- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
Explanation: In the Principate or the Early Roman Empire - what most people think of when you say ‘Roman Empire’ - the Roman Legions were a fearsome force. Overwhelmingly made of well-paid citizen volunteers guaranteed a cozy retirement with a mixture of career officers (centurions, prefects, and some tribunes) and political appointments (some tribunes and the legate - the general in charge) at the upper ranks, each Legion was a mostly self-sufficient engine of war that could (partially) supply its own needs and repairs, and even undertake independent campaigning action if absolutely necessary. The Legions maintained a high standard for professionalism and discipline by the standards of the Classical world, and was a feared fighting machine of unmatched efficiency.
By contrast, while the Late Roman Army was facing generally better-equipped foes (at least on the northern borders), it was also a dispirited force of life-conscripts released only when they were no more use to the meat-grinder, reduced to dependency on centralized supply lines, split into penny-packets which were little use if caught on their own, and often flooded with barbarians forced or bribed (or more often, some mixture of the two) into service. The infantry of the Late Roman Army were not incompetent, but lacked the reliability, flexibility, or efficiency of the Legions of old; and the entire broken system of organization and command led to the very manpower base of the Late Roman Army falling apart, leaving the Late Empire eventually reliant on barbarian troops who, while as effective as the barbarian enemies they faced, the Empire did not trust and could not use like the Legions of old.
What does it mean “barbarian troops”? Like any Non-Roman soldier?
Pardon, I don’t know much about Roman history.
No need to apologize! Spreading historical trivia is what I’m here for!
‘Barbarian’ referred to all non-Greek and non-Roman peoples, but in this case I use it in reference primarily to the peoples coming in from the northern borders of the Roman Empire. These were mostly Germanic, with some Scythian (Eastern European and Central Asian, roughly), Slavic, and Hunnic tribes amongst them.
Traditionally, what the Roman Empire did was recruit citizens as professional legionaries, non-citizens as professional auxiliaries (who were granted citizenship for themselves and their family when their service was completed) led by citizen-officers and organized under Roman methods; and outsiders as foederati - something like ‘allies’ or ‘contract troops’ - who fought under their own leaders, with their own methods of combat and own organization.
Essentially, the Late Empire becomes entirely dependent on (mostly Germanic) foederati for its defense, who fought in the same manner and organization as the invading (also mostly Germanic) tribes did. Which meant that Rome was not really in control of these forces, so much as it was in a kind of pseudo-vassal situation with them - their barbarian kings swore to protect Rome, and so those kings’ forces would defend Rome and obey Roman commands… for as long as their king did. Which was generally only as long as Rome was their best ‘offer’ around. That sort of thing.
Feels like a comment in ask historians, but in the memespace
Relevant Perun video dropped yesterday and shows how this same effect is still relevant today.
TL:DW Being “on top” usually leads to complacency, while your potential opponents always seek new ways to gain an advantage against you.
Isn’t the idea behind this meme format that the simpleton and the master say the same thing verbatim?
