What caused the Late Roman Army's manpower problem? Why did they recruit so many Barbarians?

The army of the Late Roman Empire (roughly 284 to 500) had a multitude of problems it had to face: rebellions, civil war, barbarian raids, outright invasions, and secession. Popular memory holds that this military was extremely ineffective, in part because the Roman was forced to rely increasingly upon barbarian recruits as opposed to native Romans. This has led to the so-called "Barbarization Thesis" and is one of the main ideas for the end of the Western Roman Empire around 500. But is this really the case? Recent archaeological and textual work has revealed to us that the Roman army was extremely efficient in Late Antiquity and that towards the end of the fourth century it suffered not from a manpower shortage, but from a recruitment issue. What caused this, and how long did it go on? Why did the Romans recruit so many barbarians? And what was the overall effect on the roman military?
SOURCES:
Warfare in Roman Europe, Elton
The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation, Ferrill
The Roman Army: A Social & Institutional History, Southern
The Late Roman Army, Southern & Dixon
The Roman Army: A History 753 BC - AD 476, Southern
Barbarian Migrations and The Roman West, Halsall
The Fate of Rome, Harper

[@TheFallofRome]

I’d also like to thank my new patrons: Belisarius Christian Terry Hasan Michał Zajch Pizzariffic

[@nerva-]

I'm Belisarius, BTW. Great videos.

[@incorectulpolitic]

You see, when you force innocent souls against their will, without their permission/consent into this 'heavenly' dimension of a lifelong suffering and DEATH to satisfy your sadistic/megalomaniacal/loser/purposeless/bored to death/virtue signalling/ emotion-instinct driven(like a wild animal/beast) nature, you actually become THE ROOT CAUSE of their death since children are NOT immortal. I love children so much that I will NOT force any child against his/her will into this heavenly dimensions to experience all the 'gifts' and 'wonders' of life such as a lifelong suffering from all points of views and sooner or (if lucky) later: DEATH. I am NOT going to cause the DEATH of anybody or anything but YOU and other breediots caused and ARE causing and WILL cause the death of billions of children. I hope you realise that the root cause of the suffering and death of your children is: YOU. I often wonder how can you sleep at night and live with yourself during the day KNOWING that your children will DIE because of YOUR boredom, poverty, selfishness, loneliness, irresponsibility, hope syndrome complex, hopium addiction, low IQ, megalomania, shallowness, emptiness, vanity, drama queen/king complex syndrome, hero complex syndrome, God complex syndrome, narcissism, virtue signalling syndrome, ignorance, arrogance, entitlement complex syndrome, needing a retirement plan. Breediots are quite astonishingly evil and the ROOT CAUSE of ALL problems since the beginning of time. Not ONE person unfortunate enough to be born escapes suffering or causing suffering. Sentient life is a construct of the most unimaginable, incomprehensible evil there is. To reproduce is the most vile, immoral crime/sin possible. Try asking people why they wanna have kids and I guarantee none of those reasons have the child's wellbeing in mind. ALL of the reasons are for the parent's own fulfillment. Having kids is purely a selfish desire, no one has kids for the sake of the children, they do it for their own wants and "needs". Breediot losers are THE root of ALL evil and ALL problems. THE root cause of ALL of your past, current and future problems were, are and will be your breediot parents. You do not owe anything to your breediot parents, THEY owe you everything since they forced upon you the ‘wonders’ and the ‘gift(s)’ of ‘life’. Work like a slave, retire right into the grave. ...

[@madhurawat155]

There's one more thing that shall be mentioned. Most people (basically all apart from historians) jump from Constantine's death to the rise of Aetius, grossly skimming over a lot of historical context in doing so. We have fair reason to believe that despite the problem Late Roman Empire faced, *which were many,* the state had functioned somewhat well during the reigns of Constantine the 2nd, Julian and Valentinian the 1st. And even after the disastrous battle of Adrianople, Theodosius had managed to partially salvage the situation as well. I know that you have already taken them into consideration and mentioned them in the video, but seeing how common people are usually neither interested nor completely aware about the whole thing, it deserves to be given a greater emphasis.

[@stevensilverberg605]

There were a series or plagues culminating in the plague of Justinian. As much as two thirds to three quarters of the population died. The narrator is not aware recent scientific work. The population of at least the western empire was declining.

[@canal7543]

"What caused the Late Roman Army's manpower problem?" Corrupt, stupid, incompetent, visionless polititians and leaders. Rome needed Julius Caesar or Aurelian or Augustus in those times.

[@AethelwulfBretwalda]

It's because Aurelian was so awesome and had such massive balls exuding with manliness that the male population of the empire after that was emasculated and unable to properly serve in the military. Aurelian's residual glory was all that sustained the empire after that.

[@TheFallofRome]

10/10 would watch a show about him. Aurelian the Gigachad

[@hexapodc.1973]

Yk how romans made naked statues of dudes, like bro the balls on aurelians statue must’ve taken months to perfect

[@ConnortheCanaanite]

Hey, my family were the Syagrii family and I would like to say we held out for some time; we held the Soissons Roman territory but eventually married into Gallic and Frankish Royal lineages.

[@danielstavroff1535]

Though a huge fan of Aurelian, the absolute legend of the Illyrian generals and literal restorer of the Roman world (the only true holder of the title) I don't think his legacy went far beyond his death, due entirely to the works of Diocletian and Constantine relating everything to make themselves beyond approach ;)

[@Hello-ig1px]

Aetius > Aurelian

[@Pan_Z]

A way to imagine why the Roman Army had a manpower shortage is to place yourself in the shoes of the average commoner. Joining the army in the 2nd-century: * Good pay * Various benefits, like a plot of land * Citizenship for you and your descendants after your 20-years of service. Joining the army in the 5th-century: * Paid in a useless coin * Benefits have largely eroded * Every free man is already a citizen * You're likely to fight against other Romans rather than an outside enemy, so what's the point? Unless you were part of a frontier province, joining the Army seems pointlessly dangerous Good point about Diocletian's decision to separate military & civil positions. One could have a distinguished career without needing to get shot at by arrows. Interestingly, nearly 300 years later in the 6th-century, Emperor Maurice would revert this.

[@ingold1470]

Or if you were an ambitious wannabe warlord.. not exactly a recipe for stability.

[@amh9494]

Sounds like today vs being a WW2 GI. 🤣

[@hugejackedman7423]

Eerie similarities between this comparison and the military recruitment concerns posed to the modern West.

[@amh9494]

@@hugejackedman7423 'Therefore, under the lead of Alavivus, they took possession of the banks of the Danube, and sending envoys to Valens, with humble entreaty begged to be received, promising that they would not only lead a peaceful life but would also furnish auxiliaries, if circumstances required. 2 While this was happening in foreign parts, terrifying rumours spread abroad that the peoples of the north were stirring up new and uncommonly great commotions: that throughout the entire region which extends from the Marcomanni and the Quadi to the Pontus, a savage horde of unknown peoples, driven from their abodes by sudden violence, were roving about the river Hister in scattered p403 bands with their families. 3 In the very beginning this news was viewed with contempt by our people, because wars in those districts were not ordinarily heard of by those living at a distance until they were ended or at least quieted for a time. 4 But when the belief in what had taken place gained strength, and was confirmed by the coming of the foreign envoys, who begged with prayers and protestations that an exiled race might be received on our side of the river, the affair caused more joy than fear; and experienced flatterers immoderately praised the good fortune of the prince, which unexpectedly brought him so many young recruits from the ends of the earth, that by the union of his own and foreign forces he would have an invincible army; also that instead of the levy of soldiers which was contributed annually by each province, there would accrue to the treasuries39 a vast amount of gold. 5 In this expectation various officials were sent with vehicles to transport the savage horde, and diligent care was taken that no future destroyer of the Roman state should be left behind, even if he were smitten by a fatal disease. Accordingly, having by the emperor's permission obtained the privilege of crossing the Danube and settling in parts of Thrace, they were ferried over for some nights and days embarked by companies in boats, on rafts, and in hollowed tree-trunks;40 and because the river is by far the most dangerous of all and was then swollen by frequent rains, some who, because of the great crowd, struggled against the force of the waves and tried to swim were drowned; and they were a good many. With such stormy eagerness on the part of insistent men was the ruin of the Roman world brought in.'

