Reforming/Saving the Western Empire

[BadCam70]

I dont think there was any hope to much plauges social unrest and a ursurped and tired empire not really a empire any more just on the paper.

A very valid question is also "who where the barbarians the Romans or the barbarians" i would say the Romans where the barbarians see what they did to the Dacian civilization a whole people destroyed just for the huge treasures they had.

Alaric was christian and while he did besiege Rome he did not enter the city and after heated discussions the Goths left the city unharmed after some days to travel on,he and his people had been in Roman service and "loved" Rome even more than its citizens seemed to have done.....i think his people represents the new western christianity that emerges after the fall of Rome.

Well well if i was emperor i would have tried to transfer power to local lords and as soon as possible tried to impliment the feodal system with a strong one religion under one god aka christianity,by this time it was much uncertain still if the christianity should survive and prosper it was very much a religion among others.

But military wise i dont see much hope,"the barbarians" turning on Rome was its earlier battlehardened lap dogs/mercenarys and nothing could stop them when they got mistreated by there former "bosses",the Romans themselfs was not much of a military force to be recond with anymore.

 

regards Mats

[smith]

I dont think there was any hope to much plauges

 

Plague was a serious problem from c 166-180 and from c 251-266 but AFAIK not in the last two centuries of the western Empire.

 

i would say the Romans where the barbarians see what they did to the Dacian civilization a whole people destroyed just for the huge treasures they had.

No, the Dacians had been raiding Rome's Danube possessions. And the Dacians weren't exterminted; modern Romanian has Dacian remnants besides Latin and more recent slavic influences.

 

 

Alaric was christian and while he did besiege Rome he did not enter the city and after heated discussions the Goths left the city unharmed after some days to travel on,

 

Rome was sacked in 410.

 

 

by this time it was much uncertain still if the christianity should survive and prosper it was very much a religion among others.

By the fourth century there was no doubt that christianity would survive. Not much remained of the others by the fifth.

 

 

 

the Romans themselfs was not much of a military force to be recond with anymore.

 

See Elton Warfare in Roman Europe 350-425. He pointed out that even in the fifth century the western Empire could be fairly formidable at times, as during the reign of Majorianus.

[Argus]

What about the 'lose change' theory? I don't know if it's been discredited or not, but a few years back there was a theory doing the rounds that the gross problem with the western empire was a lack of actual coinage, particularly in small denominations, as in they just weren't minting enough coin. Further this was compounded by the legion savings banks and the like holding their funds 'in the metal' so taking a huge chunk of the available coinage out of general circulation.

 

Figure the latter would mosty be large denomination coin, but then the substitute for small coainge was big coins cut up, so it works both ways.

 

shane

[smith]

AFAIK there were no serious financial problems until the loss of African provinces to the Vandals in the 430s. That deprived the West of the bulk of needed revenues. Evidently enough coins were still minted in the West for us to have images of its emperors down to 476 (presumably enough were minted for representations of all of the last several to survive, that is.)

[Conall]

AFAIK there were no serious financial problems until the loss of African provinces to the Vandals in the 430s. That deprived the West of the bulk of needed revenues. Evidently enough coins were still minted in the West for us to have images of its emperors down to 476 (presumably enough were minted for representations of all of the last several to survive, that is.)

 

Interesting topic.

 

Regarding the economy I think it was in a worse state than you suggest. Although I would agree with Peter Heather’s* thesis that the output was not diminishing (for example Britain was increasing grain exports to western Europe in the 3rd and 4th centuries – which would have made giving up the province a rather curious decision) there were two major problems. The first was that period bouts of severe inflation in the 3rd and 4th centuries had seriously debased the Imperial coinage. As a result more coinage went to the Army and less was in general circulation. Furthermore it meant that land became a more valuable asset and the Emperors had to use (read give it away) to maintain political support. This meant that while the economy as a whole was still relatively robust Imperial revenues and capital declined drastically, which in turn led to smaller, less well trained field armies and limitanae who were little more than militia. The other consequence of this trend was that by the 4th and 5th centuries more and more of the available agricultural land was owned by large estates using slaves rather than freemen. Not only were many of these estates exempt from Imperial taxes but they also no longer contributed to the pool of free men available for recruitment.

