Was The Recruitment of Germanic Soldiers A Reason That The Roman Empire Fell?

[@Maiorianus_Sebastian]

🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus

[@fourmula4812]

_ pes 20 T numerol _ 20 sid swastika gamadion _ pythagoras tetractys hexagram sexagram 20 _ atlas _ atlast20 _ 048 even _ 1235679 odd _

[@HS-su3cf]

A 17th century French general said that a German mercenary was worth 3 French. 1: The soldier fighting for you. 2: A French farmer staying on the farm farming. 3: A mercenary fighting for you don't fight for the enemy.

[@IPlayWithFire135]

Angry Machiavelli noises

[@randysavage1]

Those are great points

[@VinnieG-]

@@IPlayWithFire135 I don't think Machiavelli was a big fan of mercenaries

[@GarfieldRex]

The issue wasn't recruiting barbarians, the issue was treating them like crap and dishonoring the pacts, betraying them. They reached the limit.

[@brunomattos1130]

Some people say that recruiting barbarians was dumb, but Rome ALWAYS recruited barbarians. Even during the punic wars, they used entire socii armies to fight the punics

[@keizervanenerc5180]

Yeah the problem was not recruiting barbarian mercenaries on its own. The problems where: - they didn't just suplement Roman recruits, they more and more replaced them. - Roman society failed to succesfully integrate the Germanic barbarians into their own culture like Rome had in the past done much more succesfully with other culture groups.

[@brunomattos1130]

@@keizervanenerc5180 they succesfully integrated other groups because they had more time to do so. And they still did a good job. By the time of the sack of Rome, the visigoths were christians and latin languages are still spoken in France, Iberia, Italy, etc

[@godking]

Socii were not barbarians but Italian allies. Gauls/Germans ect were auxiliaries/Foederati

[@9and7]

Sorry that is wrong.

[@jacktraister7853]

​@@godkingSocii were considered Barbarians by the Romans of the time.

[@ericponce8740]

Eastern Rome, to their credit, created the Thematic System. The Rashidun Caliphate stripped the Romans of their wealthiest provinces: Syria and Egypt. The Roman gave land to peasants in Asia Minor. And they formed the strength of the Medieval Roman Army until the 11th century.

[@kgblankinship]

Maiorianus probably knows this, but the barbarian generals attempted a coup in Constantinople soon after the one that ended the western empire. The Eastern Romans had an alternative source of fighters from Isauria whom they pitted against the barbarian guards in a knock-down, drag-out street battle in the capital. Eventually the Isaurians won and the Eastern Romans refrained from recruiting barbarians from there on. So it looks like the recruitment of barbarians en masse was an extremely bad idea. And don't forget the mess Ricimer created in the West.

[@wallistag8888]

Yes, a bad Idea, especially with the Isaurians who took power shortly afterwards 😂

[@Fokas-n8t]

@@wallistag8888 Isaurians (who for much of the Roman Empire's history were out of the Empire even if maps don't show that), at that time were registered citizens of the Empire, hence they were considered "home troops". As Roman citizens, they had also access to political positions including the Imperial throne.

[@tassiek2450]

​@@wallistag8888Isauria was a province in Asia minor ,part of the empire.greek speaking .so was easy to call the lawfully soldier guards to suppress the rebellion of the german mercenaries

[@connorgolden4]

Uhhh they definitely didn’t stop recruiting barbarians. The goths were still deeply involved in eastern politics for another decade till Zeno got them to go west against odoacer. And even then, gothic and hunnic mercenaries were still fighting for the empire during the time of Justinian as well. And I don’t know if they always had mercenaries of foreign origin, but throughout the next 1000 years they still made use of foreign troops, right till the very end.

[@Fokas-n8t]

@@connorgolden4 This is what I am saying precisely : they turned to indigenous troops. The guy you mentioned Zenon, was part of that approach. Zenon's real name was Tarasicodisa Roussombladeotes, a native of Isauria, the king of this region which traditionally was out of the Roman Empire (even if in maps they don't show Isauria out but just paint the full Anatolia as Roman) and hence held its own army. At that point in time, Isaurians joined the Empire and Zenon married the daughter of Emperor Leo I and inherited the Emperor seat, bringing in his full army setting it as the basis for the Imperial army. While still back in that time the Isaurians were seen as "foreign", they were technically Roman citizens since their voluntary entry. Hence, since that point, the Empire turned to indigenous troops using mercenaries only on the side, not as core troops.

[@Fokas-n8t]

