Barbarization of the Roman Army

Rome was built upon the foundation of different peoples under one culture, and that one culture was ever changing. This means that we can only estimate how much the army was essentially barbarized and how much of it was only allies. One of the main terms of these treatise was that the barbarian peoples to whom this treaty pertained were obliged to “render military assistance…but their own tribal leaders would receive only subordinate commands” . Thomas Hodgkin writes, “… the so-called Romans army was in fact a collection of aliens and enemies to Rome [trained and armed by Rome] but only so much the more dangerous to the country which it professed to defend” . There is no real evidence that the barbarization of the army had any real impact on the Empire, and that (later on) it was over-taxation and mistreatment of the German peoples that led to their rebellion, not natural disdain for Rome. 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. Yet the majority of the barbarians in the field army, as previously stated, were temporary additions to the army, not one of any permanence (which would be the case if the lack of manpower theory were to be believed).

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. Rome’s army was based on the notion of assimilation of indigenous peoples when they were conquered.

In order to discuss the barbarians and their impact upon the army, we must look first at modern historiography, as it is a more concrete foundation in which I can build my thesis (since modern historians have the ability of hindsight and seeing the whole picture, rather than be limited in vision and scope like the contemporary writers). 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. Hugh Elton warns us that when we read primary text of any sort on the complaints about the barbarians in Rome and its army we have to be careful, as the authors were “…civilians for the most part and were writing for political reasons” and that “no soldier, such as Ammianus or Procopius… suggests that barbarization affected the armies performance” .