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

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

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.

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

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

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

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).

DOUBLE EDGED SWORD

"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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Leave it to Sebastian to diss on Rikimer 🤣

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

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.

We must ban pants.

"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.

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.

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