I will never cease to be amazed at the fascination of non-Greek Europeans (i.e. all others apart Greeks) who when studying the Eastern Roman army they will concentrate, with the exception of the rare exotic cataphracts to the.... mercenaries. For much of the Eastern Roman Empire's long history, especially after the tragic events of the Gothic/Germanic mercenary usage in the 4th-5th centuries, the usage of mercenaries was reduced, restricted, used tactically only during campaigns and never as the core of the army. Basically all those mercenaries you mention were just salt and pepper in the Eastern Roman Army which at all times up to the Comnenian period was based on indigenous troops, naturally with a massive ethnic Greek majority after the loss of Syria and Egypt. Any usage of mercenaries was done mostly in smaller numbers and mostly for exotic units such as horse archers which could not be found, not instantly, not without 1-2 generations of training, among home troops. Up to the Comnenian period you never had the case of half or even almost all of the army comprising of mercenaries and foederati such as in the case of the previous late Roman Empire. Even Basil II when he created the Varangian Guard, it was supposedly an elite Guard for the Emperor, just 2000-3000 men who were meant to serve directly the Emperor to reduce the risks of the palatal guard being mingled in politics as would be the case of home troops. It was not really meant as a campaign unit, but it became such in the process later on. After Basil II, there occurred a massive civil strife that lead to a civil war culminating 22 years later in the battle of Hades (known also as the battle of Petroe, August 20, 1057) fought between the rebel general Isaac Komnenons and the loyalist forces of the Byzantine emperor Michael VI Stratiotikos, led by proedros Theodore with the latter team losing. This battle was one of the most brutal, most lethal battles - and it had to be a civil war battle, of course - which literally wiped out the entire Eastern Roman army. Since that time, the subsequent Emperors, and especially Alexios Komnenons who took power 25 years later, increasingly transformed the Imperial army from an Imperial indigenous one into a royal private mercenary force in the likes of.... feudal western Europe. To avoid further rebellions they ceased to draft the locals, certainy not in critical military positions and the prime, key military functions were given to foreign mercenaries, not just to Varangians but to many others including Franks, Normans, Germans, Saxons, Turkic tribes such as Cumans, Venetians, Catalans etc. Since the late 11th century and up to 1453 there was hardly any Greek armies left and the indigenous Greek population was literally dejected just abandoning the case of the Empire, lilterally themselves undermining it rather than defending it, with few bright exceptions such as the successor Empire of Nicea which tried indeed to re-base the military upon local Greeks and had quite some success managing to beat everyone around them both Turks and Latins even if using Minor Asian Greeks (LOL! Minor Asian Greeks since Antiquity and up to today were famed as merchants and philosophers but never as warriors). And well? They did so, they used mercenaries and collapse ensued. Just like in the case of the Western part of the previous Roman Empire. Just like in the previous Roman Empire. Same events : 1. Old Roman Empire had stable currency, based its army on indigenous Latins = great success 2. Old Roman Empire devalued currency, started drafting foreign mercenaries on a massive scale = collapse within a century 3. Eastern Roman Empire had a stable currency for a remarkable 600 years through thick and thin, through periods of near failure, through famines, through the worst year of humanity (536 BC), through the muslim onslaughts, through the loss of Syria and Egypt, currency was stable. And similarly had based its military on indigenous drafts using only small numbers of mercenaries during campaigns mostly for exotic capabilities or to avoid them turning against them when they would be absent = great success 4. Eastern Roman Empire started devaluing the currency since the middle of the 11th century, had civil wars, abolished the indigenous army, started drafting foreign mercenaries in mass = collapse within a century. Same story again and again. Mercenaries were a plague. They always were when one started building his armies on the basis of foreign mercenaries.. Smart leaders used mercenaries on the side either for having additional exotic units with capabilities not found among indigenous armies or merely to avoid having them as enemies (e.g. just like Alexander the Great dragged a few 1000s of Illyrians and Thraecians, precisely to avoid havin tthem back home causing trouble rather than needing their military capabilities on campaign).

[@georgepapatheofilou6118]

Good thesis and mostly true but will it win you a cappuccino

[@Rynewulf]

Most the citizen legionaries were never Latin. Not even all of Latium region had full Latin rights, many Roman citizens even from early days werent considered or treated as indigenous, and the outright foreign Socii snd Auxilia combined to between a 1/3 to 1/2 of the Republican and Principate legions. What the Eastern Empire got right was stabilising its economy to pay for long term loyalty and building up regional military infrastructure, which not only improved responsiveness to threats but also reduced the ability of 1 rogue general to carve out chunks of the centralised state with their private power. By contrast the West was too poor to pay its soldiers and so centralised there was just no response against invaders or rebels

[@Fokas-n8t]

@@Rynewulf The remarks on the fiscal reform in the East that stabilised the economy are correct - but then the East was anyway the 85% of the Empire's overall economy so it was easier to make something out of it, the West just didn't have the means. The Western parts had been mostly regions providing raw materials to Rome, not really any mass wealth. The big difference in terms of the troops was that the Western Roman Empire was entirely dependent on foreign recruitments while the Eastern Roman Empire switched to home troops, starting with Isaurians who had a ready-made army to kickstart the process of indigenisation all while relegating the mercenaries to being a smallet % of the overall Imperial army and mostly covering for specific positions, exotic units such as "cavalry archers" etc. For much of the Empire's history the usage of mercenaries remained at that level and the core of the Empire's military strength was its indigenous troops. That changed in the mid-late 11th century, a change solidified by the Crusades (also doing the same money-games and currency devaluation as Rome did in the 3rd century AD). And the Empire fell within a century. Not surprising.

[@OKay-ox3kh]

@@Fokas-n8tthe crusades are kinda what they deserved after massacring Latins. Which is ironic because their empire was founded by Latins. Not to mention they called themselves Roman’s which added to the irony of massacring Latins. The Greeks should had never messed with the Venetians, the Greeks were the sole architects in the downfall of eastern Roman Empire due to their arrogance and corruption. No one to blame but themselves. It’s funny because Greeks are so arrogant and prideful about the eastern Roman Empire. While in reality modern day Turks are the true descendants of the eastern Roman Empire but they are the nicest and most humble people especially compared to prideful Greeks.

[@Fokas-n8t]

​@@OKay-ox3kh​ If you were not a Turk, i.e. if you were a sentient human being, you would first want to read a bit of history before commenting these blabbering nonsense here. Latins were the founders of the Roman Empire some 1200 years before and of course Venetians and Genovese had little to do with the Romans that founded the Empire other than speaking descendant languages. Greeks had inherited the Empire via legal succession when Diocletian first moved the capital to Nicomedia (just opposite Byzantium) and then Constantine moved it to Byzantium. The slaughter of the Latins had occured 2 decades earlier and of course was not the reason of the orchestrated attack of Venice using the Franks as useful idiots in 1204 and this is of course proved by the fact that Venice had already attempted an attack on Constantinople prior to the slaughter of the Latins - but how would you know? Latins in Constatntinople were in cahoots with the top oligarchy and that had absolutely nothing to do with the average Greek even more so when Byzantine aristocracy at the time was increasingly getting intermarried with the Catholics in direct contravention to centuries of tradition. And of course the "slaughter of the Latins" was never the event that was said to be by lying treacherous westerners since at all times including during the short siege of 1204 there were at all times 1000s of Latins inside the city and there is even evidence they held standing private armies inside (which may explain how quicky the city fell to a rather unprepared for such a siege army - such cities may fall from within only). As for Ottomans being the successors to the Roman Empire that is simply laughable. There was absolutely no succession unless you want to establish that Ottoman sultans were partilinearly coming down from the Comnenian Dynasty (there was written something on that by a Greek writer back then though none can prove anything on that). Let alone that as a culture Ottomans had absolutely nothing to do with the Roman Empire, they ignored everything about it anyway and of course their culture was totally different to it, their organisation totally different. The Eastern Roman Empire was the most enlightened Empire ever, the state with the most educated population until the 2nd half of the 19th century when western European states finally surpassed it after 800 years of efforts while the Ottoman Empire was the most regressive and most illiterate Empire to have ever existed when among Ottomans illiteracy rates were about 95%.... in 1900 not in 1500 but in 1900. Go cry rivers now.

