Less Civilized Factions

[Aemilius Paulus]

Actually no, unless you can provide credible statements.

Define "credible"? What use to me to cite my things when I know you will not read it? First read some material, then come back and after that I will cite things. What do you need cited? Tell me, and I will try. I have a stack of books from my Uni library that I have been reading for the past month, so I can even look up the page number, if I had all this evening to myself.

The Late Roman army was still capable of defeating "barbarians", and the majority of late roman soldiers was never of "barbarian", but of roman origin. Roman armies always had a sizeable amount of foreign auxliaries and that time was no exception.

I never said that was not true. Romans lost, but also won even more against barbarian tribes. But the Romans could not afford to lose, and their losses were more numerous and disastrous in a time when their foes were uncounted, coming in waves, one after another.

The cause of the decline of the Western Empire was not military but economical. With the money for self-defense decreasing, there was no way troops could be sustained thus, and the majority of "conquests" at the time by "barbarians" was made not by destroying resistances but by simply occupying what was being constantly neglected or undefended. At Chalôns, however, Atilla got it handed to him and the Eastern Roman Army reached its peak under Narses and Belisarius.

I never meant this to be an argument for the decline of the Roman Empire. Obviously, there were many factors, and it is pointless to debate on it, especially with a regular person like you and me, and not a professor. Do not lecture me, we all know the reasons, and I have never stated that it was the weak military that brought the Romans down. I find it suspicious that you seemingly so grossly misinterpreted my post.

But while we are at it, no, it was not economical. Well, it was, but to say that it was one thing is clearly erroneous. For one thing, why do you say the money was decreasing? What is your source - this is not an obvious statement. Economy indeed was not prospering, but this was a symptom of something instead of the malady itself. Even with the weaker economy, the Romans actually held more troops, which goes directly against what you have said. In fact, it is supposed that one of the causes of the fall of the Western Romans was the fact they had too much troops. Augustus had only about 150,000, and Diocletian particularly greatly increased that amount, thus destroying the treasury, instead of what you said, or the treasury destroying the army.

And did you ever notice that it so happen that the fall of the Roman Empire coincided with momentous Migration Period, with uncounted tribes of barbarians and nomads shifting and ravaging lands, pushed by yet more peoples form the East. At the same time, the Parthians evolved into the Persians, for a time free of civil strife, ready to take on the Romans in maximum efficiency. That really was the single major factor in the fall of Rome. At no other time the Romans had to face so many significant enemies at once, with more foes to come, all driven by the nomadic tribes originating all the way from Mongolia and Eastern-Central Asia.

Myth, of course. Was the re-institution of Decimation by Crassus a sign of decline and cowardice of all Roman armies?

WTH? It is not a myth, but one of the most common problems of the 5th century and later. What makes you think it is a myth?? In what book did you ever read "the saying that Roman recruits cut off their fingers is nothing but a myth"? You do not know if what I said is true or not. What makes you think you are correct? This is ridiculous... It is like saying that decimation was a myth...

This is so obvious, as there is so much clear evidence, and you refute it? Have you actually read anything on Late Roman Times? My sources for the "cutting off thumbs" thing is Pat Southern, The Roman Army: A Social & Institutional History. It is a clear fact that many laws were created to prevent potential recruits from cutting their thumbs off. Many Emperors battled this occurrence, and usually failed. This was a serious problem.


Decimation is one thing. Soldiers always run from battle when things are desperate. If not all, then at least some. Crassus instituted decimation to punish those who shamed themselves in front of Spartacus. Routs always happen. What did not happen, however, (or until Later Dominate), was such unwillingness of people to join the legions. Romans always had plenty of recruits, even in the direst of times, during the Hannibalic War. Some were unwilling during that Second Punic War, but still, they fought. In regular times, there was no trouble recruiting men.

But by the time of Valentinian and Theodosius I, very few wanted to join the army, specifically the limitanei, which was were most fresh recruits are hypothesised to have went. There were dire problems in recruiting of sufficient numbers of men. And face it, to chop off your thumb, you simply have to be more desperate than a cornered rat.