Roman Strategy against Barbarians
Bookmark this page

STRATEGY AGAINST BARBARIANS

Ideal system that kept all Barbarians out – thus stationing of large armies on the Rhine and Danube frontiers.  Any Roman defensive system faced three major problems:

1. Never permanently eliminate all enemies
2. Wars partly dependent n factors outside the defensive system: leadership abilities Barbarian kings, disruption following civil war, famine in barbaricuim.
3. Limited manpower and resources available.

Weaknesses – most troops on frontier so moving them to an area of trouble necessarily weakened another area, made the Emperor militarily weak as only possessed military power when with his army, 3^rd and 4^th century 3 field armies, or non-border armies developed.

Border troops had three main roles: policingm gathering intelligence and stopping raids.

OPERATIONS

Developments strategy seem to have been limited in our period – little change in the Barbarian’s military ability, no external factors that would have forced chamge – operationally little change needed or occurred.

CONCLUSION

Conventional Argument increasing barbarian pressure, army barbarised loses effectiveness, barbarian settlements collapse of the West.

Barbarization is doubtful in both extent and impact, effectiveness sof the army did not decline 350 – 425 so collapse army after this period or not in the army at all. – something wrong with the Late Roman Army

Loss of Adrianople – allowed settlement of Goths in Balkans, not new or worrying but when used against usurpers allowed creation if an identity never possessed by Barbarian groups – Stilicho’s failure to beat the Goths – not until 450 Goths a real pain in Gaul.

Political and military events for the collapse of the Western Empire – ot barbarisation of inefficiency – events had military and financial consequences.

Only in decades after 450 was collapse inevitable – connect this with loss of Africs reservoir of manpower and money – not enough to bring empire down, and Armies still relatively strong.

461 Severus faced with hostile Goths and Vandals, political instability – could not conciliate with commanders in Gaul and Dalmatia – no Roman leader could now deal with existing frontier Rhine and Danube, Goths in Gaul and Vandals in Spain

Military failure may not have been a major cause of the West’s collapse, not military structural weakness – too much pressure on the frontiers, defeat at Adrianople, too many civil wars, not enough soldiers – all contributed to the fall of the West  - do NOT need to add structural failure of the army to the list.

Other Notes in this Category

1. Barbarian Organisation
2. Barbarians and Bishops
3. Crisis 439
4. Introduction
5. Nomadism, Horses and Huns
6. Roman Organisation
7. Roman Strategy against Barbarians
8. The Huns
9. The Huns and the end of the Roman Empire - Peter Heather
10. Vandals and the Collapse of the west
11. Would Empire have collapsed without the huns?

Didn't find this useful?

• Visit Coursework.Info for over 14,000 GCSE, A-Level and University Essays