 

As I recall the plagues (and associated cattle murrains) were more a problem of the 6th century, notably the yellow plague in the late 540s. They were not an issue with respect to the end of the Western Empire.

 

The biggest problem for the late western Empire was the Huns (this follows Heather's thesis), through a combination of economic damage – disruption of trade and tribute payments and forcing the Germanic tribes to migrate west. Despite the disasters of the Gothic wars in the 3rd century the Western Empire was, militarily at least, in good shape by the 4th century and able to cope with the Goths, even after the catastrophe at Adrianople in AD 378.

 

With respect to the topic heading I think, with the benefit of hindsight, the Western Empire could have survived if it had done the following:

1. Reform the currency and taxation system.

2. Ban slavery

3. Welcome the Germanic tribes into the Empire and recruit them into the Army rather than using them as Foederatii.

4. Convert the Goths to Catholicism to make their integration as easy as possible.

5. Spend more money on long range diplomacy to undermine the Huns. If at all possible keep them looking eastwards

6. Improve the level of urban fortifications to reduce the threat of Hunnish incursions.

7. Reintegrate the senatorial class into the Imperial household

 

Best regards

 

Tom

 

* A really nice man and a great scholar. He was my second supervisor when I was a postgrad at UCL. I was also his TA.

[smith]

The first was that period bouts of severe inflation in the 3rd and 4th centuries had seriously debased the Imperial coinage.

 

That was a serious problem around mid third century but Constantine rectified the problem in the fourth.

 

 

 

The other consequence of this trend was that by the 4th and 5th centuries more and more of the available agricultural land was owned by large estates using slaves rather than freemen.

I think that had been the situation since the first century BCE and the Spartacus revolt.

 

Not only were many of these estates exempt from Imperial taxes but they also no longer contributed to the pool of free men available for recruitment.

 

I don't think they were legally exempt but just used their clout to avoid paying. And they did have to give men to the army, albeit reluctantly. See Late Roman Infantryman. There's an illustration of recruiters taking men from an estate, one of whom cut off his thumb in an attempt to avoid service.

 

As I recall the plagues (and associated cattle murrains) were more a problem of the 6th century, notably the yellow plague in the late 540s. They were not an issue with respect to the end of the Western Empire.

Right.

 

Despite the disasters of the Gothic wars in the 3rd century the Western Empire was, militarily at least, in good shape by the 4th century

 

It didn't even exist as a separate entity until about 395.

 

 

 

 

With respect to the topic heading I think, with the benefit of hindsight, the Western Empire could have survived if it had done the following:

1. Reform the currency and taxation system.

2. Ban slavery

3. Welcome the Germanic tribes into the Empire and recruit them into the Army rather than using them as Foederatii.

4. Convert the Goths to Catholicism to make their integration as easy as possible.

5. Spend more money on long range diplomacy to undermine the Huns. If at all possible keep them looking eastwards

6. Improve the level of urban fortifications to reduce the threat of Hunnish incursions.

7. Reintegrate the senatorial class into the Imperial household.

Gallienus excluded senators from military commands in an attempt to improve/professionalize the military-an urgent step around mid third century. Note that the eastern Empire survived without doing 1- 3; the goths were converted, diplomacy was tried and great fortifications built. A brief recent work, The Catastrophic Era has an interesting thesis. It blamed the fall of the West on a lack of motivation. The only people who cared much about the late Empire, the Illyrians, could only bolster the eastern Empire after 395.

 

 

 

* A really nice man and a great scholar. He was my second supervisor when I was a postgrad at UCL. I was also his TA.

 

Still his knowledge of third century Romano-Persian history is flawed. See The Catastrophic Era

[Conall]

The first was that period bouts of severe inflation in the 3rd and 4th centuries had seriously debased the Imperial coinage.

 

That was a serious problem around mid third century but Constantine rectified the problem in the fourth.