[@zaco-km3su]

Great point!

[@althesian9741]

I think its important to point out that the Notitia Dignitatum is a benchmark for a paper strength evaluation of the armies present at various parts of the two empires. What they are in theory may not be what they are in practicality. Most armies with larger numbers of men were almost always stationed at the east. It had the money and more manpower to enlist more soldiers. Whereas in the west, we see that for the 4th century a lot of gallio-romans recruited into the ranks of the army especially for Emperor Julian’s army. Without some of these provinces that traditionally made up the bulk of most recruitment drives, its hard to envision that the late roman army could replenish its forces fast enough to counter various external and internal threats. Its possible but its extremely difficult to do so. As one can see, that conscription does not always bring good results if we’re not counting defections and desertions among these conscripts. Farmers and those used to hard labor and who were at the frontiers made the bulk of the actual soldiers willing to continue to stay in the military. This is why places like Gaul, Thrace and Illyria are so important as a recruitment drive to recruit men. Their constant exposure to possible raids and invasions coupled with the fact that many soldiers settled down there made it a prime recruitment drive. There’s also the issue of pay and the decline of monetary value of coins. Diocletian made some reforms to the economy but it had failed as it takes into account coin purity but not the supply of money. This is described by Warren Treadgold. Coins of silver were still being debased. Copper coins lacked the value of the silver coins and the solidus was more reserved for the rich. As such the stress of the Diocletianic reforms increased soldier size in the military but it also placed enormous strain on the economy by increasing taxation. Diocletian also supposedly engaged in lawsuits against the aristocratic class to get his taxes. Many farmers also resented the taxation system. The worthless value of soldier’s salaries must have made it quite an unprofitable job and a risky one at that.

[@TheFallofRome]

All excellent points…yes, the issues surrounding the ND is why I specially mentioned a range of strength for the army. We have no way of knowing AFAIK any concrete numbers, but we can guesstimate, although with caution

[@zephlodwick1009]

You're paid just in cash as a soldier. So you can't fall back on barter if no one accepts coinage because it's so worthless. You can trade your goods for something if you're a farmer or a blacksmith or something.

[@Pan_Z]

The coinage is probably the main reason. There was no real incentive to join the Roman army. You get paid in a worthless coin, and intangible things like citizenship were already granted to all free men back in 212. You're also likely to fight in a civil war, not defending the empire against any outside threat.

[@KuK137]

Were his reforms increasing strain, though? Or was this work of church parasites, doing no work and paying no taxes, forcing the increasingly smaller part of the population to bear the tax and conscription burden? People blame the Emperors who tried to fix things, not useless parasites spewing voodoo and contributing nothing productive like cancer killing the body...

[@TheAlgorath]

I think this argument, while sound, ignores the lack of impetus on the average citizen. Civil servants were paid in coin as well. Especially as Roman laws created a separate warrior caste, divorcing the populace from the military writ large; much as America has done today with the all volunteer force. Hendonism and apathy at home killed Rome more than the economy.

[@waltonsmith7210]

I love history, especially the fact that nearly everything I learned in my early days from popular history books and tv shows was wrong.

[@Zogerpogger]

It's a great feeling isn't it? That there is always more to know, and one's conception of a topic can always be expanded .

[@ThatPianoNoob]

What about your school schedule? Most of what we learned about the period in school was correct afaik. It just wasn't very detailed.

[@fredjohnson9833]

​@@ThatPianoNoobthe problem with school is that most kids don't retain much. Hollywood, politicians and Pop history can afford to change things to increase entertainment value at the expense of accuracy while academic source don't have that luxury. Falsehood wins because the truth is often comparatively boring.

[@ThatPianoNoob]

@@fredjohnson9833 guess I've had good teachers or I'm a good retainer then.

[@ingold1470]

I think the main reason is that the generations that wrote letters to each other every day were better writers than their descendants who switched to phone calls, which means that pre-1950s historiography is far easier to popularize than its modern equivalent.

[@qzamap3870]

It really seems like at some point people realized they weren't living in Rome anymore and hadn't been for some time. Former foederati at some point became functionally independent, but were still Romanized and in some way operated as Romans. First example can I think of is the Roman Senate existing in the Ostrogothic kingdom. The whole lines on the map changing colors doesn't give a very concrete view on how the people of the time would've understood it. Like you said, the Empire accidentally killed itself, but its death and transition into the early medieval period is incredibly vague, undefined, and absolutely fascinating.

[@TheFallofRome]

They did, yes. But it doesn’t appear to have really been 476 like we tend to think. More into the 550s is when this was really happening

[@user-vz1zc3fn7o]

Even after the fall of the west, there's still a letter from the king Sigismund of the Burgundians to emperor Anastasius where he calls himself and his people "nothing other than your soldiers." As you point out, the Ostrogothic kingdom was subordinate to the emperor in Constantinople and maintained Roman institutions such as the Diocletianic provincial organisation (And Romans were regularly appointed into bureaucratic positions) and the Roman senate still met. And throughout the whole empire coins still wore the face of the emperor in Constantinople. If you lived in the 510s you wouldn't have thought that much at all has changed.

[@jeffengel2607]

The Roman Empire in the west died by gradually ceasing to be an empire or Roman.

[@dominicvskurt215]

@@jeffengel2607 the East died by ceasing to be an empire but was still pretty roman to the end

[@cal2127]

sounds alot like america post 9/11

[@josephpercente8377]

The later roma army was largely hereditary. If you lose 100,000 men in warfare in the late 300s that's maybe 100,000 men you don't have for recruiting. Plus you're assuming that rosters were full. It may have been a case of Iraq or Afghanistan, where your commander gets half your pay and you don't have to show up.

[@TheFallofRome]

Sure, that’s probably part of it. The issue concerning paper strength is one you’ll often see discussed. It’s why there’s a range for total numbera

[@TheMrgoodmanners]

hannibal culled 60,000 roman soldiers in just one battle yet rome always mustered more men. i blame plagues for the population collapse during this period

[@sosig6445]

@@TheMrgoodmanners Recruitment and the army worked differently in hannibals time, the early Roman state was essentially an army in on itself. The entire population WAS the army. The entire system worked on the basis that every member of Roman soceity was highly encouraged to partake in a military carieer, and the common success of the state's conquest was in everyone's interest. Rome was early on essentially a military with a state around it, and unlike sparta the qoute on qoute "Military state" Rome had EVERY class of citizen and non citizen accepted and recruited into the army. in the Late empire the descendants of those conquerers had no more reason to conquer nor to join the military, they already recieved wast lands generations ago as pentions they did not want to leave those estates and farms. And the current low class was not promised the same generous military pension that made the military an actual good career choice. Almost no one was actually willing to do the fighting compared to the early Roman warmachine where every young man was considering it and the recruits were eager to claim glory, fame, power and wealth by force. Why fight for a military that gives you shit pay, and even locks your family into the military career? Why wouldn't you fight for a military that conquers and redistributes land and wealth among it's soldiers generously? These were the questions that separate the citizen of the republic and early empire from that of the late empire

[@Blox117]

@@sosig6445 its "quote unquote" not quote on quote

[@MrWolfstar8]

It strongly indicates that the warrior families were not having a lot of kids. Roman families in the early republic were huge. In the late republic and imperial period they started having fewer and fewer kids leading to man power shortages.

