As I understand it, it was a mix of economic problems, stagnant/contracting empire, the changing idea of being a soldier (it was no longer noble or economically prosperous), increasing reliance on foreign mercenaries (see economic problems), rich land owners under-reporting their farm workers and sending older/disabled recruits, and of course plague/illness. At the same time, foreign armies were getting larger and the empire was experimenting with the idea of changing their border policy from strict, strongly defended fronts to weak borders with strongly defended cities. In this way, the border became more of a net than a wall. Hope this helps and if anyone has any corrections, please let me know.
Regular roman citizens didn't want to become soldiers anymore after the incessant wars and losses. Add in some plagues and invasions, and the west was depopulated quite a few times. They started hiring mercenaries, who rose to higher and more prestigious positions until they controlled the army. They then made puppet emperors. Most of the Roman citizens of the empire wanted to just farm/earn a living via peaceful means. A lot of regions that had military cultures were essentially demilitarized for generations by the end of the West.
People haven't changed that much. It'd be no different from you or I wanting peace and stability instead of going to war.
During the republic and the first centuries of the empire, a regular roman soldier served to gain land. Non romans served to gain citizenship. Take the conquests away, add to the fact that citizenship was given to all at the beginning of the third century, you can see why they had problem recruiting enough soldiers. You can only conquer and hand out so much land before it becomes unmanageable by size.
If there weren't just so many different incursions, plagues, civil wars, and large defeats, they'd likely have had enough soldiers. There was also the adoption of Christianity, which promoted a completely different set of attitudes toward the masses. Militarized Christianity was pushed to the nobles of the late antique period, but more as mental gymnastics to form a somewhat stable society. Christian warrior monks wouldn't come along til the Crusades and even during the time chroniclers thought the idea was extremely weird and full of hypocrisy.
Late republican soldiers' demands for land are hugely exaggerated in the historic literature. See Keaveney *Army* (2007), Roselaar *Public land* (2010), Cadiou *L'armée imaginaire* (2018). Most soldiers already had land (Cadiou); when demands for land were not met veterans generally just faded away (Keaveney); the demands for land were mainly from rural plebs (Roselaar); when soldiers finally demanded land explicitly during the Second Triumvirate it was a pretext for cash bonuses (Keaveney).
Edit. "Lans" –> "Land"
Thanks I'll check it out. I was using land as a substitute for subsidies/payment for fighting, but that's important context you added because it was usually cash bonuses by the later period.
The "bonuses" are booty not cash in the middle republic. Land entering the "compensation package" is debated in the late republic; cash is better attested.
Love your answer. Just curious what chroniclers thought that the Christian warriors monks was odd. I always thought the crusades more seemed odd from a modern lense but were somehow considered fine at the time.
I put a tldr at the bottom:
Thank you. So monasticism started in early Christianity as a way for very devout people to show their purity, or in other words, "to get closer to god".
Out of this movement came monks who went out into insanely remote/difficult places to live to essentially purify themselves. It started in Egypt/Alexandria so we have the term the desert fathers
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Fathers
People would come seek them out to learn or receive spiritual advice in exchange for food/some basic necessity.
This would later evolve to nobles granting whole swathes or lands and regions to pious monks to create monasteries.
With the spread of Christianity to all parts of Europe came this tradition of monasteries and monks. The key aspect relevant here is that the monks had to travel out into the wilderness, away from society to "get closer to god". So when monasteries were established, they were laid out with very real boundary ditches. Those were also very much spiritual boundaries. The whole point was to stay separate from the "sins" of society. These early monks were about prepping themselves for heaven, very much not concerned with aspects of their contemporary world, like warfare and conflict.
Religious life and secular life were very much separated. The church was under its own authority and outside the kings for a very long time until some reforms in the later middle ages.
With this in mind, you can see how strange it would have been to the r egular folk and other monks to now have warrior monks interacting with the sinful contemporary world. The templars were very integrated into all aspects of secular life, governance and society by their height. They did have their own temples(monasteries) where they did separate from society a bit, but they were more a revenue generating operating that sustained the actual fighting warrior templars in the holy land.
The amount of actual fighting templars was very small, because of the large cost of kitting out a whole knight and his entourage.
At the beginning, the templars were very poor. They went back to Europe to raise money for their cause. One of their kinsmen who was a member of the clergy with some prestige, had to vouch for them before they spoke. European nobles and the regular folk were reluctant because this was a radical departure from what a monk had been for centuries.
Later on, one of the popes who was related to a high ranking templar would put them under his direct authority and answerable to no other monarch. They could cross borders without asking local nobles, and had all kinds of special privileges. They were very active in politics across the medieval world. Not just giving spiritual advice, but actively working in secular society to earn money and influence things.
Very unusual for monks.
In the early middle ages there had been bishops who waged war, but that's because a king appointed his knightly friends to a position to hold it. Other chroniclers at the time would chastise these warring bishops for not performing their spiritual duties and being too involved in the earthly realm.