[@jasziegl8983]

"Every care must be taken that our auxiliaries, being stronger than our citizens, may not grow too much for them and become savage beasts." Plato

[@TheRezro]

Problem at the time was that Auxiliaries were Roman citizens.

[@CaptainGrimes1]

Can you do one on late roman villas please? I find it interesting how they were larger and more richly decorated than earlier ones

[@masterexploder9668]

The Empire was so big they couldn't solely rely on ethnic Italians, so if everyone was granted citizenship, why not draft all of them as well? Illyrian barracks produced many based warrior emperors with a strong knack for command. As for the Foederati from late centuries? I think they could have handled them better, but the idea itself was hardly the worst - turn your enemies into allies and let them loose on your enemies so they fight each other.

[@DISTurbedwaffle918]

It worked with the Franks for a good long while, and even the Ostrogoths quickly bent the knee to the Eastern Romans after taking Italy.

[@DataBeingCollected]

The big difference here is all Auxilia soldiers (in theory) bought into the Roman system through 30 years of service to gain citizenship. This did not stop civil wars, but the Roman armies were vastly populated by citizens or future citizens following Roman generals, vested in the continued existence of a Roman state. Civil wars were about control of this system. The Auxilia existed within the Venn diagram of the Roman system because they ultimately were future Romans, with a route to citizenship, and Roman economic, social, and political benefits. Peregrini Foederati existed even during the time of the Auxilia, but they existed outside this Venn diagram of things Roman. They were mercenaries and outsiders in the service of Rome in exchange for coin. They were not fighting for future citizenship, though it could be won through exceptional circumstance. The Foederati always existed as a minority military group during the Auxilia era, but once the edict of Caracalla passes (A peacetime political edict which likely did not consider the military or economic impact of the decision, nor did it provide a clear path for future Peregrini to obtain citizenship), you had the permanent overnight evaporation of the “Aspiring to be Roman” class. You either became Roman, or you were not; depending on which side of the Roman border you lived on when the edict passed. The Roman military system still needed Auxilia style troops, and I am sure these “new citizen Auxilia” were initially happy to continue their role as Auxilia (in theory paid as Roman citizens, so a bump in pay). This is attested by Auxilia style Legions during and after the Crisis of the 3rd century. This of course ignores the budgetary necessity of the Auxilia existing in the first place, and is probably why you see the creation of Limitanei formations after the crisis, a cheaper alternative to the Comitatenses acting as traditional Legionnaires. The Foederati also fulfill this Auxilia role, but in a different way. You see, Auxilia were always cheaper, and expendable to a certain degree. Limitanei are cheaper, but are Roman, so in theory, not expendable. Foederati are Peregrini, so they can be expendable. They become a major part of the Roman military just like the old Auxilia, however, the psychological motivations were entirely different. Citizenship was no longer on the table outside of exceptional meritorious service. Coin was the deal. They fought in the service of Rome, but loyalty to the contract, not to the state itself. This dramatically changes the nature of “Roman civil wars” by permanently alienating the Peregrini. They lived on Roman land, participated in the Roman system, but as a class of people who had no incentive to be loyal to Rome except through force of arms. That is a system asking to be torn down when you realize you are your own oppressor.

[@Fokas-n8t]

Most of those "Illyrian Emperors" were sons of Italian Latin colonists and a couple were most probably ethnic Greeks. They were not ethnic Illyrians. Illyrians had previously revolted and were not trusted, even those tribes that remained faithful. Most tribes had been butchered in what we would recognise today as genocide and their lands had been given to retired legionaires, mostly of Latin origin, then Greek, then whatever else.

[@TheRezro]

At the time capital moved to Greece and so Rome could not rely on Latins, because those "barbarians" literally work with Germans to overthrow only true Greek speaking Romans. It is why they negate they citizenship pretending that West Rome collapsed. When it didn't.

[@TheRezro]

@@DISTurbedwaffle918 Ostrogoth and Vandals actually were Roman citizens. Reconquest of Italy, actually lead to non-Roman Longobards to actually wreck Italy. And Later Papal State was abandoned to they mercy. It is when Franks who also were speaking "barbaric" Latin, steeping in and sizing the title from the Pope.

[@iamtehgame]

Carthage laughs at Rome's abysmal effort of managing and deploying mercenary units. Perhaps Carthage did have the last laugh indeed!

[@bannedaccount540]

The loss of Carthage and the rest of North Africa to the Vandals was a major contributor to the Fall of the West, due to the Western Empire losing it’s largest food producer as well as a major source of tax revenue and a large population from who it could recruit new soldiers from.

[@esti-od1mz]

But one of the reasons for Carthage fall is the abysmal use of mercenary troops... which is not a great analogy

[@peterjorgensen1086]

Have you ever watched Schwerpunkt's Migration Era and Late Roman warfare videos? You should definitively make a video interview together

[@brunomattos1130]

Bro, he talks about some serouslly interesting stuff. But damn, his diction is bad 😭 I really wish he got that diction better, because I like the stuff he talks, but I still find his videos kinda unbearable

[@qzamap3870]

​@@brunomattos1130 I have the same opinion about schwerpunkt. I would love to listen to his content but his manners of speech are so hard to deal with

[@michaelporzio7384]

Defending one's own territory did not give soldier a sanctioned ability to plunder. Plunder was a part of a soldier's pay well into the Middle Ages officially and to the present day unofficially. Excellent point, Maiorianus, the Eastern Empire, after the fall of the West, was continually able to recruit effective mercenaries, from Venetians, Huns, Vikings and more.

[@ErnestoMaldonado-mq8mx]

Dork!

[@huntclanhunt9697]

I think lack of money and really stupid emperors after Theodosius the Great (Majorian being probably the only emperor after him that was competent in the West) were a much bigger factor than army recruitment numbers. That, and the timing of people like the Goths having excellent leaders (Alaric and Oderic) and the Germans in general becoming better armed and organized.