 

Er, no. First of all it was Diocletian not Constantine who made the major attempt to reestablish the currency. Secondly by the mid-fourth century onwards the level of precious metal in coins again declined (Money and Government in the Roman Empire. by Richard Duncan-Jones 1996, The Later Roman Empire Richard Reece 2007, The coinage of Roman Britain Richard Reece 2002, and The Roman Gold and Silver Coins from the Hoxne Treasure, Peter Guest 2004) causing further inflationary problems although not, I’ll grant you, on the same scale as the great inflationary crisis of the 260s.

 

The other consequence of this trend was that by the 4th and 5th centuries more and more of the available agricultural land was owned by large estates using slaves rather than freemen.

 

I think that had been the situation since the first century BCE and the Spartacus revolt.

 

That was true prior to the Spartacus revolt, which in itself proved a reaction against the widespread ownership of slaves. However, the period of transition from the late Republic to the early Imperial era saw this being rolled back, with much of the large older senatorial estates reverting into the Imperial estate and the rise of a new mercantile class. The problem by the 4th and 5th centuries was that the Imperial estates had been largely given away (both to the Church and to the senatorial aristocracy to gain political support) or sold so that in conjunction with the inflationary crisis and changes in land management there was again a reversion to very large privately held estates using slave labour.

 

 

Not only were many of these estates exempt from Imperial taxes but they also no longer contributed to the pool of free men available for recruitment.

 

I don't think they were legally exempt but just used their clout to avoid paying. And they did have to give men to the army, albeit reluctantly. See Late Roman Infantryman. There's an illustration of recruiters taking men from an estate, one of whom cut off his thumb in an attempt to avoid service.

 

Yes many of the estates, especially those belonging to the Church were exempt from Imperial taxation. The cutting off of thumbs in an attempt to avoid conscription was a late 4th and early 5th century phenomenon and is mentioned by Ammanianus Marcellinus (the Emperor Valentinian I prescribed burning as the punishment for such an offence).

 

Despite the disasters of the Gothic wars in the 3rd century the Western Empire was, militarily at least, in good shape by the 4th century

 

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It didn't even exist as a separate entity until about 395.

 

Oh really? I must have imagined the reforms instituted by Diocletian in AD 285/293, which created two Augusti & two Ceasars (effectively the junior partner of each Augustus) – and split the Empire into east and west. Constantine I reunited the Empire only for it to be divided again amongst his sons. Constantius briefly emerged as sole emperor before having to accept his Caesar, Julian as co-emperor. The Valentinian dynasty which succeeded Julian & his very temporary successor Jovian confirmed the split of the Empire into two units in AD 364. This in part was one of the reasons for the disaster at Adrianople in AD 378 – the eastern emperor, Valens not wishing to wait for reinforcements being led by his nephew Gratian, the western emperor. The separation in AD 395 was simply the final and permanent split of the Empire into its eastern and western constituent elements.

 

With respect to the topic heading I think, with the benefit of hindsight, the Western Empire could have survived if it had done the following:

 

1. Reform the currency and taxation system.

 

2. Ban slavery

 

3. Welcome the Germanic tribes into the Empire and recruit them into the Army rather than using them as Foederatii.

 

4. Convert the Goths to Catholicism to make their integration as easy as possible.

 

5. Spend more money on long range diplomacy to undermine the Huns. If at all possible keep them looking eastwards

 

6. Improve the level of urban fortifications to reduce the threat of Hunnish incursions.

 

7. Reintegrate the senatorial class into the Imperial household.

 

Gallienus excluded senators from military commands in an attempt to improve/professionalize the military-an urgent step around mid third century. Note that the eastern Empire survived without doing 1- 3; the goths were converted, diplomacy was tried and great fortifications built. A brief recent work, The Catastrophic Era has an interesting thesis. It blamed the fall of the West on a lack of motivation. The only people who cared much about the late Empire, the Illyrians, could only bolster the eastern Empire after 395.