[@snuffthisrooster7043]

Maybe part of the reason the Roman Army had a harder time recruiting people was because there were less offensive wars of conquest where there were opportunities for loot and glory. It's sort've like how the modern US military has a harder time recruiting during peace, but after events like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 they had to turn people away because there were so many men willing to sign up.

[@TheFallofRome]

That’s something I had considered, yeah, but I didnt include it since I haven’t come across it in the literature, but yeah lack of opportunities for booty is a possibility I suppose

[@r0ky_M]

Even after Pearl Harbor, the US still enforced the draft/conscription under the; 'Selective Service and Training Act of 1940'.

[@snuffthisrooster7043]

@@r0ky_M Yeah they still had to draft people and they actually did have a limited draft building up to ww2, but there were still loads of men willing to enlist.

[@r0ky_M]

@@snuffthisrooster7043 US still saw need to draft after entry into WW2.

[@OmegaTrooper]

@@TheFallofRome Yeah, could be that the "promise" of being a solider just evaporated over the years. No need to sign up for citizenship, no booty, forced to do it because dad did, little esprit de corps due to no town or region left to represent just the empire's bloated bureaucracy, family needs me on the farm, etc.

[@TheFallofRome]

Two corrections: I incorrectly list Claudius II’s reign as starting in 260 at one point. It should be 268. I also realize that around the three minute mark I repeat a line. Apologies. Not sure how that made it through the editing

[@patrickdc8396]

Thought you were repeating it for emphasis 😂

[@TheFallofRome]

@@patrickdc8396 nope, although it is important!

[@nowthenzen]

Perhaps it was from smoking a big fattie and slamming tequila? That's usually how I make my mistakes. I make a lot of mistakes.

[@TheFallofRome]

@@nowthenzen nope that would be my wife. Sleep deprivation and caffeine usually cause my slip ups

[@ScapularSaves]

No worries - to err is human (errare humanum). St Augustine of Hippo wrote a book Retractationes. humilitas occidit superbiam.

[@TenOrbital]

The frequent civil wars didn’t help. An aphorism has stuck in my mind - “the most dangerous enemy to any Roman army was another Roman army”.

[@54tisfaction]

I think you overlooked one important factor: The Roman economic system. From early imperial times an onwards, the Roman farmlands had steadily been bought up by wealthy land owners and turned into Latifundia worked by slaves or serfs. This means that the very peasants that had constituted the core of the Roman armies during the Republic had disappeared, either by being tied to the land and not available, or by having moved into the cities and working in industries also owned by the wealthy. The elite thus had an invested interest in their own workers not being drafted for service in the very army that would protect their wealth, and turned to foreigners. One could draw similarities to present day and the growing inequality in Western society and the eradication of the Middle class, but I'll leave it at that.

[@mehmetfatihcetin5932]

In turkey wealth gap is insane but state pays very good for government jobs. Especially army being payed a lot. So people flood to army jobs. I dont think west pays good enough maybe except usa

[@TenOrbital]

Reminds of all those shows about plane and ship disasters; systems are designed to deal with one or two failures but four failures simultaneously results in a crash.

[@TheFallofRome]

Yeah this is one of the recognized factors in the end of the Roman Empire. It was fairly stable in the fourth century. But eventually there was too much going on all at once

[@user-qm2wl9ry9n]

Yeah , that is a really good opinion , and besides being an opinion it is born out by the facts . Very good generalization

[@tritonlandscaping1505]

@@TheFallofRomeBut the reason for all the invasions was that troops were stripped from the frontiers to fight in civil wars. Troops that never returned. Obviously the ruse was up after a while when the barbarians realized the border was held by a skeleton crew and they tried their luck.

[@nerva-]

One theory I'd like to put out there, that I know of no actual evidence to support/refute it, but simply because it seems like common sense, is that perhaps the difficulty in recruiting soldiers from the 4th century onward, was because of the increased frequency and severity of civil wars? While the 4th century did not have the abundance of rampaging barbarians like the 3rd and 5th centuries, Diocletian's new divide-and-rule approach was a guarantee of civil wars, with the empire being divided upon the death of a sole ruler and reunified "Highlander-style" again and again, and many of these wars were bloodier than the barbarian invasions. My point is, just speaking from a modern perspective, if you asked me to join the US Army and risk my life fighting the enemies of the USA, it's a risk, but you're risking your life for something you think needs defending -- but if the US Army spent most of its time fighting itself, over and over, I would want nothing to do with it, patriotism be damned.

[@TheFallofRome]

Oh that’s probably a factor, no doubt about that. If you’re losing professional soldiers like that in droves, at some point you need to replace them, and you need time and resources to do that, which goes into the general point I brought up in the video. After about 400 there were just enough problems that the western empire couldn’t bounce back in time

[@agreatmanlookingtotheright]

Who does the US need defending from though

[@TheFallofRome]

@@agreatmanlookingtotheright aliens o_O

[@nerva-]

@@agreatmanlookingtotheright useful idiots.

[@jeffengel2607]

@@agreatmanlookingtotheright We have all sorts of problems - if we could shoot them, we'd be set!

[@cloudyvortex]

I'm getting shades of the Soviet collapse of 1991 (or the imperial mess London found itself in in the 1760s-70s). The more things change... On the other hand, the Romans outlasted the general climatological wrecking ball that took out the Parthians, Kushans, Han, and even the Adena Moundbuilders and Preclassic Mayans (clearly a hemispherical event). No civilization, government, or national identity lasts forever. But a willingness (and capacity) to adapt and reform will usually earn you another day.

[@josephahner3031]

The Roman national identity lasted into the 20th century. Greek soldiers who occupied the island of Lemnos after World War One found that the locals regarded themselves as Roman rather than Greek or Turkish.

[@OljeiKhan]

​@@josephahner3031in Turkey we still refer to all "Greeks" outside of "Greece" as "Rum"

[@user-on3zi9fo2g]

Not necessarily

[@herptek]

Identities are actually the last to go usually. Interestingly enough, many an Empire after Rome has tried to legitimate itself by convincing itself and others to be the heir of Roman empire. What we have come to understand as western civilization itself used to think in these terms.

[@user-ew5eh2co5p]

The Han came back as the Tang, Sung, Ming, and Ching. Now as the dreaded Main land China.

[@NickPoeschek]

I love this time period and how the interpretations and explanations have changed even just during the 30 or so years I’ve been reading about it. Seems like it’s gone from something that was inevitable and obvious to something very confusing.

[@anitaibele7743]

We know from various laws of that time that hereditary service was enforced not only in the army but also in the civilian sphere. The Roman army had to compete for new recruits with more attractive jobs in the private sector. The pay in the army and the general quality of life were pretty low compared to a simple job in a bakery in a Roman city. Added to this is the danger of death in combat and it is understandable why there is a shortage of recruits. Or at least that is my guess

[@TheFallofRome]

Absolutely. The presence of attractive alternatives which took away recruits is a factor in this

[@markusz4447]

"The Roman army had to compete for new recruits with more attractive jobs in the private sector. The pay in the army and the general quality of life were pretty low compared to a simple job in a bakery in a Roman city. Added to this is the danger of death in combat and it is understandable why there is a shortage of recruits." This holds true for pretty much every western country nowadays lol

[@sosig6445]

@@markusz4447 wich is why the west has few but well payed and well trained volounteer soldiers instead of wast armies of conscripts.

[@markusz4447]

@@sosig6445 the well payed is rarely true.

[@sosig6445]

@@markusz4447 Soldiers usually have above avarage wages in most of NATO

[@gremlet9104]

Maybe the barbarians really did destroy the empire, but in a sense that it was more like a civil war between generals like how it was common, except those generals and their troops were so different that the states they formed would not be indentified as "Roman" by later historians.

[@floridaman318]

I mean, that's pretty much what happened.