[@TheRezro]

They also become Romans

[@carlosasolis]

I wonder how did this system contributed to technology transfer in terms of military hardware, tactics as well as governance. How Roman did the barbarians become north of the Rhine?

[@carlosasolis]

Also how did this impacted their success as European rulers? How late Roman was the Early Middle Ages or how Medieval Late Roman people actually were and looked?

[@Rynewulf]

Well Roman Trier and Cologne are quite deep into modern western Germany, and thats core large city territory. Same applies with long term forts as far north as the top of Bavaria and Mainz being a big central city deep in SW Germany. The cultural influence probably extended far, so no wonder the post Roman Germans were comfortable setting up a new Western Empire under the Franks, a lot of them were already familiar

[@TheRezro]

@@carlosasolis Actually they were fully Roman. Roman law and language was used in Administration of Holly Roman Empire. Though they speak German, unlike other "Barbarian Kingdoms" like France, Spain, Portugal, Romania and Italia, who speak Latin. And I mean those languages literally are dialects of Latin! Dark Ages were mostly made up and popularized by English pop-culture. But take a note that British Isles were exception from the rule. Due to high influences of Celts and Vikings, with Roman remnants already being weak when Rome still formally exist.

[@TheRezro]

@@carlosasolis There was literally no difference between Roman Cataphract and Frankish Knight (Legions were already obsolete at this point). With Frankish nobility walking in high quality silk cloth and speak Latin. Because you know, they literally were Romans. This style later spread over German and Slavic vassal states. Tak a note that British Isles were mostly inhabited by Celts and Vikings. Not being exact example of average medieval kingdom. When English massacred French in Augicourt with Long Bows. Poles and Germans did have massive cavalry duels using horse crossbowman. Italians already work on Pike and Shot. With Czehs having battle wagons armed in hand canons. UK was not exactly the civilized part of the world, catching up during Elizabethan Era.

[@selfiekroos1777]

DOUBLE EDGED SWORD

[@ThomasBarth-gr1sz]

"Now imagine you have to defend this empire with hundreds of thousands of man that have to be permanently stationed at the borders". Well, you see, the answer to that question would have been conquering Germania and the lands of the invaders and solving the problem, not permanently extending it by passively defending. The ultimate reason Rome fell was its military inabiity to achieve this, and conquer Germania.

[@brunomerinocanales3433]

The auxiliary recruitment system worked as initial exposure to romanity before receiving citizenship

[@TheRezro]

When that happen, they already were Roman citizens.

[@janbrittenson210]

There was also the third-century fiscal collapse. The land-owning patrician class of the past had largely been replaced with an administrative class, the latter through various means became dominant land owners, and administrative service became dynastic. Since state service brought with it tax exempt status this led to a huge erosion of the tax base. The same goes for military service, and we have examples of how wealthy families would send a son to serve in the military purely to enjoy the familial tax exemption. Sometimes they'd even adopt someone purely for that purpose. In addition, the empire was no longer aggressively expansionist, it wasn't looking to subjugate its neighbors for land, plunder and tribute, so there were no continuous new territories acquired to reward soldiers with; instead, they had to be paid by a treasury that saw ever shrinking tax revenue despite continuously growing and concentrated wealth. Against this backdrop, hiring barbarian settlers into military service for a fraction of what a Roman would need to be paid was naturally extremely attractive. Sometimes they'd be allowed to settle in return for providing cheap military service. It's just these foederati often ended up outnumbering the Romans and were of course disenfranchised by their relatively low status, low pay, and being regarded as more expendable than Romans.

[@leornendeealdenglisc]

Amazing video, Sebastian.

[@alexeysaphonov232]

Dear Maiorianus, I know that you are in love with the Roman Empire et mihi Imperium Romanum placet, sed.. but have you ever think what is an empire and what were relations of Rome with its subjetcs (people and elites) and how its relations with its own people are changing when it grows bigger. You can look some empires from less obscured time, e.g. Russian Empire or Austria-Hungary or Ottoman. These empires only have more or less healthy relations with their subjetcs during expansion and up until the empire isn't trying to get a direct grip on the new subjetcs which makes local elites furious. If you paint each national province of e.g. Roman Empire in different colors you can see that Gallia or Greece aren't smaller than Italia and so for the local elites when they see that the central authority shattering just a bit, they are getting as much power as possible for themself. So general conclusion is that all empires are doomed to fall apart and all attempts to integrate people into the empire make this fall even more spectacular. Maybe the East Roman Empire stayed a bit longer because it many times returned to its very ellinic core and started from the begining. Feuderati were not a lot difference from the clients of the old republic.

[@dshock85]

Large scale recruitment of Germanic soldiers was a symptoms of a declining empire not the cause. The cause were the civil wars that devastated the Roman empire. The battle of the Milvian bridge may have led to the deaths of nearly 20,000 Roman troops. The debacle of adrianople the destruction of the whole eastern army. ......The battle of the Frigdus river, also accelerated the collapse of the Roman army in the west. The losses at the Battle of the Frigidus weakened the western legions. This downturn in the capabilities of the Roman soldiers meant an increasing reliance by the Empire on barbarian mercenaries employed as foederati, who often proved to be unreliable, or even treacherous.... In between some of these civil wars were devastating plagues. Then there were all the civil wars fought in the east Roman empire draining its resources.

[@BlackBrisingr4]

If anyone wants to learn more about the Roman recruitment of barbarians/Germanic tribesmen, called "receptio", I highly recommend "Barbarians Within the Gates of Rome" by Thomas S. Burns. It covers the years 375-425 A.D. and not only delves into how the receptio worked (or how it failed to), but also gives a more restrained/less apocalyptic view of the Battle of Adrianople, which I think is a highly valuable counter-argument to the normal doom and gloom perspective.

