Barbarization of the Roman Army
The fourth and fifth centuries saw a profound change in the great Roman army. What was once a predominantly Roman institution became increasingly "barbarized", a term used by historians for the Germanization of Roman culture, with more and more northern peoples being used in the army, which, some modern historians claim had a negative impact on the Empire itself. Many modern historians claim that this was a key factor in the decline and fall of Rome itself. But to understand the impact this had on the Empire, one must first look at how and why the army underwent such a change. The army went from using German mercenary units as extra troops to the barbarians becoming the backbone of later armies . Was it just a sign of the times, or was it a forced situation, as some historians have thought? Or was it just a continuation of Roman tradition of synthesis and absorption of outside cultures? Rome has always used troops from other cultures and adopted their tactics if superior to theirs. In my paper I shall try to prove that the "barbarization" of the army was no different than what Rome had done throughout its history, and that the Germanization had little impact upon the empire. First I shall look at modern interpretations of the "bar
The basic Roman armed force was divided into two parts: the field army (comitatenses) and the border troops (limitanei). In the comitatenses, barbarians were either foederati , who were established regiments within the army, or they were allied contingents. The allied barbarians were different from the foederati in that they were not a permanent addition to the army, being instead troops used in specific campaigns and then disbanded. This alignment with the Romans was usually due to a treaty of some sort, where the barbarians had to supply troops until the end of the campaign, and then they were disbanded. Such regiments were hardly "Romanized" in the sense that the foederati was, and as such were left to fight in a single unit upon the field. Their own leaders, who were subordinate to the Roman officers, even led them on the field of battle. The use of such allied contingents "in place of or supplementary to Roman troops was an effective use of power by the Roman Empire, achieving results without expending their own resources", as Hugh Elton puts it . From modern historiography we can conclude that contemporary writers were anti-barbarian for many political reasons, so we must be cautious in taking their mistrust in barbarian troops at face value; there is no contemporary military writer claiming that the barbarians were detrimental to the army; and the barbarians on a racial level had no real reason to throw away their Roman citizenship through treachery. Yet so many historians claim that the barbarization of the Roman army was a key factor in the decline, even still today when we have data that argues a different thesis . barization" of the Roman army, then move on to the contemporary sources. From there I shall form the core of my thesis: there was no significant change in the army, and this led to no real impact on the empire. The Roman army of the fourth and fifth centuries did use barbarians to an extent, but there is little evidence to show that the army had become barbarized. The most we have is the German war cry and records of the use of German regiments. Less than one-third of the officers were barbarian and the troops were either foederati, which is nothing new to the army, or mercenary units, which was no threat to the army. The claim that the army was barbarized because it began using German troops a hasty one. It is not seeing the whole scope of Rome, just one side of the story. It seems that such a claim is slowly disappearing over time, thanks to new discoveries in Roman culture and history. Rome's army was based on the notion of assimilation of indigenous peoples when they were conquered. To quote Peter Well's "When Rome conquered a region, it was common practice to draft the men and boys into the army" . So if this is true, which it is as Roman tradition has shown us, why is it that historians claim that by assimilating barbarians into the army, it became "less-Roman" ? Wouldn't it be just the same "Roman", no more, no less? Rome was a culture not an ethnicity, and by using German troops in the army it was the Germans who actually became Roman, if not in the traditional sense. The bloodlines of the "Roman" troops in the army were just as foreign as the Germans, as many had Persian, Greek, Carthaginian, or Celtic ancestry. Would that mean that the army was "Persian-ized" or "Celtic-ized"? Yet, even if it had no real significant impact on Rome, the army was nevertheless prone to using increasing numbers of barbarians in the fourth and f
Some common words found in the essay are:
Germanization Roman, Hugh Elton, Thomas Hodgkin, Ammianus Marcellinus, Rome Roman, Clovis Franks, Rome German, Barritus Roman, Synesius Procopius, EA Thompson, roman army, modern historians, impact empire, barbarization army, fifth centuries, fourth fifth centuries, fourth fifth, historians claim, army modern, allied contingents, roman troops, real impact empire, impact empire modern, key factor decline, barbarization roman army,
Approximate Word count = 2354
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
