Historians often claim that the army of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century suffered from "Barbarisation" which means that their army was made up of barbarian mercenaries rather (Foedaratii) rather than Roman Legionaries. this was due to many Legionaries having lost their lives in civil wars, diminished tax revenues and economic inflation which made it impossible for the Imperial Government to pay to recruit normal Soldiers, and the reluctance of Roman citizens to join the army. but since then, we have found significant proof that the Roman Army of this period wasn't as "Barbarised" as historians believe. which means there may have been at least a small number of Roman soldiers in the army at the time of Romulus Augustulus's deposition and perhaps even under Odoacer. any thoughts?
What was the actual state of the Western Roman Army of 410-476?
- Thread starter Count Romanus
- Start date
There were significant numbers of Germanic soldiers in the Roman army. Whether this caused the army to deteriorate is another matter entirely.
Indeed there were, Olympiodorus claims that the number of Germanic Foedaratii increased during the reign of Honorius, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a decent number of Roman soldiers at that time too, as for the subject of the army's decline, that was more due to economic issues rather than issues of recruitment.
"How many is enough for a "decent number"?" feels like a valid question here. If 10-20% of the army is Roman - even Italian - that's going to look like a significant number in some contexts, but not for whether or not the army is more "barbarian" than "Roman" (and not necessarily for addressing that those are not always crisply distinct in either direction).
My suspicion as far as answers is that there's some percentage of non-Foedaratii, but I don't know the period well enough to suggest more than "some percentage".
My suspicion as far as answers is that there's some percentage of non-Foedaratii, but I don't know the period well enough to suggest more than "some percentage".
Last edited:
”barbarization” is a bit subjective. A lot of recruits into the Roman army were from Germanic immigrants, a lot weren’t. The late Roman army had sort of “barbarized” itself, since it had its own germanized military culture, germanized dialect of Latin, and played up its own barbarianness because of the stereotypes that the Germans were warriors. Non-soldiers generally saw Roman soldiers as barbarians, regardless of their genetics. The modern historical consensus is that this didn’t make those soldiers inherently less loyal to the empire. However, it did blur the lines, and when the emperors stopped being able to pay most of their army it was easier for these soldiers to simply join the Foederatii armies. You didn’t have to be descended from the 376 Gothic invaders to be a goth, for example, the shared experience between the army mattered more. That’s part of why they grew in power so quickly
Last edited:
Yeah. Barbarian soldiers weren't inherently disloyal. Any soldiers in the Roman army, Barbarian or Roman, tended to go rogue when not paid properly. Joining up with the various Germanic kings offered a chance for land and loot that the Empire itself could no longer provide after Africa was conquered.
Intresting, do you have any more information on the "germanized military culture" of the Roman army you mentioned? 👀
I too would be interested in seeing this, as a late antiquity nerd and someone writing a timeline on the Western Roman Empire.
There was the practice of the troops clapping their shields on their knees or rapping their swords against their shields, a barbarian practice that was used by the troops to show their approval of an action or decision made by their commander or the Emperor. there was also the practice of proclaiming a ruler by raising them upon a shield. the Emperor Julian was proclaimed Emperor in this manner. there were also Germanic war cries and weapons such as the oval shield rather than the Roman rectangular shield that we all know. and as did the people of Late Antiquity, the troops of this period wore long sleeved tunics, trousers, and boots, originally considered barbarian and effeminate, and it may have been common to wear beards.
Cool. You also said they had their own version of Latin?
There would've been a significant number of Roman citizens serving in the army, but my suspicions are that most of these Roman recruits would've come from Gaul, Hispania, and Dalmatia. Provinces where strong military defense was required. where they served is the question though, probably in the Emperor's bodyguards and in City garrisons. the belief that none of the soldiers in the army at this time were Roman is inaccurate. sure, the economic instability and lack of willing recruits served to reduce the number of Romans in the army, but there definitely were Romans as we have proof, such as the battle of Ravenna between Odoacer and Count Paulus in 476, Paulus's men were Roman citizens and thus Legionaries, and the Imperial Government did take action to ensure that there were still Romans in the army. in 444, Valentinian III ended the immunity of bureaucrats from the recruitment tax and made the Senatorial class pay for the maintenance of soldiers so that new troops could be recruited and supplied. all this serves to prove that the army of the late WRE was Roman, just not as Roman as it had been in the times of Augustus or Diocletian.