 

This would be Tim Donovan’s thesis. I have to ask, who exactly is Tim Donovan? As far as I can tell he is a retired US colonel and believes in the discredited works of J. Morris The Age of Arthur and that the Romans invaded Ireland. Hmm, I remain to be convinced.

 

As for the Illyrian theory I suggest you look at a map of the late Roman Empires and see where they came from. The province of Illyricum was divided in the early 1st Century into Pannonia and Dalmatia – roughly equivalent to modern day Hungary and the former states of Yugoslavia plus Albania. Later Diocletian created the prefecture of Illyricum which comprised of Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia and (bizarrely) Crete – note it excluded Thrace. This continued until AD 395 when it was split into Western and Eastern Illyricum, with the western part containing Dalmatia, Noricum and Pannonia. In AD 437 Valentinian III ceded Dalmatia to the Eastern Empire. The real blow to the Western Empire came in AD 440 when the Huns led by Attila devastated the region, especially Pannonia. Your theory (based I assume on Donovan’s work, which you appear to have accepted entirely uncritically judging by his almost identical comments on the History book club website: http://www.historybookclub.com/doc/full_si...yId=467545B205) doesn’t appear to hold water.

 

Incidentally when referring to the Illyrians, this is usually meant in context of the so-called “Illyrian emperors” who ruled between AD 268 and 282, well before the period under discussion.

 

* A really nice man and a great scholar. He was my second supervisor when I was a postgrad at UCL. I was also his TA.

 

Still his knowledge of third century Romano-Persian history is flawed. See The Catastrophic Era

 

I think Peter would be the first to acknowledge that Romano-Persian history is not his area of speciality (Goths & Huns and their interaction with the Late Roman world) but I’ll still take his view over that of a somewhat dubious amateur historian.

 

Best regards,

 

Tom

 

edited for fat fingers and one spelling error which changed the meaning of a sentence

Edited November 28, 2007 by Conall

[smith]

but I'll still take his view

 

His view on e.g. the fate of Valerian?

[Conall]

His view on e.g. the fate of Valerian?

 

No, I meant his views on the end of the western Roman Empire.

 

As for Valerian I'm open minded; as I said it's not Peter's area of speciality but I would like to read Donovan's work first to see his source material for claiming that Valerian survived (personally I like the idea of stuffed and mounted Roman emperors). It's a very minor point in the greater scheme of things and, try as you might, doesn't discredit Peter's overall thesis that it was the impact of the Hunnish on both the Germanic and Roman worlds that caused the end of the western empire following the reallocation of military and financial resources to meet the Persian threat in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Donovan seems to have merely rehashed Gibbons' thesis of moral degeneracy in the West, which has long been discredited (see Bury for example).

 

Donovan, from what I can tell based on his reviews of Heather's work seems to have missed the point. Even if the supposed incident regarding Valerian's death was only propaganda it still demonstrates the degree of alarm and concern created within the Roman world by the depredations of the Sassanid Persian Empire. As Heather argues this produced a reaction (arguably a very significant over-reaction) resulting in the major reinforcement of the Roman military presence in the Near East along with the redirection of taxes from the Western Empire to the East (as evinced by the major decline in not only Western field armies but also local spending on public works in the West during the 4th century).

 

 

 

edited to add afterthought on redirection of assets to the eastern frontier.

Edited November 28, 2007 by Conall

[smith]

As for Valerian I'm open minded; as I said it's not Peter's area of speciality but I would like to read Donovan's work first to see his source material for claiming that Valerian survived

 

Have you seen The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars 226-363 ? That was one of them.

 

 

Donovan seems to have merely rehashed Gibbons' thesis of moral degeneracy in the West, which has long been discredited

No, he blames the fall of the West on a loss of motivation, which did not affect the East. It's not that westerners were drunken gluttons--or worse in that respect than people in the east. They just no longer identified with the Empire of the west, and were no longer willing to fight for it. But the fall of the West got only brief treatment in a brief booklet.

 

Donovan, from what I can tell based on his reviews of Heather's work seems to have missed the point. Even if the supposed incident regarding Valerian's death was only propaganda it still demonstrates the degree of alarm and concern created within the Roman world by the depredations of the Sassanid Persian Empire.