[@not_so_anonymous7413]

the problem is they placed those barbarians in such a powerful situation. The rule of law is gone, power is determined by military also those barbarians is not as stupid as those in early empire

[@Rynewulf]

That power only existed because the Christian emperors merged civic governorships and bureaucracy with military command, so they could enforce religious control using the army. Many Republican and Principate Romans had foreign origins, many being various kinds of Italians with a number of Greeks and many many key figures were from the provinces and without family Roman ties. But they didnt have these families undo the state because they could be idiosyncratically provincial without the central government cracking down, and even when the differences were big there was little tension anyway as a barely Latin speaking local official or amy officer didnt have the power to effect the empire. Its hard for a local barbarian mayor to launch a coup or an embittered but lone army officer to take over an area. But the later reforms put them directly incharge of entire regions of the empire and big military units and trained them to use this new power stamp down on internal opponents such as new religious heretics or political rivals while also trying to restrict them more

[@TheRezro]

This problem run way deeper. Edict of Caracalla from 3'th century, granted every free man in Empire a Roman Citizenship. This lead to Latin Population becoming minority in own country. And not against barbarians, but the Greeks. Capital was moved to Constantinople and Latins become disfranchised second grade citizens. When Attila attacked Romans didn't have other way then grant Germanic Tribes a legal access in exchange of alliance against Huns. It is why Germans could move so freely and have such influence having electoral power. To deal with issue, Byzantine use one of many civil wars to pretend that West Rome collapsed. What was straight not true.

[@TheRezro]

@@Rynewulf I just say one thing as reminder. When those events did take place. Most of those "barbarians" were Christians, did have legal Roman citizenship and official offices. Not to mention speak Latin. Meanwhile East Rome switch official language on the Greek.

[@Rynewulf]

@@TheRezro thats silly. The Latins had been a minority since the early Republic when they conquered most of Italy. It was an empire that stretched over half of Europe, all pf North Africa and a big chunk of west Asia. And you forget that for centuries most of Iberia, Gaul, Britannia, the Germanian provinces, most the Balkan provinces and most of North Africa was essentially a criss crossing of client tribes, with formal Roman cities developing slowly. Nothing about the presence of foreigns was inherently weak or corrupt

[@edwardmcgill4678]

Thanks!

[@Maiorianus_Sebastian]

And thank you Sir, for your kind and generour donation, I really appreciate it

[@liberatumtaiwanae3580]

Dear host, my Love from Taipei. I just want to say here, I like how you described the Roman borders, @2:30 "from the cold highlands of Northern Britannia..." This sounds so right 👍🏽

[@kimberlyperrotis8962]

Your excellent videos are always a treat! This period of history is fascinating and it sets the foundations of medieval, and ultimately, modern Europe.❤

[@Maiorianus_Sebastian]

Thanks a lot Kimberly, I really appreciate your kind comments and your continued support

[@quokka7555]

It’s interesting to see one of Sebastian’s KZbin grifts actually being partially successful. He doesn’t want a real job so make sure you support him by giving him money…

[@paulmer87]

Might probably be a stretch considering the timeline usually covered on this channel, but if the Varangian Guard are somehow covered in the proposed upcoming video about the foederati in the Eastern Empire, that would be quite interesting

[@me-ds2il]

Romulus Augustulus actual full name was Flavius Romulus. Son of a barbarian Magister Militum & Italian mother. Agustus or Augustulus was actually a title meaning "emperor" and used so many times in ref. to him that the real name has been forgot, unfortunately

[@johnquach8821]

My thoughts it was "There wasn't much of a choice..."

[@viroman4459]

Leave it to Sebastian to diss on Rikimer 🤣

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

Recruiting barbarian armies delayed not excellerated Roman collapse. The Eastern Roman Empire used Slavic and Scandinavian mercenaries from Sweden, Finland, Russia, Serbia, Croatia and elsewhere (modern country borders) If Barbarian mercenaries destroyed western Rome as sole reason. Than why didnt slavic mercenaries sole reason collapse the whole eastern Roman Empire?

[@Fatherofheroesandheroines]

Mercenaries and foederati were different. Foederati lived inside Roman borders and Mercenaries were just small numbers of men hired for small jobs. These men could be let go once the job was finished but the foederati stayed inside the borders. Therefore foederati could undermine the Romans from the inside.

[@IoannesPalaiologos]

The Eastern Empire in its heyday (say 700s and till 1000 AD) relied mostly on its own troops from different provinces, and we quickly see that once they start relying on mercs primarily and they neglect their own army, the empire starts to crumble. Although in the 500s I think the Empire relied quite a lot on something similar to foederati, which is quite different from mercenaries anyways.

[@noahtylerpritchett2682]

@@IoannesPalaiologos given a entire army of Slavs defected to the Umayyads. They seemed to rely on these foreign recruits as well.

[@daveweiss5647]

The Feoderati of the west were entire mini nations inside the borders, which was different the the recruitment of fighting units of warriors the east did.

[@ericponce8740]

Eastern Rome, to their credit, created the Thematic System. The Rashidun Caliphate stripped the Romans of their wealthiest provinces: Syria and Egypt. The Roman gave land to peasants in Asia Minor. And they formed the strength of the Medieval Roman Army until the 11th century. @@IoannesPalaiologos

[@DrTarrandProfessorFether]

Gold solidi never reduced purity (95% gold) and weight… 4.3 grams. They were “solid” and even in 476, last issues were still 95% and 4.3 grams. Silver… Siliquea were in 350 90% pure silver and 3.6 grams … but by Julius II, 1.9 grams and purity looks to be 70% or less. They basically went away in 410 AD.

[@LeRoyEngloys]

A very nice historic video, I hope it does as well as the few more recent of your videos

[@matejbabjak9678]

The modern age version of this dilemma: should I outsource my SW development to India? The advantages and risks seem to be very similar.

[@Maiorianus_Sebastian]

Hehehe XD

[@clongshanks5206]

“Should I close my border? Nah”

[@JohEl777]

I don't have to imagine being an Emperor of a huge Empire in crisis, I've played Total War Attila.

[@TheRock2004]

Playing Rome total war 2 now going through the same thing.

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

Nice historical coverage video

[@antoniobautista6718]

I greatly enjoy your videos Maiorianus, your coverage of this niche topic is very much unique to the KZbin history scene. I do think though, that you could successfully transition to a general history channel since you have great production quality. I do understand if you wish not to, but from my honest opinion, I think you'd be a good mainstream history KZbinr as well!

[@davidhoyle4465]

I love your stuff! Thanks mate!

[@thekillers1stfan]

The Empire always used Germanic barbs in the army. Batavians were in the Emperor's cavalry in the Empire's prime

[@jcdenton9969]

We must ban pants.

[@thecarelost6229]

This, so much this

[@kayharker712]

It was a fantastic idea. Things turned out well.