[@misaelfraga8196]

Barbarian generals did. Many barbarians helped maintain it by fighting for Rome with incentives. What also hurt recruitment was the Edict of Caracalla. Barbarians living within the empire had no need to risk military service for Rome since the incentive of citizenship was automatically giving afterwards.

[@MrAlepedroza]

@@misaelfraga8196 On the contrary: Roman citizenship was of no use, even after becoming universal, if it meant you were going to be taxed to death, forced to lived like a miserable serf, forced to fight in endless civil wars, endure a useless economy...etc. Its not that citizenship became too cheap, it was actually far more expensive than before. Eventually, people preferred to be called barbarians rather than romans for fiscal purposes. Shows how broken the roman system was.

[@boarfaceswinejaw4516]

@@misaelfraga8196 "Fight for rome and become a citizen" "but im already a roman" "no you're not, you live in Gaul" "which is now officially a part of rome" "oh... You're awfully clever for a barbarian" "*Roman."

[@commandermcnash5137]

Yeah well, still, they called themselves Romans in the same way a thug will declare allegiance to his gang, truth be told anthropology points out this tribal behaviour is endemic in humans, and more for men, we want to belong to the biggest, meanest and most successful gang and the Roman Empire was the largest mafia around in the mediterranean world, so it comes as very nice to put in your ridge helmet, tattoo the SPQR in your arm and raise the spatha hailing the City. As some historians have noticed, most large political bodies through history have been a bunch of very intimidating people collecting protection money in exchange of keeping off the other intimidating people.

[@michaelwong9411]

Constant succession problems and civil wars have a way of seriously depleting an empire's manpower. It's actually amazing that the Roman empire held together for as long as it did.

[@user-cg2tw8pw7j]

The reason is that the Romans had a huge population

[@shaneboardwell1060]

The constant civil wars and subsequent political fragmentation meant the Romans manpower was no longer what it once was. When Alaric sacked Rome in 410 all the legions in Gaul were fighting under a usurper emperor. Perfect microcosm of the problems in the west.

[@MessiKingofKings]

Lovely video. The real cause for the downfall of Rome was Diocletian and his reforms. He made it impossible for small farmers to live on their production, Lactantius mentions this, and the problem was not fully resolved as Valens witnessed people cutting fingers to avoid conscription since they had no love for the oppresive overlords. Trade in the Empire was a shell of what it used to be, with inflation still high. As a bonus, you could have also mentioned the Illyricum province which was like the Scottish Highlands for the British Empire, a great manpower recruitment area. This is the reason why Stilicho fought so much for this part of Eastern Rome.

[@TheFallofRome]

Thank you very much! As far as Illyricum and the other points you raised, I’m in the middle of a script which will go over hereditary recruitment, laeti, and foederati and the hospitalitas system in some detail, as a corollary to this video

[@MessiKingofKings]

@@TheFallofRome Oh, that's nice. Your channel is amazing, might become a Patreon soon.

[@RodolfoGaming]

I think caligula giving out citizenship to all people within rome's borders was the breaking point for 'manpower shortages' from the 3rd century onwards. Beforehand citizens were required to have a lengthy, almost life long military service to obtain citizenship. Now with just handing it out many people within rome's borders were no longer willing to enlist in the army unless under foreign invasion and even then more reluctant than before to sign up. Of course plagues and constant wars played their part they were the deadly combo especially for the legionary manpower which disproportionately hit the armies compared to civillians manpower

[@Zhohan-]

Most underrated history channel on KZbin. Great work.

[@TheFallofRome]

Thank you

[@ethantaylor9613]

The changes to more spearman and cavalry as cavalry warfare revolutionized and stirrups slowly started to come into use makes sense, but my question is why did they start using flat shields? The early legionary shields are some of the best designed tower shields ever made, was it just a resources thing?

[@emsnewssupkis6453]

barbarians loved their round shields. They kept this from 400 AD all the way up to the War of the Roses! They viewed Roman shields as uncomfortable, bulky and annoying.

[@kevinyonan2147]

awesome analysis. Can you do a similar analysis on the Fall of the Assyrian empire? Alot of people also have somewhat differing reasons why the Assyrian empire fell (drought, rebellion, etc) but it's hard to pinpoint a step by step reason or set of reasons how it actually fell like how you reasoned with the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

[@TheFallofRome]

Thank you! Id be happy to do something on the Assyrians. But, it would definitely be some months away…the bronze and early Iron Age is really outside of my zones of focus

[@kevinyonan2147]

@@TheFallofRome no prob. Given the quality of your video, I'd say it's worth the wait!

[@goodcomrade2949]

Keep posting more late roman army content its great

[@TheFallofRome]

Will do!

[@animefreddiemercury]

I wonder if native Roman's felt disenfranchised in their country and stopped enlisting due to a feeling of disconnection from their elites, thus causing the need for barbarian recruitment

[@knoll9812]

They lost their yeoman class

[@HopeisAnger]

Neat presentation. Nicely done.

[@socratrash]

Fantastic video. Thank you.

[@86godhand]

Really great video. Thank you!

[@gumbie007]

Great analysis of a fascinating topic!! 👏👍

[@knoll9812]

Rome was fielding large armies and fighting large armies. The competition got stronger. It was a massive ongoing burden. In the earlier centuries the pressure would let up

[@daphnesapci]

Great historiography and cool deductions! The last sentence got me there! Keep going!🎉

[@JMM33RanMA]

This is a very interesting counterpoint to Gibbon's "Decline and Fall." I have just begun to view all of your videos. Keep up the excellent and very interesting work.

[@Zhohan-]

If you like good history channels that talk about Rome, Romaboo Ramblings and Thersites the Historian are two great channels I recommend checking out. Both have an academic background.

[@TheFallofRome]

I do like Thersites! Haven’t checked out Romaboo Ramblings though! Thanks for point it out

[@benchild1339]

I truly love your channel, I actually showed one of your videos (the Antonine plague one) to one of my professors, and he loved it too

[@TheFallofRome]

Oh thank you very much!

[@jonathangranirer4242]

Fascinating video! Thank you for putting it together :)

[@TheFallofRome]

You’re welcome!

[@vladimirvovk8284]

another great vid, keep it up!

[@TheKenigham]

Congratulations on the choice of topic. I’ve always been curious about this!

[@TheFallofRome]

Great! Hopefully it helped clear some things up!

[@victoriaburkhardt9974]

Interesting. Thank you.

[@arturleperoke3205]

11:02 THANK YOU! so seldomly someone talks about that! While making your subjects "equal" this might look like a reasonable humanitarian move from our "modern point of view"..though it dramatically reduced the attractiveness of being a soldier! And these were not very peaceful times.

[@theequitableprose]

Well constructed and thoughtful.

[@TheFallofRome]

Thank you!

[@BigChapDidNothingWrong]

Fantastic summary

[@TheFallofRome]

Thank you!

[@Stormcloakvictory]

I like that you point out that the Romans generally won their battles against the goths and other Germanic tribes. Same as with the Vikings, people think they were unbeatable when in reality, even in Britain, Vikings lost more battles than they won. And they tried to prevent battle as much as possible, hoping to only target those who can't defend.

[@sturmgewer44]

Nice video!

[@TheFallofRome]

Thank you! Hopefully it keeps gaining traction!

[@brandongarcelon8476]

Love your channel, never stop making videos!

[@HomeRudeGirlz]

Joe? Is that you Joe???

[@brandongarcelon8476]

@@HomeRudeGirlz let’s not do this joe.

[@robbabcock_]

Awesome video on a complex topic! ⚔

[@TheFallofRome]

Thank you!

[@gudmundursteinar]

Basically, because by the time of the post-classical empire warfare had changed and the method by which you made a soldier was one that barbarian tribes excelled at while settled states like rome failed at. From about 300 AD til about 1300 AD tribal or feudal societies dominated where land was granted in exchange for military service. Rome didn't adopt such a system until Eastern Rome adopted the theme system in the 7th century, after the Great Sassanid War. This system didn't end until the infantry revolution.

