were at war with themselves, which I believe is the biggest cause of the military collapse, not the barbarians.

Anyway I thought Aetius had Gothic blood
btw I'm still looking for that thread I know I've seen before.

 

[Dachs]

And these provincial origins could lead to provincial loyalties - far too often in the 4th century AD the 'Romans' were at war with themselves, which I believe is the biggest cause of the military collapse, not the barbarians.

Civil wars typically were not generated by provincial loyalties during this period.

Anyway I thought Aetius had Gothic blood

He might have, but it's doubtful and certainly only a matter of conjecture.

btw I'm still looking for that thread I know I've seen before.

Merry Christmas.

 

[vogtmurr]

Civil wars typically were not generated by provincial loyalties during this period.

'this time' being after 410 AD ? OK - what about the 4th Century AD - the allegiance of provincial legions to provincial leaders became paramount in the civil wars that allowed the Anglo-Saxons eventual entry into Britannia, and the Franks into northern Gaul, as well as the auxillary army. Anyway your point is taken, that claiming the mobile reserve (when there still was one) was 'barbarianized' is overstating it. Far more so was it in the latter Eastern Roman empire, and it didn't hurt their survival odds as we well know

Merry Christmas.

thanks

 

[Dachs]

No problem.

'this time' being after 410 AD ?

Sure, if you want.

OK - what about the 4th Century AD - the allegiance of provincial legions to provincial leaders became paramount in the civil wars that allowed the Anglo-Saxons eventual entry into Britannia, and the Franks into northern France, as well as the auxillary army.

Except that's not how it happened? The allegiance of the troops to the usurpers is oft-overrated. For every Constantinus III, there were ten dead guys who tried to claim the purple and were murdered by their own men within a few hours. And even when the Constantinuses of the world did manage reasonable success, their troops still did not operate along regional lines. He, for instance, took his troops from Britain into Gaul, Spain, and northern Italy in a supreme bid for power, managed to touch his pinky to the purple, and then spent 410 and 411 finding out just how far you can fall. His troops did not evince any particular desire to defend Britain, their "regional" home, and they abandoned him easily enough for Gerontius and Constantius in 410 and 411.

And the 'Gallic Empire' was not a regional movement either; after two hundred fifty years of Romanization, the Celts all suddenly got out their swords and their woad? No; the Gallic Empire was another grab for power, this time by the would-be emperor Postumus, who simply was unable to break into Italy successful but at the same time was too powerful for the embattled Gallienus to defeat. Aurelian settled his successors' hash quickly enough, and it is telling that no other major Gallic revolt was raised.

The only other major revolt that's ever been classified as 'regional' was that of Carausius and Allectus, about which Plotinus has written at some length, and I will confess that this is perhaps the best evidence for any sort of regionalism in Later Roman military forces. It is notable, however, that that Britannic Empire was rather quickly and easily abandoned by the people itself upon Julius Asclepiodotus' victory at Calleva Atrebatum. From what I understand, Allectus' army after Calleva Atrebatum defected back to the Roman central government (!), and the only troops he had left to fight for him were the Frankish mercenaries he had, who were not numerous enough to hold Londinium against Asclepiodotus.

Also, the Anglo-Saxons and Franks - or at least, their settlement within Roman territory - were primarily fifth-century phenomena.

 

[vogtmurr]

Also, the Anglo-Saxons and Franks - or at least, their settlement within Roman territory - were primarily fifth-century phenomena.

true - though I thought the Franks were earlier. It was certainly easier for them once the Legions had been withdrawn to fight in those civil wars.

EDIT: just thought I'd add this quote on Aetius, he had an interesting background that was an asset to the latter Roman Empire;

"Between 405 and 408 he was kept as hostage at the court of the king of the Goths, Alaric I; in 408 Alaric asked to have back Aëtius as hostage, but this time he was refused, as Aëtius was sent as a hostage at the court of the king of the Huns, Rua.[6] Gibbon and some other historians maintain that Aëtius's upbringing among vigorous and warlike peoples such as the Huns gave him a martial vigour lacking in Rome itself at that period."

 

[Dachs]

true - though I thought the Franks were earlier. It was certainly easier for them once the Legions had been withdrawn to fight in those civil wars.

Actually, Constantinus III used the invasion of the Franks et al as cover for his civil war. Radagaisus also helped.

"Between 405 and 408 he was kept as hostage at the court of the king of the Goths, Alaric I; in 408 Alaric asked to have back Aëtius as hostage, but this time he was refused, as Aëtius was sent as a hostage at the court of the king of the Huns, Rua.[6] Gibbon and some other historians maintain that Aëtius's upbringing among vigorous and warlike peoples such as the Huns gave him a martial vigour lacking in Rome itself at that period."

Gibbon is, IMHO, an idiot when it comes to editorializing. Constantius was a perfectly good, even genial general. Maiorianus was both martial and vigorous. Anthemius certainly had 'martial vigor'. But it's true that Aetius had an experience that probably helped him a lot in terms of being able to better understand his opponents.

 

[Muntzer]

Who was the better leader and why? Was it fate to have two of the greatest leaders in history back to back?

I'd prefer Julius Ceasar, a social reformer in the spirit of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus who was assassinated because he threatened the landed aristocracy's power in the Senate.

 

[Lord Baal]

I'd prefer Julius Ceasar, a social reformer in the spirit of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus who was assassinated because he threatened the landed aristocracy's power in the Senate.

Please don't bump old threads with such an innocuous comment. It's annoying.