[@7lllll]

according to this, sounds like the antonine plague was the first domino that lead to the fall of rome

[@lifeofsomeguy8093]

Another great video

[@joemama-qy4fb]

Could you do a video on when Roman citizenship died out/how long it persisted in different parts of the former empire?

[@paulvmarks]

Communal bathing was a way that disease spread. The semitic peoples (such as the Carthaginians and observant Jews) bathed in private in little bath tubs - due to the taboo about being seen naked in public. But to adopt this practice would have been a big change for the Romans.

[@carlosfilho3402]

It's A Fantastic Video.

[@BitterComments]

WOAH. Dude your channel is a fucking gem. Subbed!

[@zenomtfr]

Short answer: Yes. Like yeah.

[@عليياسر-ف4ن9ك]

Eastern Romans: No

[@christianrodier3381]

So fascinating

[@Hirome_Satou]

I think it was the exact opposite. Rome should have embraced the Germanic people into Rome, modernized them, and then made them citizens. It was precisely because Rome shunned the Germanic tribes during the time of Atilla that they marched into Rome and sacked it, when all they really wanted was permission to settle on Roman land and have Rome's protection against the Huns. If the Germanic people had been accepted into Roman territory, and were treated well, then the Western empire could have continued for longer, if not indefinitely. A strong Western Empire could have also made the Eastern Empire stronger and more able to resist the Ottomans. I think Rome's fall is more closely tied to their poor treatment of conquered peoples, as well as the poor treatment of their former allies. They bred a lot of animosity against them, their fall was inevitable in that context. A lot of their internal and foreign policy would have to have changed to prevent it.

[@alexzero3736]

The real problem wasn't about recruiting barbarians, it was about Barbarisation of Elites. It started with Arminius and battle in Teuotoburg forest

[@sillypuppy5940]

It was that or create a clone army. Strange how both of these led to the collapse of an empire.

[@4sakenreaper42]

Great video

[@SithStudy]

We need to take notes and close our borders

[@cpt191021]

ive always felt that it was probably necessary because they were so outnumbered in the west BUT I also think it was a bandaid that eventually led to the downfall. What other solution they could have used idk. I guess it could be argued they should have learned thier lesson way back with Arminus at Teutoburg. Ha yeah it sounds like such a good idea at first

[@jenHry-ng3pw]

1) in long run, everything is demographics. 2) Roman greed was the root cause. They extended too far, without the population to sustain. And they were squeezing the population too much so they didn't want to protect the empire and risk life for it. 3) multiculturalism is great when times are easy. It starts to be a problem when things get tense. Those who left their relatives and joined other side for money or easier life will most probably use the same strategy when things get dense on the other side. They will not protect the ideals, they will either use the opportunity for personal gain or switch sides again.

[@dylanjones7485]

Well it only would been okay to hire foederati Franci since they were more loyal and also they were great shock infantry to break centre lines

[@vitorpereira9515]

Of course it was a bad idea. The Chinese dynasty Jin recruited nomads to serve as auxiliars in the army and the result was the Sixteen Kingdoms of the Five Barbarians. But going back to the Romans, in the 11th and 12th centuries the Romans employed Turks in their battles and as a result, they lost Anatolia.

[@Rynewulf]

Yet between a 1/3 and a 1/2 of the Republican army were foreign, and was successful and loyal. Same with the Principate. Through most of Roman history the specialists, elite troops, and most loyal troops were all auxilia, socii or complete foreigners. Many citizen legions rebelled, most rebel attempted emperors or coup emperors were there because Roman Praetorians or legionaries rebelled. By comparison even the late foederati were model loyal soldiers. Even many rebelling foederati like the Goths and Franks would return to the fold once they got their promised land for their service, swearing back under the emperors as governors or local kings whereas rebel legions and pretenders would wreck havoc for decades. And the incoming barbarians were so Romanised only modern Benelux and Germany are the only parts of the Western Empire that didnt quickly become Romance speaking Romans

[@rennerbike5022]

great channel👍🙏🏻🤟🤟

[@martinalarcon3108]

Kind of like what’s happening with the airlines 😮😢 my brother won’t fly anywhere anymore , pretty soon we will going back to traveling by boats 😮😢

[@user-rl3iv2jk9q]

2 April 2024 : I have been watching your presentations for over two years now . I always hit the " like " button . On previous devices I have subscribed . I am being persecuted . I would like to spend more time with you . I am doing all I can for you . I encourage other , appreciative and interested viewers of this channel to subscribe and contribute .

[@TWOCOWS1]

Hi Sebastian, in the map you use @2:39, you place not only all major western cities of Persia in Rome, but also its capital city of Ctesiphon, its most important university town at Gondishapor, and its single mot important Zoroastrain fire temple at Canzaca! What gives? Which Roman zealot made this travesty? By the same token, then, all of the eastern Mediterraean lands, from Anatolia to Syria and Egypt should be included in Persia, since they temporarily occupied them for a decae or so. In reality, the Euphrates River should be taken as a borther, despite them. both sides gaining this and losing that, now and then

[@brendontruong7127]

No. Rome was always constantly falling apart. They couldnt even keep their promises to aid the territories under their rule. Its why they had the capitol sacked so many times and its why the whole thing fell appart. Too many different groups in too many different situations. If they cannot be aided in things like sunsidies of harvest lost due to no fault of their own then whole groups would rise to go to war on Rome. The whole thing fell appart from the inside out. The first death was when the empire was split into two. The second was the cultural change and large migration period. The final death was the disolving of the legions and thus loss of control over former territories. The whole thing imploded in itself.

[@jessie4696]

Can you make a video on the eastern Roman Empire during the time of the start of the Islamic invasion?

[@RedWolf75]

They should have granted the Foederrati citizenship

[@atreast.4331]

Without watching the video the answer is just yes. Multiethnicity especially inside an army is a time bomb. It may looks beneficial at first but as progresses the thing goes bad. It is simple logic if you think about it. Also Byzantium got strong and became more homogenized when emperor Arcadios stopped the germans in the army and made it more hellenic based.