[@mg4361]

Leaving a comment to help push this amazing channel higher in the youtube algorithm.

[@TheFallofRome]

Thank you! It’s getting up there, slowly though !

[@windalfalatar333]

Extremely good video. Perhaps you could bring up the distinction between the "limitanei" and the "posse comitatus" of the Late Imperial army. The limitanei were less skilled troops deployed in frontier towns if not generally on the frontier itself. The comitatus comprised a more professional, mobile army, a substantial part of which was made up of cavalry, which was stationed in the hinterland. There were several of these comitatus armies. They could relatively easily be deployed to firefight wherever a barbarian invasion or incursion appeared along the vast frontier.

[@carlosvalle612]

More practically, Honorius was briefly persuaded to set aside the laws forbidding pagans to be military officers, so that one Generidus could re-establish Roman control in Dalmatia. Generidus did this with unusual effectiveness. His techniques were remarkable for this period, in that they included training his troops, disciplining them, and giving them appropriate supplies even if he had to use his own money

[@carlosvalle612]

They began to rely on individual strength and size instead of discipline and training, complained a Roman general. They were more einterested on the extortion of civilians.

[@theeccentrictripper3863]

@@carlosvalle612 Based

[@theamericancristero7390]

Early on Limitanei weren't poor troops at all, in fact the stability of a border assignment actually attracted alot of soldiers to transfer over from the comitatensis. Early on you had combined arms formations of infantry, light infantry, cavalry, small heavy cavalry QRF squadrons, and even their own brown water naval squadrons. Over time paying & supplying these forces became tedious, leading to land grants proximal to the fort and more production within the castrum, and eventually you end up with guys basically paid to guard a fort in exchange for the right to farm plots around it with their families, and these simple spearmen were little more than a facade.

[@ComradeArthur]

One of your best vids.

[@CrossbowManD]

I always go into watching your videos thinking, "wow, this looks interesting", then the video is even more interesting and fascinating than I expected. Thanks for uploading

[@TheFallofRome]

You’re welcome!

[@spencerdawson4461]

Great channel

[@TheFallofRome]

Thank you!

[@lordnicholasbuzanthefearle2155]

I truely love Kermit and his knowledge of Late Roman History.

[@TheFallofRome]

This video was brought to you by The Muppets!

[@ericponce8740]

The Battle of Adrianople was the beginning of the end of the Roman Legion as an effective fighting unit.

[@tomtravis3077]

To think of the army in the classic legionary sense by Hadrianople is a mistake. The military had been totally reorganized after the Crisis of the Third century.

[@Basileios1974]

Not really. Adrianople might well be seen as a classic infantry battle. What ultimately caused the huge losses of the Roman army was the failure of the Cavalry to properly protect their flanks and rear!

[@romanianturk2101]

Roman Empire entering it's 455555th civil war after Grain shipments from egypt delays, causing famine and unrest and a Rogue General declaring himself Emperor (400 thousand dead romans) 🗿

[@sagitarriulus9773]

Imagine if that were to happen today?

[@romanianturk2101]

@@sagitarriulus9773 you dont have to imagine. I AM NOW THE PRINCE OF BUCHAREST AND DECLARE MYSELF DOMINION OF ALL ROMANIA LET'S GOOOOOOOO

[@clovispadilha3237]

Roman History slander:

[@JamieFHarbert]

Another factor was that most of the Roman Laws were about protection of property (slaves and land) that only Roman Male citizens could actually own. When Roman Army officer died his widow had to scramble to get remarried in order to keep her property. Rome couldn't deal with the rising number of widows and orphans most fell into slavery.

[@matthewj6154]

Western armies are having recruitment issues right now. Other options exist and there's a lack of anything worth dying for any more.

[@kurtuhlig2553]

An incentive to serve in US military would be the VA mortgage. No down payment.

[@Zogerpogger]

This channel feels like the Military History Visualized of the ancient world (or MVH is The Historian's Craft of the modern world)! Great channel.

[@TheFallofRome]

Thanks!

[@Zogerpogger]

@@TheFallofRome Sure thing! I am feeling a binge of your channel coming on...

[@TheFallofRome]

@@Zogerpogger great, I hope you enjoy! My only caveat would be that with stuff prior to about mid 2020 please take it with a grain of salt. I was often not working with a script back then so I’m sure some mistakes occurred

[@Zogerpogger]

@@TheFallofRome Thanks for the heads up and I appreciate you being open about it, I'm sure I'll enjoy them anyway!

[@keizan5132]

I just hit the 2500th like. Well deserved one, great video.

[@TheFallofRome]

Thank you!

[@TheDavid2222]

The reduction of the nominally "free" peasants to the status of serfs in the 3rd century seriously undermined allegiance to the empire among the common people. Moreover, the landowning elite continuously gobbled up more and more land and wealth. The institution of slavery started to decline in the 3rd century making it necessary to more intensely exploit the peasantry (who by the late empire were largely serfs confined to their land). There are a number of primary source accounts of Roman peasants welcoming the barbarian invaders because this actually granted them greater freedoms and relieved their tax burden.

[@thanghoang3198]

I think that you must go back to the founding of Rome to change it. Rome, unlike Carthage, was not a commercial republic of merchants. It was a militaristic state dominated by warlike landowning class - thus it relied on expansion to give lands to farmer soldiers - but due to various factors those lands become controlled by rich landowners as latifundias. If Rome was more like Carthage or Venice, there would have been a strong merchant class to counterbalance them.

[@thanghoang3198]

But, Rome being dominated by such people instead of traders was the reason why it crushed Carthage and conquered everyone.

[@sergeantmajor_gross]

Subscribed.

[@TheFallofRome]

Welcome aboard!

[@urseliusurgel4365]

There is also a social aspect. The best pre-Modern soldiers have always come from independent-minded farming families, the rural Middle Class. In the Late Empire, especially in the West, this class was being squeezed by the rise of latifundia. Latifundia were agri-businesses, huge estates, largely manned by slaves and owned by elite landowners. Latifundia produced little in the way of useful recruits. The great landowners had political clout and could often protect their slaves, and any free clients they had, from recruitment, and themselves from paying their taxes in full. Barbarian overlords did not have effective bureaucracies and were much less efficient at collecting taxes, making them more attractive to provincial Roman landowners than the Roman government itself. The Roman provincial Middle Class, which might have fought, or provided recruits to fight, for their own land, were few in number and the great landowners were quite happy to see barbarians in charge, even if it meant losing a proportion of their extensive domains (the Visigoths in Aquitaine received a third of the agricultural land leaving two thirds to the magnates). Apart from vague feelings of nostalgia, there was no Roman patriotism for the Roman government to make use of, and provincials ended up by having no incentive to prop up emperors or their expensive bureaucracies and armies.

[@hunterkiller232134]

I don't think this is terribly accurate. Roman soldiers hadn't come primarily from the middle class for centuries by the time the Empire fell. They started coming largely from poorer Romans beginning in the time of Marius and by the time of the Empire they were paid directly by the state - landownership need not apply. You seem to imply that historically middle class soldiers were better due to a motivation to defend their homes, but that doesn't seem realistic when most Roman Manipular legions were being used in wars of conquest. Historically the best soldiers have been middle class because they could afford weapons and equipment in a time when most warfighting equipment was provided by the soldier. By the Roman Empire all the equipment and training was provided by the state. Theoretically, if the latifundia were a problem for controlling the largest portions of land that would actually help the Roman legions with manpower as there would be more unemployed Romans who would be willing to join the legion for financial stability.