 

Actually he sees it as a propaganda invention intended to get the Romans to seek revenge against Persia during the latter campaigns of the third century, when Rome had regained the upper hand.

 

 

As Heather argues this produced a reaction (arguably a very significant over-reaction) resulting in the major reinforcement of the Roman military presence in the Near East along with the redirection of taxes from the Western Empire to the East (as evinced by the major decline in not only Western field armies

 

 

Remember Ferrill The Fall of the Roman Empire The Military Explanation ? He wrote that the latter fourth century western army was better than that of the East.

Edited November 29, 2007 by smith

[Conall]

the goths were converted

 

I think you missed my point. I explicitly said convert the Goths to Catholicism. As it was they were converted by missionaries to Arianism, a Christian heresy which did not acknowledge the Holy Trinity and saw Jesus as being subordinate to God (see Wulfilia's gothic bible). This in turn caused considerable friction in their relations with the West & East Roman Empires and subsequently the Franks after they converted directly to Catholicism in AD496 under Clovis I. It is notable that Theoderic I, Ostrogothic king of Italy allowed religious tolerance and co-operated with the papacy in Rome, this accommodation, however, ended with his death.

 

The failure by the Roman Empire to convert the Goths (either the Tervingi or Greuthungi) to Catholicism made their potential integration into the Roman world much more difficult and also allowed them to maintian their own sense of being a distinct, separate entity.

[Conall]

Have you seen The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars 226-363 ? That was one of them.

 

Yes, I read it shortly after publication (c.'93 or '94 I think) - I'll go back and take another look. I actually meant what primary sources he used.

 

No, he blames the fall of the West on a loss of motivation, which did not affect the East. It's not that westerners were drunken gluttons--or worse in that respect than people in the east. They just no longer identified with the Empire of the west, and were no longer willing to fight for it. But the fall of the West got only brief treatment in a brief booklet.

 

Fair enough and thanks for the clarification and recommendation, I've ordered a copy of his book so will try to form a proper opinion fairly soon.

 

Actually he sees it as a propaganda invention intended to get the Romans to seek revenge against Persia during the latter campaigns of the third century, when Rome had regained the upper hand.

 

Understood but that doesn't negate the point that it also demonstrates not only a desire for revenge but also the degree of alarm and the shift in strategic focus away from the West.

 

Remember Ferrill The Fall of the Roman Empire The Military Explanation ? He wrote that the latter fourth century western army was better than that of the East.

 

I don't think that Ferrill makes a very good case and his analysis that the late western army was better seems to be solely based on his assessment of the Emperor Julian's success against the German confederates (mainly Alemanni) at Strasbourg. I think this success was overstated not least because of the need for further campaigning in the late 360s & 370s by the Emperor Valentinian I. These campaigns were at best inconclusive and led to diplomatic negotiations on neutral territory (a boat on the Danube) - hardly an indicator of success or martial supremacy. They also highlight that the western empire no longer had the ability to conduct long range strategic operations beyond its frontier in the same manner as their eastern counterparts.

 

Best regards,

 

Tom

[smith]

I actually meant what primary sources he used.

 

They're indicated--Patricius etc.

 

 

I don't think that Ferrill makes a very good case and his analysis that the late western army was better seems to be solely based on his assessment of the Emperor Julian's success against the German confederates (mainly Alemanni) at Strasbourg.

 

What about the Frigidus?

[smith]

The failure by the Roman Empire to convert the Goths (either the Tervingi or Greuthungi) to Catholicism made their potential integration into the Roman world much more difficult and also allowed them to maintian their own sense of being a distinct, separate entity.

 

Missionaries spread the Arian view among the goths; I don't know if Rome could've prevented this, as it happened beyond the frontiers. Maybe attempting conversion to the trinitarian view would've incurred too much resistance at the time. Another scenario might've been possible. Constantine apparently favored the Arian view but did not promote it. What if he used the power of the State to uphold the Arian position? It would've served the same political purpose.

