Barbarization of the Roman Army

The fourth and fifth centuries saw a profound change in the great Roman army. What was once a predominantly Roman institution became increasingly УbarbarizedФ, a term used by historians for the Germanization of Roman culture, with more and more northern peoples being used in the army, which, some modern historians claim had a negative impact on the Empire itself. Many modern historians claim that this was a key factor in the decline and fall of Rome itself. But to understand the impact this had on the Empire, one must first look at how and why the army underwent such a change. The army went from using German mercenary units as extra troops to the barbarians becoming the backbone of later armies . Was it just a sign of the times, or was it a forced situation, as some historians have thought? Or was it just a continuation of Roman tradition of synthesis and absorption of outside cultures? Rome has always used troops from other cultures and adopted their tactics if superior to theirs. In my paper I shall try to prove that the УbarbarizationФ of the army was no different than what Rome had done throughout its history, and that the Germanization had little impact upon the empire. First I shall look at modern interpretations of the УbarbarizationФ of the Roman army, then move on to the contemporary sources. From there I shall form the core of my thesis: there was no significant change in the army, and this led to no real impact on the empire.

In order to discuss the barbarians and their impact upon the army, we must look first at modern historiography, as it is a more concrete foundation in which I can build my thesis (since modern historians have the ability of hindsight and seeing the whole picture, rather than be limited in vision and scope like the contemporary writers). Randers-Pehrson, a modern historian, states that barbarians in the army were УЕa demoralizingly disruptive forceФ . She goes on to say how the Goths were Уunruly and wild, coming and going as they liked and abandoning the traditional drills, making the army less and less respectable each dayФ . But another modern source, Roy MacMullen, states that by the mid-fourth century no Roman general wanted Roman troops, they wanted barbarians, and that by this time the typical fighting force of Rome was half imported . Hugh Elton warns us that when we read primary text of any sort on the complaints about the barbarians in Rome and its army we have to be careful, as the authors were УЕcivilians for the most part and were writing for political reasonsФ and that Уno soldier, such as Ammianus or ProcopiusЕ suggests that barbarization affected the armies performanceФ . It would be a hasty decision to state that the barbarians had any real negative affect on the army. Modern Historians who support the claim use the treacheries of the Goths and Vandals to lend credence to their claim, yet we have no evidence of actual racial motivations. Most of the betrayals were of political and social origin, not race oriented. If this is true, then the Germans acting in such a way were acting as Romans involved in Roman culture, not a corrupting outside force. As Hugh Elton states, УWhat would traitors gain from betraying the Empire? They would lose all benefits accrued from being in the EmpireЕФ . The barbarians joined the empire for such gains. Why would they just throw it all away in treachery? Those Germans who did betray the empire were not volunteers, but usually those conscripted through levies imposed upon defeated barbarian tribes and prisoners of war. The Germans who joined the army were looking for pay, medical care, regular meals, and other such benefits, and would not willingly throw such things away. The Goths were fighting for a homeland that would be both militarily safe from the Huns and economically healthy . Furthermore, as E.A. Thompson states, УЕit is hard to believe that the Romans would have recruited and promoted barbarians on such a scale as they are known to have done if the danger of treachery had been extremeФ . The Romans were known for their military genius. It is almost impossible for us to believe that the Romans would make such a military blunder as to conscript such a dangerous and unreliable people. Yet many modern historians still hold to the claim that the barbarization of the army was detrimental to Rome. Thomas Hodgkin writes, УЕ the so-called Romans army was in fact a collection of aliens and enemies to Rome [trained and armed by Rome] but only so much the more dangerous to the country which it professed to defendФ . Though there has been a revision in the outlook on the Romans and barbarians sociologically since the 19th century when Hodgkin wrote this, there are still some modern historians who still hold to this claim, such as Randers-Pehrson. Yet there seems to be little evidence to support their claims of such a negative impact on the army and Rome.

From modern historiography