[@urseliusurgel4365]

@@hunterkiller232134 Becoming a local decurion or magistrate was a sought after honour under the Principate, but by the Late Empire was looked on as an onerous financial burden, to be avoided if possible. Roman society had become hollowed out, and was increasingly directed from the top down, in a command economy that stifled innovation and ambition. Slaves make poor soldiers, servility is not a great martial virtue; the urban poor likewise, as they are more prone to contagious disease and malnutrition in infancy and throughout their youth. The rural free peasant was better fed and less exposed to disease, often taller and more robust than the urban poor, and they made the best army recruit throughout history, as evidenced by the Swiss infantry of the Renaissance. In the West they were in short supply, in the Eastern Empire they were far more plentiful, which aided the East's resiliency, both economic and military. In the end the emperor in the West and his expensive court, bureaucracy and army became parasitic on the provincial populations. The army was as often fighting in civil wars as it was guarding against external foes, and after 406AD it had shown its weakness and inability to expel invaders. Then the barbarian invaders had shown themselves, in many cases, to be a lesser evil than the imperial tax collectors. It is little wonder that the Western Empire dissolved into petty barbarian warband-led statelets and the provincials turned to the church as an expression of their Romanitas and identity. The career of Sidonius Apollinaris a Gallo-Roman aristocrat, from Urban Prefect of Rome, Patrician and Senator, to bishop and Visigothic courtier is an epitome of the times. His son raised soldiers and fought for the Visigoths only to lose out to the Franks under Clovis in the battle that drove the Visigoths over the Pyrenees.

[@ingold1470]

Late Empire? This sounds like the Late Republic.

[@urseliusurgel4365]

@@ingold1470 The degradation of the Italian smallholders and middle classes had a very long history, going back to the Late Republic. In Augustus' time 80% of legionaries were Italian, by the time of Marcus Aurelius little more than the Praetorian Guard were of Italian origin. By the Late Empire the problem of the disappearance of both the rural smallholder and the urban decurion class was found throughout the western provinces.

[@ingold1470]

@@urseliusurgel4365 Sounds similar to the decadence idea. The longer a region was Romanized, the more stratified and less militarised it became, until the only viable recruiting grounds left were places like Illyria and the lands of the Foederati.

[@morganhale3434]

The main problem with recruiting from within the Empire was that especially after the Diocletian reforms the remuneration of the Legionaries was more in kind than in coin. It was basic economics: when the Roman Legionaries were paid in coinage it was a highly profitable career for Roman citizens, but when they were paid with goods it wasn't anymore. The quality of recruits suffered. The one exception was the mobile army which was paid in coin, and it was still of an extremely high quality.

[@concept5631]

The ending was pretty chilling.

[@user-nv9jn7su3u]

Such broad-view video are really cool and helpful to understand complexity not only of Rome, but of any society

[@lionflame21]

There's one thing that later Roman Empire failed to do effectively - assimilating the allied barbarians to the Roman society. In the Republic to the early Empire, barbarians who gained Roman citizenship became almost fully assimilated to the society. Thus their loyalty shifted fully to Rome. However, on the later Empire, it didn't happened. So any barbarians serving the Roman military remained loyal to their barbarian identity rather than shift loyalty to Rome.

[@Nonamearisto]

Serfdom was the real culprit. That explains about 90% of it. Yes, making professions hereditary was part of it, but it's not like people couldn't change jobs anyway; many did regardless if they weren't bound to the land, and people who left a village for a city in particular could start anew. That's how emperor Justin rose to become emperor. He fled his village to escape a barbarian attack, made it to Constantinople with a couple of others, joined the army, rose through the ranks to be on the emperor's guards, and then became emperor himself. And remember, for every priest, monk, or civil servant, there were at least 20-50 serfs. Probably more like 100 in the Western Empire.

[@docholiday7975]

Coloni were part of the recruits that were being drawn up as conscripts, being someone's bondsman didn't supersede the armies right to draft citizens.

[@Nonamearisto]

@@docholiday7975 The Roman government had a hard time so much as taxing the landlords, let alone drafting their serfs. Very few coloni ever served in the army.

[@loganm986]

The parallels are kinda insane

[@markavons3400]

Very good video,i tend to favour economic and social reasons rather than an actual shortage of manpower (the population of the east must have been at least 25,if not 30 million). Re Adrianople i would suggest that Valens confronted the Goths (estimated at 10,000 by his scouts)with his main field army,his hesitation and lengthly negotiation on the battlefield after seeing the waggon laager,would suggest that 1.the Goths position was stronger than reported or theyd been reinforced or both 2.Valens felt he didn't have enough of a numerical advantage to assault such a position

[@kekero540]

Fun fact the Roman warm period mainly effected the western empire the eastern empires temperatures remained stable after the end of the Roman warm period

[@user-cg2tw8pw7j]

Eastern Romans: No, it's because we're so rich and powerful

[@nikolatasev4948]

The Roman army was able to to overcome enormous losses during the Second Punic War, with a much lower population to draw from. Then again, at Republican times an offensive war meant the opportunity for new land and plunder, and a defensive war was a threat to Rome itself. Serving the army was directly enriching oneself, protecting of the family, and the only way to start a career in politics. By the late Empire, people could have a political career without military service. It was centuries from the last war to gain new territory, or loot, or stop a threat from reaching Rome. The martial culture was much diminished, which is why the population was not as eager to serve as soldiers.

[@ChaosEIC]

"Serving the army was directly enriching oneself" That is not the case. Many Roman soldiers during the republican era lost their land due to serving too much time in the army and not working their farm. So it was just a bad trade for them. The patricians got rich from those wars. They had big numbers of slaves working on their farms and were buying the small farms from the farmers who could not work it because they served years in the army. Look at the Gracchan reforms for that.

[@nikolatasev4948]

@@ChaosEIC The failure of the Gracchi brothers absolutely had long-term a destabilizing effect, but this does not change the fact that veterans were given land in newly conquered places. So offensive wars and to a lesser extent civil wars were an opportunity for the soldiers to gain new land. Defensive wars did not have as many opportunities. By the time Rome itself was in danger, the martial culture was very much diminished, and Rome had to depend on foreigners to fight their wars.

[@ChaosEIC]

​@@nikolatasev4948 Some veterans would maybe get land in newly conquered lands but that was after the Marian reforms. Even Augustus gave his veterans land in Italy. He just deported the former inhabitants.

[@banananotebook3331]

I've always liked this view of how the Roman Empire collapsed: "if you roll the dice enough times, eventually you'll get snake-eyes."

[@AbbeyRoadkill1]

I've heard it said that that the "frontier culture"- that is, the culture that was created through Rome's conquests and its interaction with the people conquered- ended up usurping the original Roman culture centered around the old Patrician families in Rome. This led to the "barracks emperors" and other problems. Do you subscribe to this view?

[@TheFallofRome]

Well, the answer to that is a complex one. It’s true that cultural mixing transformed the Roman Empire, but I wouldn’t necessarily say it led to problems. The Romans were very content to let local areas and peoples do their own thing as long as they paid taxes, did military duty, and worshiped the geneas (spelling?) which is the spirit of the Roman emperors, essentially they wanted people to participate in the Imperial Cult. What changes is the overall structure of the state. The frontier culture certainly helped to produce the barracks emperors and in late antiquity, the army, but I think this was less of a usurpation and more of an ad hoc response to about 100 years of civil and military chaos

[@floridaman318]

@@TheFallofRome I think the spelling is genius.

[@almor2445]

Something familiar about this story watching the news in the UK lately.

[@lewis7315]

logistics ... feeding the army and population. Starting in early imperial times, Roman corporations acquired all the arable land in Italy, and no longer grew grain. Cattle was far much more profitable. After this, all the grain to feed everyone had to be grown and shipped from North Africa, Cyrene and Carthage. In the late empire this trade declined with the collapse of the currency. The frequent floods interrupted grain processing in Ostia the port city of Rome. The population gradually left the cities. After Italy was devastated in the wars of reconquest, The cities were largely abandoned.

