Barbarization of the Roman Army

Though it can be argued that the barbarians were recruited only because of shortage of manpower, the use of mercenary troops is nothing new to Rome. For quite some time, German tribes had served as foederati. During the late fourth and fifth centuries, these foederati became permanently established units in the Roman army, and possibly up to one-third of the officers were of barbarian origin . Yet the majority of the barbarians in the field army, as previously stated, were temporary additions to the army, not one of any permanence (which would be the case if the lack of manpower theory were to be believed). Allied barbarians were used much more extensively than foederati.

The basic Roman armed force was divided into two parts: the field army (comitatenses) and the border troops (limitanei). In the comitatenses, barbarians were either foederati , who were established regiments within the army, or they were allied contingents. The allied barbarians were different from the foederati in that they were not a permanent addition to the army, being instead troops used in specific campaigns and then disbanded. This alignment with the Romans was usually due to a treaty of some sort, where the barbarians had to supply troops until the end of the campaign, and then they were disbanded. Such regiments were hardly “Romanized” in the sense that the foederati was, and as such were left to fight in a single unit upon the field. Their own leaders, who were subordinate to the Roman officers, even led them on the field of battle. The use of such allied contingents “in place of or supplementary to Roman troops was an effective use of power by the Roman Empire, achieving results without expending their own resources”, as Hugh Elton puts it .

Turning away from the modern day texts on the subject, we can look at the contemporary historians. Synesius was writing in the time of the fourth and fifth centuries, but Procopius was writing in the sixth. Procopius is relevant in a broader sense, in that his work shows how the anti-barbarian writings before him were propaganda. If the barbarians were such a menace to Rome and its army, why then would the feelings change just one century later? Contemporary writers such as Synesius and Procopius give us contrasting accounts of the German impact on the army. Synesius called for a purging of Gothic peoples from positions of power, claiming that it was dangerous to Roman power. He says in this text “The Emperor should purify the troops just as we purify a measure of wheat by separating the chaff and all other matter, which, if allowed to germinate, harms the good seed.” Yet in Procopius’ History of the Wars, we read nothing of a negative impact the Germans have on the army. Gre!

Rome was built upon the foundation of different peoples under one culture, and that one culture was ever changing. In my opinion, there was no barbarization of the army. It was the continuation of a one thousand-year-old tradition. And if there was no literal barbarization, then there is no impact upon the Empire, save the stagnant aristocracy. It was they who wrote of the detrimental effects of “barbarians” upon the Empire, not the Roman generals or populace. To them, it was just another group of new faces in the Empire.

The Roman army of the fourth and fifth centuries did use barbarians to an extent, but there is little evidence to show that the army had become barbarized. The most we have is the German war cry and records of the use of German re

Some topics in this essay:
Germanization Roman, Hugh Elton, Thomas Hodgkin, Ammianus Marcellinus, Rome Roman, Rome German, Clovis Franks, Barritus Roman, Peter Well’s, Synesius Procopius, roman army, modern historians, fifth centuries, impact empire, fourth fifth centuries, historians claim, fourth fifth, impact army, army modern, allied contingents, using german, modern historians claim, impact empire modern, army modern historians, key factor decline,