Barbarization of 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
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. And if there was no literal barbarization, then there is no impact upon the Empire, save the stagnant aristocracy. 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. Rome was industrious, as we have read, and the use of Germanic peoples in the army, even in increasing numbers, is a poor claim to barbarization (and the eventual downfall of Rome). 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. It seems that such a claim is slowly disappearing over time, thanks to new discoveries in Roman culture and history. 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. It is not seeing the whole scope of Rome, just one side of the story. 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 . Most of the betrayals were of political and social origin, not race oriented. To them, it was just another group of new faces in the Empire. civilians for the most part and were writing for political reasons" and that "no soldier, such as Ammianus or Procopius. This simple adaptation of a German trait shows the slight "barbarization" of the army, yet also shows that it was not a negative one; the Romans would not use it unless they found the barbarians to be an asset to the army .
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,
impact empire,
modern historians,
barbarization army,
fifth centuries,
fourth fifth centuries,
historians claim,
fourth fifth,
army modern,
allied contingents,
roman troops,
army modern historians,
barbarization roman army,
impact empire modern,
one-third officers barbarian,
|
Acceptance Essays