The Roman army was not as barbarized as previously thought (though as Collondi pointed out, historians such as Guy Hasell have tracked how the army kind of barbarized itself. But that's another matter), but neither would "barbarization" have played a significant downfall in western Rome. The western army, pound for pound, was as militarily effective as it had ever been (by that I mean, in a head to head battle, a late western field army could probably quite easily wipe the floor with an equally sized army from, say, the golden age of imperial Rome). The problem was not quality of the troops or tactics relative to their opponents, it was both a diminishing ability to replace losses, meaning they couldn't really ever risk decisive encounters, and diminishing finances, especially after the loss of Africa to the Vandals.
I don't have a contribution, but rather a question: I vaguely remember hearing that, when Alaric and his men sacked Rome, most of his army was of Roman origin. Is that true?
What was the situation for the legions and soldiers themselves, to what degree did the military structure collapse? Was there a rise in completely different units (mercenaries) or did the legions just become more barbarian over time?
Like for example was majorian using an army of understrength and half functional very barbarised 'roman' legions or independent mercenaries?
Like for example was majorian using an army of understrength and half functional very barbarised 'roman' legions or independent mercenaries?
They would have seen themselves as part of a professional Roman army as opposed to the more semi independent barbarian armies that also existed at the time. This is what separates Theodoric's Ostrogoths from Odovacer's personal rule in Italy. One was operating as a semi-autonomous separate force, the other was operating entirely within the Roman power structure as a Roman officer/official despite his barbarian background.
Due to economic inflation and other problems, the Imperial Government had to resort to hiring barbarian Mercenaries, which were cheaper than training professional Roman troops, which were still around of course, but reduced in number. as for your question about Majorian's army, the army under his command would've been mostly made of barbarian Mercenaries, but also with Roman soldiers, when Majorian "disbanded" his army after his planned campaign against the Vandals was aborted, he likely only disbanded the Mercenaries in his army, the Roman Legions he had would've been sent back to their posts in Gaul and Hispania, with a decent amount kept behind as Majorian's bodyguards, this is my opinion at the very least.
Not sure if this is a hot take, but the Western Roman Army didn't suck. Rather, the barbarians were far more numerous, stronger, and more organized than before, which explains the Roman defeats. Civil wars and a worsening economy also depleted the Roman Army further.
The barbarians weren't really the problem. For one, they weren't generally interested in destroying the empire. The vast, vast majority of barbarians very much wanted to become part of the empire, for both economic and security reasons. For another, the Romans still tended to absolutely obliterate the barbarians more often than not when the two did clash.
Most historians agree that the WRE's collapse came about due to internal factors. The "barbarians", more often than not, were just the legal, imperial government, as far as Rome was concerned. Odoacer was notably a Roman general who acted, or claimed to act, on orders of the Eastern Emperor when he deposed Romulus Augustus.
Well, yes and no. The barbarians did not outdo the Roman Army in terms of strength. The economic inflation and inability of the Imperial Government to maintain control of the Provinces meant the barbarians already had their work cut out for them. The Western Roman Army was just as capable in the times of Aetius and Majorian as it had been in those of Constantine and Valentinian I. But the fact that very few Romans were willing to join the Army in this century made it necessary for the Government to avoid losing these troops by hiring barbarian mercenaries to do the more intense fighting. The civil war in 472 between Anthemius and Ricimer pitched the Roman Soldiers against the barbarian ones. The last we hear of these Roman Soldiers is in 476 when Orestes tried to put down Odoacer's revolt with the depleted remnants of the Roman Army. What became of these Soldiers is unknown. But the point is that Roman Soldiers who were actually Roman were not completely non-existent (the Army itself was still commanded by Roman Generals) they were either very rare or not as used in combat as the barbarian mercenaries.