[Sardaukar]

BTW, one problem was also (starting from later 3rd Century) that silver and gold mines were exhausted and mining techniques were not advanced enough to continue exploiting consisting mines. That did lead to severe shortage of those precious metals and was one reason for debasing the coins. It also lead to barter-economy in many parts of Empire.

[smith]

BTW, one problem was also (starting from later 3rd Century) that silver and gold mines were exhausted and mining techniques were not advanced enough to continue exploiting consisting mines. That did lead to severe shortage of those precious metals and was one reason for debasing the coins. It also lead to barter-economy in many parts of Empire.

 

The problem was compounded by the removal of good coins from circulation due to hoarding in the third century and losses due to payments or tribute to foreigners.

[Conall]

What about the Frigidus?

 

I’m not quite sure I follow you as, if anything, the battle of Frigidus demonstrates how weakened the late western Roman army had become.

 

As I recall it was a two –day battle between Theodosius (along with Stilicho, Timasius and Alaric) leading the eastern armies comprised of the reconstituted eastern field army, Alans, Huns and a large number of Tervingi under Alaric against Eugenius and Arbogastes, the magister militum of the Western Empire. Arbogastes’ army was a mixture of Franks, Goths and Romano-Gallic troops. Most of the fighting was between Alaric’s Tervingi and the Franks & Goths of Arbogastes composite army with both sides taking heavy casualties. The first day was indecisive with Alaric’s Tervingi being bloodily repulsed (something they came to resent bitterly – being used as expendable shock troops by the Romans). The second day saw defections from the western army and a significant change in weather with the wind blowing strongly into the western army’s faces (shades of the battle of Towton) causing them to break and run after being outflanked by Theodosius’ Alan & Hunnish allies.

 

The battle doesn’t, to my mind, demonstrate the efficacy of the late Roman army as it was fought largely by the barbarian foederatii on either side. In any case the western army (heavily depleted by the prior fighting against the Gothic confederation post Adrianople and the subsequent civil war between Gratian and Magnus Maximus, with the latter being killed along with his army by Theodosius in AD388) were on the losing side and most of the fighting appears to have been done by the Franks and the Gothic contingents in their army.

[Conall]

BTW, one problem was also (starting from later 3rd Century) that silver and gold mines were exhausted and mining techniques were not advanced enough to continue exploiting consisting mines. That did lead to severe shortage of those precious metals and was one reason for debasing the coins. It also lead to barter-economy in many parts of Empire.

 

As a matter interest what is your source for this statement? This is not to suggest that you are wrong more to satisfy my curiosity.

 

To the best of my knowledge the Imperial mints at Trier, Milan, Ravenna and Rome ran into the early fifth century if not beyond, also gold and silver content in Roman coinage actually increased in the late fourth century. For further details see:

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/hisar/resources/HoxneSummary.pdf

Note that this doesn't necessarily contradict your statement as it is quite possible for the mints to have continued running on reduced supplies of gold and silver and still to have increased the precious metal content - logically by producing fewer coins.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Conall

[smith]

While rereading parts of Heather's book I noticed something interesting on pages 219-220. East Illyricum was the traditional recruiting ground for the late Roman army, and it was part of the eastern Empire. Stilicho was willing to go to war with Constantinople in 406 to get the area transferred to the western Empire. He was said to urgently need Alaric's help to deal with trouble brewing in the West, and thought it better to have east Illyricum, where Alaric's Goths resided at the time, than try to settle the Goths in the West. I don't get it. If he needed just Alaric's help, why not just have the Goths march west to fight and then return to east Illyricum? Of course, that would have been illegal, since Alaric's troops were technically outside Stilicho's control. But Alaric then showed a willingness to cooperate with Stilicho, and there was little if anything Constantinople could have done to prevent him from fighting for the Western general. The point is that Stilicho's demand for east Illyricum instead of just Alaric, suggests that he wanted a permanent solution to the West's military weakness i.e. acquisition of its military recruiting ground. And that the East's retention of this area was a factor in its survival in the fifth century. (Although the west had part of Illyricum, apparently its west Illyricum was not adequate)