[@specialnewb9821]

Oh baby, I used to have big debates with a certain frenchman on how successful the empire was in the 4th century, especially regarding climate change, so anytime you touch on that my ears perk up. Ahem. Its interesting to relate them to issues in our own societies and their relationship to the military.

[@c.coleman2979]

Early Empire Optimum succeeded by Late Empire Pessimum. Famine followed by pandemics and population migrations in search of food or land. Wars & Civil Wars further aggravated the situation.

[@kurtuhlig2553]

Hmmm, where have I heard this before? “Watches News”. Oh.

[@majorianus8055]

Great video! I hope someday you can also create What Ifs scenario for the Empire, like What if the Arab invasion never happened, can the Eastern Romans recqoneur the West?

[@andrewsuryali8540]

On the subject of Romans turning to barbarian kings: What's your opinion on the idea that the Romans and their barbarian overlords had a major disconnect on the subject of reunification? The Romans definitely expected the barbarian kings to act like prior Roman warlords and try to reunify the empire (by beating their rival barbarian kings), but none of these kings bothered to try until Charlemagne came to the scene.

[@TheFallofRome]

I don’t think there’s really a disconnect at all. Sure some aristocrats likely expected this, but many went over to the barbarians because they realized, by the late 400s, that the situation had changed: instead of one large empire the situation was more like the mid republic-one empire with a bunch of client states, at least in theory, which is how the Ostrogoths and Burgundians initially appear to have perceived it

[@jong.7944]

This is a very long video that could've been greatly simplified: the late Roman Empire became heinously bureaucratic and hence, corrupt and ineffective. That's basically it. Instead of a decentralized relatively light tax burden run by local elites it became a monstrous, centralized state with an unbearable tax burden and incompetent, unaccountable bureaucrats... Perhaps, you know, resembling certain failing superstates today?

[@celdur4635]

But in the past, only with Italy and not even the northern parts of Italy, the Roman estate was able to replenish armies in their tens of thousands. After suffering grievous losses. Such as in the Punic wars.

[@TheFallofRome]

This is because the republican military wasn’t a professionalized one-it was militia based, with all citizens having to do military duty. The Romans also required their Italian and Latin allies to provide soldiers. The result was that large numbers could be raised quickly. During the late empire it was professionalized, which means it took longer. It also doesn’t help that large parts of the empire were suffering severe damage, which limited the taxes the state could draw on

[@celdur4635]

@@TheFallofRome So why did the requirement for all citizens to perform military duty was abandoned? And was the professional late Roman army really that much better than the militia one? I assume that in the late Empire all cities provided soldiers, which would be more than the equivalent of the Latin allies, if no population collapse happened an by the 400's it seemly didn't. I've read that there were attempts at reform, to incorporate those elements of the republican army that were very beneficial back into the imperial structure, but that the wealthy blocked reforms since it was cheaper to pay mercenaries than to lose their workforce. Its always been unsettling to me that, if Rome alone in the 400's had 1 million inhabitants, then that would mean 100 - 200 thousand young men that could be sent to war. With that kind of population and the republican institutions and mindset, where the senators were fighting to see whom donated more money for the war( so tax was not a problem during a crisis) the Empire could've easily recovered, sending 20k army after 20k army until the problem is solved. Since obviously not only the city of Rome would furnish soldiers at that late date the stream of reinforcements would've been near endless i imagine. In any case, i enjoy your content a lot, thank you for taking the time answer. Greetings from Lima, Perú!

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

The militia system was abandoned in the late Republic (look up the Marian reforms) largely for logisitical reasons. Since the provinces were not roman all militia soldiers ended up taking a long time to get to the front and also needed time to go home for their civilian jobs. The militia system worked really well when fights were on or close to recruitment grounds, but when the Republic's empire expanded too far beyond this it became impractical. By the time the provinces were sufficiently romanised later in the empire, where a militia system would work again you had hundreds of years of professionalism. You can't just snap a society into a militia one, it takes alot of effort. Now ad on to that difficulty the fact that going back to an old system is often unpopular as its seen as backwards. It must be noted that we see an increasing number of hastily created rural and city militias forming in the late 300s, completely in dependant of the government. Which sparked a debate in constantinople which came to ahead in 399ad. An increasing number of people demanded a proper militia to be created to supplement the regular military. But they were refused. In the western empire a governemnt militia system was finally introduced in 440. The eastern empire did not have government militias even in the 6th century, although historians record some areas ha ring very well equipped private militias. It wasn't untill the 9th century that the eastern empire had a government militia system. But even then both government militia systems were viewed as a purely defensive siege system, not to mobilise for field battles. The roman elite were incredibly reluctant to use civilians in the field, despite private militias defeating invasions on their own numerous times. Infact these private militiamen were punished even when entirely loyal. When the thematic system was implemented we see non-professional 'supplementary infantry' become the dominant foot soldiers, units many historians believe are militias. By 1453 we know for sure that government trained militias were a thing. What we see is a reluctance of the roman elite to allow lower classes to arm themselves or receive training.

[@celdur4635]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 I remember that the reason the Turks even were able to settle in central Anatolia was that, during the chaos after Manzikert the court at Constantinople disbanded the local Capadoccian and Armenian militia system. Some 30 thousand men guarding the frontier.

[@DemetriusAniketos]

I'm pretty sure nonstop civil wars from about the death of Alexander Severus to the very end of the empire probably had a hand in it. Roman armies facing each other didn't have the tactical or technological edge they possessed over their opponents. High casualties were common and eventually you just start feeling the demographic pinch.

[@jamesgriffith4]

Accidental suicide, a death by a thousand cuts and a hundred blunders what a great summary. If you write a book on this I suggest the title Time Run Out the End of the Roman Empire in the West.

[@inkedfeels]

Hey i have a Suggestion for your Patreon. Why do you not use a system where the Top Doner of the week/month can talk to you on zoom (where ever) and ask you any question he want?

[@kevinbrown6286]

Such a great video

[@ShrimplyPibblesJr]

Just want to say I watched all the Roman history on Wondrium and you sir are a Scholar and a Gentleman. This is equally good. Edit: only one suggestion. Don’t use quotes that take up the entire screen. Wanna be the singer in a metal band? You have the look.

[@mango2005]

I wonder did the hereditary labour-obligations introduced in the 4th century have anything to do with it? Soldiers sons having to become soldiers too, farmers sons having to become farmers, same with bakers, carpenters etc. ? Did that deprive the army of a recruitment pool other than barbarians? Theres some evidence that there was double-counting going on when the landlords had to pay part of their tax by giving up tenants to the army, as they didn't want to lose farm labourers. Also I think the drift of manpower into the church, where they were exempt from conscription might have been a factor too. I think the Edict of Caracalla (212 AD) granting Roman citizenship to everyone living in the empire may have backfired by removing an important incentive for barbarians to join the regular army, as they previously gained citizenship after 26 years of service in the Auxilia units. The Foederati seem to have largely kept their own leaders and political structures, only nominally being under Roman authority in some cases. Also the salaries of Late Roman soldiers was much lower than in Augustus' time which must have put some soldiers off of joining up. Diocletians army was largely a conscript army, and conscript armies tend to be less effective and to have lower morale. Another issue is there is evidence that the lower pay of late Roman soldiers led to many working in second jobs, even though this was forbidden. That may have reduced unit effectiveness and increased absenteeism.

[@jaelee1996]

Also, the pay of soldiers began significantly higher than before. When legions realized that they have a hand in who holds power, they began to demand more pay. Anyone who cut the pay of soldiers was replaced.

[@user-yv4mm6bx3c]

Few people want to put theirs lives on the line for a government that has proven itself to be mostly incompetent. If a person is going to be arrogant enough to assume authority over a people, they have to constantly prove their worth and competence by making no mistakes and providing continued incentive for people to acquiesce to their decision making authority. The standard is to be perfect. If a leader cannot or will not live up to that standard then they are not worthy of the responsibility and rewards that authority and leadership bestow upon a person.