[@عليياسر-ف4ن9ك]

No, the Eastern Romans had many mercenaries. They had Arabs, Turks, Bulgarians, and Vikings

[@atreast.4331]

​@@عليياسر-ف4ن9كAs you said. Mercenaries. Not as citizens . Also the more they had foreigners the more weak they were. Matzikert for example.

[@عليياسر-ف4ن9ك]

@@atreast.4331 The Romans lost this battle because they had civil wars every five minutes

[@davidsault9698]

I wonder how much trade with China and India added to the drain of gold and silver from Rome. This kind of financial drain led to two wars between the British Empire and China. Was trade increasing during the time of the debasement of Roman money shown on the chart?

[@YooKkang]

Yes

[@Onezy05]

It was fine, but the West should have restructured the power of the magister militum so they don't hold too much power. Part of the reason a barbarian like Aspar wasn't able to bring down the Eastern Empire in the same way Ricimer brought down the West is due to how the eastern command was split between the Balkan and Eastern frontiers. Meanwhile, the military command in the west had no such split, which made it easier for someone like Ricimer to grind potential progress down to a halt.

[@stemill1569]

As already Cesar used them to conquer what we see as the Roman Empire there probably wouldn't even be a Roman Empire without the Germanic mercenaries...auxiliary troops. Or what they were called. Your Question shouldn't be about the Empire it should be about the Republic. There are chances that Cesar would have lost his civil wars without the Germanic soldiers so the Empire, that was from the beginning in a downfall, would never been born. Now we have to fantasize. What the Tetrarchy did, maybe the Senate would also have done. Maybe the Senate would have the insight that a State as big as the Roman Republic can not be organized by a central state and it would start a decentralization process. Emperors were never good at giving up power as the creation of the Tetrarchy proved. As I said. The moment Rome lost it's Republic the Empire was to fall. You might name all the great buildings that were created by the Empire but creating the building already was a symptom of a degenerated statehood.

[@AlvinMulongo]

Most intelligent comment I've come across 👌

[@8ofnsnd]

In my fifth year of academic Latin in United States, I went to visit a northern German school, and I. Ould not understand anything (in latin) they spoke during the lesson

[@frankveck7988]

There is a repetition of 19:20 at 19:40

[@badgamemaster]

Even today a great weakness of a country is people that sends money out of the country..

[@Rynewulf]

Yet between a 1/3 and a 1/2 of the Republican army were foreign, and was successful and loyal. Same with the Principate. Through most of Roman history the specialists, elite troops, and most loyal troops were all auxilia, socii or complete foreigners. Many citizen legions rebelled, most rebel attempted emperors or coup emperors were there because Roman Praetorians or legionaries rebelled. By comparison even the late foederati were model loyal soldiers. Even many rebelling foederati like the Goths and Franks would return to the fold once they got their promised land for their service, swearing back under the emperors as governors or local kings whereas rebel legions and pretenders would wreck havoc for decades. And the incoming barbarians were so Romanised only modern Benelux and Germany are the only parts of the Western Empire that didnt quickly become Romance speaking Romans

[@inregionecaecorum]

Back when I was young it was common knowlege that the Romans were a well oiled fighting machine, whereas barbarians were an unorganised and untrained rabble who hit and run. Of course it never occured that perhaps the barbarians were not so unskilled in war, having been effectively taught by the Romans during centuries of contact and cross fertilisation.

[@josephbrown1153]

I've admittedly stolen this analogy from Bryan Ward-Perkins, but anyone who thinks that its a dumb idea for empires to hire tribesmen from beyond the frontier to fight for them should be reminded of the Gurkhas, elite troops recruited from the hill tribes of Nepal who have been fiercely loyal to the British army since 1815 despite the fact that their home country was never formally part of the British Empire.

[@adrastoso9727]

The fortifications needed to be stronger with better defenses, but the incursions they did break through could be dealt with when it was strong before it was split. This is basically an immigration crises of the third century, that can be managed by bringing barbarians into the Roman legions loyal to the emperor with promise of Roman citizenship that was used dueing the early Roman Empire. Making everyone automatically a citizen weakened this system of being barbarians into the fold. The paid military discipline was waning and so rebellions were a natural result. The empire was already weaker at this time which is why the barbarians were such a problem.

[@Rynewulf]

For comparison around 1/3 of Napoleons Grand Armee were foreign, especially large numbers of Italians, Germans, and Dutch from annexed territories and allied puppet states. And Napoleons fiercest, most loyal elites were foreign (mainly Poles) Yet no one says the Grand Armee failed because it had too many obviously fickle, weak, insidious foreigners sneaking into the glorious empire. Even when many of these soldiers ultimately did restore their states independance or draw new borders out of the French empire. Rather they admit that he was politically outplayed and logistically overwhelmed. Now think: why do people say this about Rome, when the Roman Emperors lasted so long historians canr agree which millennia it ended or what royal families are related and were genuine Roman successors?

[@rabbiezekielgoldberg2497]

Somewhat reminiscent of today's practice of continually printing money while bringing in cheap third-world labor

[@nodinitiative]

Meanwhile in the USA, more and more of the US military are no longer Caucasian or people from the original 13 colonies. The USA will also collapse in a few hundred years from now.

[@TheGermanicTribes]

Romanized ‘barbarians’ standing guard on the edges was not the problem. Once rome allowed germanic tribes to enter the empire in whole, as separate people and still with their weapons, they had an issue.

[@Rynewulf]

Since the early Republic upwards of 1/3rd of the army was foreign, and through almost all Roman history its most competent and loyal units were all barbarians. Why does no one call the Praetorians a mistake, but question the German guards who so loyal that even in the face of Huns and dozens of kinsmen tribes didn't stop defending Rome even after multiple emperors kept assassinating their generals or double dealing on retirement colonies?

[@brandonquezada9523]

Everyone hates the praetorians. Plus the romanisation process was pretty damaged after Caracalla passed his edict of nationwide citizenship

[@Witnessmoo]

When you don’t have hardy capable loyal men of your own, you do have to hire barbarians. Ideally you will want to grow your own capability back but as a stop gap measure you should recruit the barbarians. What else are you going to do?