[Conall]

While rereading parts of Heather's book I noticed something interesting on pages 219-220. East Illyricum was the traditional recruiting ground for the late Roman army, and it was part of the eastern Empire. Stilicho was willing to go to war with Constantinople in 406 to get the area transferred to the western Empire. He was said to urgently need Alaric's help to deal with trouble brewing in the West, and thought it better to have east Illyricum, where Alaric's Goths resided at the time, than try to settle the Goths in the West. I don't get it. If he needed just Alaric's help, why not just have the Goths march west to fight and then return to east Illyricum? Of course, that would have been illegal, since Alaric's troops were technically outside Stilicho's control. But Alaric then showed a willingness to cooperate with Stilicho, and there was little if anything Constantinople could have done to prevent him from fighting for the Western general. The point is that Stilicho's demand for east Illyricum instead of just Alaric, suggests that he wanted a permanent solution to the West's military weakness i.e. acquisition of its military recruiting ground. And that the East's retention of this area was a factor in its survival in the fifth century. (Although the west had part of Illyricum, apparently its west Illyricum was not adequate)

 

However, Heather suggests that Stilicho didn’t want eastern Illyricum (Dacia - the province south of the Danube - and Macedonia to be precise) for recruiting purposes as this would take too long to solve the problems in Gallia & Germania and the latest British usurpation. According to Heather he wanted eastern Illyricum, as you say, to gain access to Alaric's Goths and not have the need to resettle them elsewhere in the western Empire:

The only problem for Stilicho and Alaric was deciding precisely where the Goths should be established. In 406, their brief Italian job aside, they had been occupying Dacia and Macedonia since 397. But east Illyricum, contrary to established tradition , was currently part of the eastern Empire. Stilicho thus faced a dilemma. He could move the Goths from the territories they had occupied for the best part of a decade into lands he controlled. This would give him the right to grant them the fully legal settlement they required, but would necessarily involve huge disruption, both for the Goths, and – perhaps more importantly from Stilicho’s point of view – for the Roman landowners of any western territory into which the Goths might move. Alternatively, he could legitimize their control of the territories they already held, which would involve browbeating Constantinople into transferring east Illyricum back into his hands. The latter was his eventual choice, and was, on reflection, the simplest means of getting the Goths on side. Seen in this light, Stilicho’s policies look far from crazy.

An alliance with Alaric’s supergroup would give him the military manpower he needed to deal with the mayhem that was about to unfold in the north, and with little disruption to western territories. If all this involved a spat with Constantinople, then so be it. [p.220]

 

I think you are getting too wrapped up on the issue of recruiting as a whole and Illyricum specifically. To my mind Stilicho’s behaviour can be explained not only using the reasoning given by Peter Heather but more explicitly by the financial aspects. Stilicho needed two things in late 406: revenues and soldiers. The latter he could get by recruiting Alaric’s Goths (clearly there was no desire to repeat the experiment of recruiting slaves as they had in the Italian crisis engendered by Radagasius’ invasion of Italy in 405/6) whereas the former was a real problem. Stilicho had lost the revenues from Britannia, was losing revenues from Gallia/Germania (and it was going to get much worse although he was not to know that) and couldn’t afford to lose further revenues by relocating the Goths elsewhere in the western Empire. Not only would such a move alienate dispossessed Roman landowners but would also see a significant loss of revenues for the western Empire. By taking eastern Illyricum Stilicho got the best of all worlds: access to Alaric’s Goths, no loss of western revenues and access to both eastern Illyricum’s revenues and recruits.