[@user-vz1zc3fn7o]

I've always understood the dilution of military numbers throughout late antiquity and the Middle Ages was largely down to the changes to the nature of warfare itself, especially the increased professionalization of the militaries and the growing reliance on cavalry made it so that pressing 50 000 citizens as infantry fodder, while still theoretically possible for the state to do, wouldn't be as effective as it would in the infantry-reliant armies of classical antiquity. Even as late as the Middle Ages you have cases where rulers panic and press huge armies of infantry into service, only for them to get utterly crushed by a comparatively small number of professional armoured troops (I am specifically thinking of the Battle of Cerami, the Muslim rulers of Sicily and their army of 50 000 gets wrecked by 130 Norman knights, even if the numbers were exaggerated tenfold, that is an insane ratio). This may also explain why the Roman state would look to tough men who already have experience with some of the harshness military life would bring, such as foreigners or sons of veterans, even during the Byzantine period the Romans often hired the hardy Armenians from the mountains to fill their armies. The being said, the supposed slackening of standards during Late Antiquity might speak against this.

[@Leptospirosi]

Edward Lutwak explains the problem quite well in his "The Grand Strategy of the Western Roman Empire": the imperial legions where sledge hammers, equivalent to the modern day nuclear option. Petty kingdom controlled by Rome were tasked to defend the borders against small inclusions and raids, while the legions were stationed deep inside the Roman territory, ready to tackle with anything not manageable by the cushion states outside. In the late imperial era, these petty kingdoms were all absorbed leaving the borders exposed to sudden attacks of fast moving plunderers, which the Roman Legion was not well suited to counter. This led to a period of constant reformations, where the old legion, made by citizens from all over the empire and Interchangeable with other legions were shifted to corps made by auxilia, and mercenaries from the area they were supposed to defend. The number of soldiers had to increase massively as they suddenly inherited the duty of protect small forts and border towns 7/24/365, becoming garrisons and in the process losing their effectiveness as trained legionaries able to move fast and fight effectively in large battles. Instead of a cohesive force stationed at a Hub from where to intercept threats, they were diluted on a wide area, where the often lived their own life with families. As the squabbles internal to the empire erupted these corps were moving to support the politicians and general trying to rise to power, but as they were not proper Roman citizen the generally had their allegiances to their own commanders rather then to the empire, in exchange for regular pay and plunder.

[@Triplitz88]

There is a huge counter argument you need to address: Hannibal. The Romans were on the defensive, being raided in their own back yard and had an army made up largely of citizenry and yet they were able to replenish their numbers at a rate that the late Roman Empire could not. Why was this?

[@docholiday7975]

This is partly answered in the video. The republican army was a drastically simpler one to raise new units with due to the dilectus having records of who was eligible and having a more direct means of activating them, couple this levies being responsible for their own equipment and you've got new armies ready to go on relatively short notice and at a minimal cost. The professional military however had to find its conscripts requiring a larger and more complex bureaucracy, train them up to standard and also equip them making for a slower and more expensive system but was what supported the more effective standing armies from Augustus onwards. It should also be noted that the second Punic war pushed Roman manpower to the limit. Conscription was put into place twice in order to drum up even more recruits, those with exceptions that would normally have excluded them from the dilectus were stripped of citizenship and drafted anyways, the capite censi who weren't eligible to begin with and even slaves were also drafted. In no uncertain terms were they on the ropes after Cannae, only one more major defeat away from collapsing.

[@Triplitz88]

@@docholiday7975 So the gist I get from this is that the Romans failed to create a militia and instead focused all resources on a professional army.

[@docholiday7975]

@@Triplitz88​ Rome had had a professional army for some 400 plus years by that point and which had superseded a militia system wholly inadequate to provide soldiers to serve abroad and for extended periods. To try and field a militia would require reviving the dilectus which in turn would require years of bureaucratic work in order to refill the roles, figuring out who lived where, own what and how old they were. The equivalent would be if in WWII instead of the US drafting individuals into regular army units they decided to set up in parallel a bunch of minuteman militias; an outdated concept already shown inadequate to the contemporary needs which would create needless bureaucratic bloat and hangtime before even being able to get off the ground.

[@danielferguson3784]

Rome had always employed outsiders, at first they were allied, then Auxiliaries, later again they became known as Federates, barbarian groups fighting under their own leaders & less under Roman officers. The Roman Army was comparatively small for the area it had to defend.

[@nerva-]

I've never understood the "population decline" explanation for various things, including the greater difficulty in finding enough soldiers. If there were large-scale climate changes going on that caused population decline and migrations, then populations everywhere would be going down, so there would be no relative lack of soldiers, because enemy populations would be smaller as well. If anything, the Black Death showed that major population declines cause an increase in per-capita wealth, as the existing capital (i.e. land) is split among fewer people, the remaining farmers can focus on the most productive land, housing becomes more affordable, etc. (Thanos was right.)

[@TheFallofRome]

Yeah I’ve never understood it either. I suppose at one time it made sense, if you were strictly looking at things like the remains of walls, or the fact that Tours basically shrinks to the area around St Martin’s tomb. But really the only place I’m aware of where there seems to be a decline in population is in Britain, and that appears to be only briefly. I think it much more sense that the Roman’s just lost the infrastructure to support a professionalized military in the long term

[@marcuspettersson2101]

@@TheFallofRome what if even if there was enough people to farm the land after a large scale death event (disease, invasion etc), the usual surplus of landless second, third sons etc now had enough vacant land to take over instead of going into the army who's salaries monetary value might have lost its attraction compared to other safer more profitable options.

[@TheFallofRome]

@@marcuspettersson2101 sure, the monetary argument is a factor, and it’s something you’ll see in the literature, but not population decline. The evidence we have now does not point on that direction until the fifth century, but really the sixth more than anything

[@marcuspettersson2101]

@@TheFallofRome Sorry not an historian here but I'm not arguing for major population decline, only from later history as I understand it armies eat recruits under normal circumstances due a host of normal events. So what if earlier a certain % of surplus sons die after enlisting in the army just from being IN the army, INSTEAD these guys goes to the recently vacated farmland. The overall population stays the same, but the army has a lot harder to recruit desperate landless sons for a now lower (effective) pay and without the carrot of citizenship thrown in

[@TheFallofRome]

@@marcuspettersson2101 well, something like that does appear to have been a problem, although I’m not sure how widespread it was. Part of the issue in determining this is that we’re not even sure if the Latin terms which discuss vacated land even refer to vacant land, or just land that was unproductive tax-wise

[@historyatitsfinest7112]

In your research, did you ever find estimates for the size of the Roman army in the mid 5th century? Most research I have done simply says it was much lower than before the loss of Carthage, but this is of course extremely vague.

[@NoPantsBaby]

The same reason we have problems now and are considering literally recruiting foreign hordes. The death cycle of empires.

[@neutronshiva2498]

I think part of the problem was that people simply lost faith in the concept or ethos of "Roman Empire". At this point it was very old concept that has lost vigor and freshness necessary to maintain it. All empires have expiration date.

[@TheFallofRome]

Yeah, so this is actually one of the questions that comes up from time to time among professionals-how do we interpret Roman patriotism? Did it even exist? But, regardless of that, the point you raise does eventually come up towards about 500. When the local aristocrats and peasants could no longer depend on the empire they looked for an alternative e power structure, which came in the form of the late Roman armies, and the barbarians who served in it

[@Rayder2341]

Manpower problems... recruiting barbarians... sounds oddly familiar

[@rangergxi]

A huge percentage of the men becoming monks instead of soldiers? Perhaps Gibbon has the last laugh on the Roman Collapse debate.

[@njb1126]

14:08 it just made me think of what brown wrote in TWOLA on page 25 where there was a complaint made to diocletian "there were more tax collectors than tax payers!"