[@babelhuber3449]

An overlooked fact in this video is that emperor Diocletian found the northeastern provinces depopulated. This is parts of today's Belgium, Netherlands and northwestern Germany. The population was massacred, taken as slaves across the Rhine or fled. Since Diocletian had to secure the Rhine border, he had to re-populate this area somehow. His solution: Let Germanic tribes settle there and use them as foederati to secure the border. The leaders of these people became Roman generals and later the kings of the Franks. I think one can hardly blame Diocletian for this - he had tons of problems to solve after all. But as a result you now have barbarians living within the empire who play an important military and political role. This comes on top of hiring outsiders as foederati, so at some point you have a complete mess.

[@Novgorod_Republic]

It's not necessarily that they recruited the barbarians, it's that the Romans didn't want to serve in the army anymore. Contemporaries at the time were also saying the Romans became too effeminate and demanding. They didn't want to be separated from all the pleasures of civilized life to be thrown out in the wilderness. The barbarians were obviously used to rugged life, it wasn't much different from their normal living. So the Romans just kept replacing their own men with them for short-term benefits, but we all know what it ended up with long-term.

[@robruss62]

As long as they're Romanized. But nothing wrong with also rounding up a couple hundred thousand perfectly able bodied men from the cities, and drafting them. A tax incentive or land and slaves in return for service. Some combination of the two. The other option was to expand and absorb new peoples. Had Constantine or an undead Crispus taken an army as big as the 120000 man juggernaut that had crushed Licinius and smashed Persia, a bigger and more permanent victory than Trajan's was possible. Other such opportunities existed.... In the end, basically had a man like Valentinian I or Diocletian or Sulla taken the helm after Adrianople, and ruthlessly rallied and rebuilt the army, instead of an admitted "appeaaser" like Theodosius, Rome's fall would not have happened in 5th century. Personnel is policy

[@kriskris2625]

During Justinian the army was almost entirely barbarian but under Roman command officers

[@ForageGardener]

Nope. The problem was Rome failed to romance their leadership effectively which would later romanize the soldiers. The romans if this Era did a lot to keep the new germanic peopels outside of politics and this left them astranged and as the millitary elite they eventually took power

[@celdur4635]

Foederati worked on the East, until suddently all of Anatolia was guarded by Turkish tribes, who rebelled and conquered the country in a few years.

[@mysteriousman4966]

you hail from germany brother?

[@connorgolden4]

People act like the Roman’s didn’t make use of large numbers of foreign and barbarian mercenaries for pretty much their entire history. The issue was that the state had become unstable in the western empire, the economy was in shambles, and a bunch of tribes had crossed at once. All while the western empire had two incompetent leaders at the most crucial times. The western empire was undone by a series of events that happened at the wrong time while being lead by idiots. German mercenaries, many of whom were romanized, were not the cause of Rome’s downfall.

[@colinharbinson8284]

Yes.

[@sgonzo5572]

They fell because they treated the Goths like shit and the goths turned out to be not the ones to F with. Especially when the huns came about

[@Withnail1969]

The Empire fell for the same reason all empires fall.

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

The voice recording was rather quiet when compared to the background music. We come for the story, not the music. I think an empire unable to muster its own defenses is an empire doomed. Mercenaries may have helped stave off the inevitable. But... it's not a binary matter. I think Romans have always used mercenaries, the matter is simply to which degree.

[@reeyees50]

Real reason MAYBE??? YES

[@Felix-z2r]

SOMETIMES the bacxk griund flute music is loader than your voice

[@paul1780]

Comment for the algorithm.

[@RyanWarriorzZ]

How come you’re German and love the Roman Empire? I’m surprised, in a good way but surprised, all others Germanics I see seem to be very proud that their ancestors contributed to the fall of the most prosperous empire in human history and the Dark Ages that it caused, so how come you’re not?

[@septimiusseverus343]

The Romans hastened their own demise as much as the Germans did. And they certainly weren't the altruistic force for good that hardcore Romaboos portray them as.

[@RyanWarriorzZ]

@LittleDolfie womp womp barbarē (your leader was making wet dreams of the Roman Empire, was describing them as Germanics that have descended into the Mediterranean and reappropriated their emblematic salute to his cause, in short, he's a fan)

[@RyanWarriorzZ]

@@septimiusseverus343 I mean sure they just developed 3/4’s of the useful world and brought piece to unstable zones and technology everywhere they see foot (and nothing comes with no price) but right.

[@RyanWarriorzZ]

⁠@LittleDolfie Let me guess, yours is the trans capital? womp womp lil neonazi

[@anthonydefex]

nice

[@TheRezro]

The simple answer is that German Soldiers are the reason why Rome DIDN'T fall! Classic Rome ended in 3'th century with Edict of Caracalla, what granted every free man in the Empire a Roman citizenship. This lead to immediate shift of power to increasingly more powerful Greek half of the Empire. And even on the West, Rome become increasingly irrelevant with capital moving to Mentholatum. Latin speaking population become minority in its own Empire. When Attila attacked, German tribes make Rome a deal. They offered alliance in exchange of the legal enter to Empire. What many people forget is that it make them legally a Roman citizens. It is why they move through Empire unopposed. And there was a reason why Empire start hiring them, due to declining and increasingly disfranchised population. West Rome actually didn't fall. It was not the first of last time when Rome has more then one Emperor. Simple fact is that with declining connection to Constantinople and incensing importance of the Germans. Western Roman provinces simply become independent and Byzantium used this opportunity to cancel Roman citizenship of "Barbarian Kingdoms". Even when Frankish King Clovis I was officially a Roman Consul. Those states also in fact did nominally recognize the Emperor. It wasn't until Charlemagne when West stop recognizing Greek Emperor, what was result of succession crisis in Rome and abandoning of Papal State (a Byzantine Province at the time). What lead to nomination of new Emperor and creation of Holly Roman Empire. And I remind that Otton III was from Byzantium. At the time notion that HRE is West Rome was not that weird. After fall of Constantinople, title was in fact transferred to Spain (Habsburg). Medieval times also were not as dark as people think. It was largely propaganda trying distance modern national states from shared legacy of Christiandom (=Rome). Ango-centirc pop-culture also didn't help. Because if it is true that British isles did see competition between Calts, Vikings and some remanent kingdoms. In Frankish Empire, there was not that much difference between Late Rome and them (Roman Cataphract and Medieval Knight). In short, The West is literally the West Rome. It always was. Just people stop mentioning that after Nazi nonsense.