 

The issue of recruits from Illyricum is an interesting one. Clearly it had been and was an important recruiting ground for the western Empire. The question is exactly how important? Illyrian recruits are mentioned by the poet Claudian for their martial qualities and it being a good recruiting area. However, Hugh Elton in his work, Warfare in Roman Europe AD 350-425 suggests that this was, perhaps, a little illusory. Specifically he provides a table on page 134 which shows the geographical origins of troops in the imperial field armies. One caveat is that it is a relatively small sample but is still highly informative. Western Illyricum provided the single biggest contribution to the western field armies (26%) and in total was second only to Thrace, including Constantinople and Oriens (Asia Minor and Syria), which were recruiting grounds for the eastern Empire. Eastern Illyricum provided no recruits from Macedonia while Dacia provided a similar level as Gallia (20%). It is clear, therefore, that Illyricum as a whole was a key recruiting ground for the western Empire but that it was the western components which were most important. After the split of Illyricum between the East and the West in AD 395 the western Illyrian provinces provided 33% of the western Empire’s recruits. Their loss to the Huns in the 440s was, therefore, much more crippling and significant. Eastern Illyricum’s importance to Stilicho was financial and not one of recruiting. This is another point that Elton makes – that the split in AD 395 saw the surplus generated by Imperial revenues over military expenditure reduced dramatically (to a deficit assuming a 600,000 man army and a small surplus assuming 300,000). It must have resulted in serious and extensive cutbacks in the military budget. Elton argues that this was much more problematic for the West than the issue of recruiting, where he suggests that the western Empire rarely had difficulties raising armies and finding recruits – see chapter 5 Recruiting.

 

edited for typos and clarity

Edited December 7, 2007 by Conall

[Sardaukar]

Very interesting stuff about recruiting and loss of Illyricum. I think same could be said when Byzantium lost Anatolia after Manzikert.

[Sardaukar]

As a matter interest what is your source for this statement? This is not to suggest that you are wrong more to satisfy my curiosity.

 

To the best of my knowledge the Imperial mints at Trier, Milan, Ravenna and Rome ran into the early fifth century if not beyond, also gold and silver content in Roman coinage actually increased in the late fourth century. For further details see:

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/hisar/resources/HoxneSummary.pdf

Note that this doesn't necessarily contradict your statement as it is quite possible for the mints to have continued running on reduced supplies of gold and silver and still to have increased the precious metal content - logically by producing fewer coins.

 

This book for example: The Roman Empire at Bay: Ad 180-395 By David Stone Potter for example mentions following:

 

When state could not meet it's need for silver by increasing production, a problem that may have been compounded by a decline in the productivity of Spanish mines that had supplied the great deal of the silver in early Empire, it had to take old coins out of circulation, and, as it did so, there was consistent tendency to debase silver thru admixture of bronze.

 

Money and Government in the Roman Empire By Richard Duncan-Jones mentions silver shortage too.

 

Found couple more books too that mention it, including Delbruck's History of the Art of War.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Sardaukar

[smith]

This book for example: The Roman Empire at Bay: Ad 180-395 By David Stone Potter for example mentions following:

When state could not meet it's need for silver by increasing production, a problem that may have been compounded by a decline in the productivity of Spanish mines that had supplied the great deal of the silver in early Empire, it had to take old coins out of circulation, and, as it did so, there was consistent tendency to debase silver thru admixture of bronze.

 

Doesn't that refer to the period around mid third century? Btw does that book say the same about the fate of Valerian as Prof. Heather, repeating the old tale of him being skinned and stuffed?

[Colin Williams]

Regarding some of the reasons for the collapse of the Western Empire, I wonder whether the evolving division between West and East prevented resources from the Eastern Empire being used to support the Western Empire. What were the policies on taxation and expenditure? Certainly the survival of the Eastern Empire suggests it could get by quite well on its own resources. Also, Steven Runciman, in his book on Byzantine Civilization, identified the rise of the Sassanids in Persia as a challenge that diverted resources to the East.

 

With respect to supplies of precious metals, I seem to recall some references that highlighted loss of supplies through exhaustion of silver mines in the west and loss of gold producing areas in Dacia (to the Goths/Huns?) and in the Middle East to the Persians.

[Sardaukar]

Got good list of books about Roman mining from other forum:

 

http://oxrep.class.ox.ac.uk/index.php?opti...8&Itemid=35

 

One reason that has been given for declining output of mines was lack of slave labour. But then, same techniques were used basicly next 1000 years even without slave labour... But it might be one reason too.