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
They were not allied contingents, but were barbarians who were allowed by treaty to live within the Empire. 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. 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. This was the most notable of the impacts upon the army, as it gave Rome a new resource to draw upon without exhausting its own. It seems that such a claim is slowly disappearing over time, thanks to new discoveries in Roman culture and history. In the comitatenses, barbarians were either foederati , who were established regiments within the army, or they were allied contingents. One of the main terms of these treatise was that the barbarian peoples to whom this treaty pertained were obliged to "render military assistance. Randers-Pehrson, a modern historian, states that barbarians in the army were ". It is almost impossible for us to believe that the Romans would make such a military blunder as to conscript such a dangerous and unreliable people. Though it can be argued that the barbarians were recruited only because of shortage of manpower, the use of mercenary troops is nothing new to Rome. Modern Historians who support the claim use the treacheries of the Goths and Vandals to lend credence to their claim, yet we have no evidence of actual racial motivations. barization" of the Roman army, then move on to the contemporary sources. She goes on to say how the Goths were "unruly and wild, coming and going as they liked and abandoning the traditional drills, making the army less and less respectable each day" .
Common topics in this essay:
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,
|
Acceptance Essays