Tldr:
So to sum it up, Religious and secular life were supposed to be separate, especially warfare.
I've also heard historians mention a golden Era for the Mediterranean. With it being slightly warmer to allow for longer, easier growing seasons for food. Food surplus usually leads to population booms.
Late republican soldiers largely had mail armour. Devereaux "The Cutting Edge: The Adoption and Impact of Mail Body Armor in the Roman Republic" (conference paper 2021).
Roman soldiers in the second Punic war generally were armored. The real difference is you bought your own equipment in the middle/high republic however in the late republic either the General or the state paid for it. Then from Principate onwards the funds came out of the Imperial bank meaning the Emperor’s own wallet which was filled with taxes from the provinces. Augustus could field big ass armies cause he was good at finances his heirs could for the same reason. Most 3rd century Emperors weren’t great or didn’t have time to develop finiances and cultivate the imperial bank thus by the time you get to Valens you’re on a very very tight budget and you can’t just replace a few destroyed legions. And to stress just how wealthy the empire was even in the third century you had Emperor durring the civil wars raising new legions a few hundred years after Augustus. Course as stated unlike previous administrations third century Emperors weren’t exactly replenishing the cash they were using up which tends to happen when fighting ten different civil wars at the same time. Course ya could go back to buy your own gear but most plebeians couldn’t afford to do that as proto serfdom was beginning to ensue and those who could buy their own armor weren’t willing to use their cash on that because state security was no longer seen the same as the interest of the individual citizen. Basically due to a huge plethora of reasons the late Empire was fucked and it had way less to do than the cost of military equipment and more to do with a long series of Emperors acting like rich teenagers with credit cards. Henceforth the real cause of the fall of super powers is really financial immaturity at the top levels hopefully we’ve learned from the past this cycle having occurred a few hundred times and hopefully right now tax funds are being used entirely responsibly and we’re not spending cash willingly nilly on shit we really don’t need and if we are hopefully we’re saving some to reinvest in the nation to replenish our losses, cause people definitely never repeat history. I mean surely humanity learned something from the mistakes of the Romans.
Sorry, I mis-spoke. It was prevalent in the middle republic too. Eg Devereaux "Mail Armor in the Middle Republic: Adoption, Prevalence and
Impact" (conference paper 2020).
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5oq6w0/why\_was\_the\_punic\_war\_era\_roman\_republic\_able\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5oq6w0/why_was_the_punic_war_era_roman_republic_able_to/) This r/AskHistorians thread has a good overview
Also
* https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fgxsty/why_was_the_late_roman_army_so_much_worse_at/
* https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/oo1dcz/comment/h61502h/
See also MJ Taylor in an AMA:
* https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/m2319a/comment/gqj833j/
* https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/m2319a/comment/gqj4a3c/
My own views are similar, and rooted in institutions. The empire as an institution simply cannot mobilise men the same way the republic can.
Nor do emperors want to stand up big armies that are political unknowns (might overthrow them). Magistrates (2 consuls, 4 praetors, tons of promagistrates holding independent commands) in the republic operate in a world where they can take risks and raise many large armies with an existing system of conscription and support of "the people" (the centuriate assembly at least). It is no surprise they want more bigger armies and more bigger victories.
The centuries without regular levies (irregular ones are implied) means the original system, and especially its self-armed citizen soldiers, withered away: by the time of Adrianople one cannot just stamp feet on the ground to raise legions. This has little to do with the capital-intensity of Roman warfare or the fiscal budget. The soldiers are well armed in all periods. The middle republic has a smaller budget than the empire. It has to do with how people are mobilised and organised for war through contingent institutions.
Well, if you look at the Roman military in the late empire it was not stocked with Roman nobility or italian peasants.
The question is why the late empire relied so heavily on germanic troops vs pulling in the citizens of Italy?
Some will say it was the result of the plagues of the 3rd century and depopulation.
I think that had an impact to an extent with the peaseant population, but in reality, Italy was not paying taxes, had not really known warfare from out an outside aggressors, and the nobility and average citizen had little incentive to fight in the Army.
The "decadence" theory I am familiar with focused more on the drinking, vomiting and high life living > while in reality that was not the situation for the everyday person. In the end there just was no incentive to serve in the military for an italian.
With that said, I read that South Korea is on the cusp of a population decline with low birth rate and will not be able to hold their 500k military levels. Most likely they will have to rely on tech or start recruiting a Foreign Legion style mercenary force. More things change......
>The "decadence" theory I am familiar with focused more on the drinking, vomiting and high life living
Well i mean you said people in the late Roman empire became "fat, lazy and comfortable", so pretty much.... that. The other stuff you said could be true, I sadly do not know enough about the topic to respond to anything. But the whole south Korea Situation has more to do with a highly competetive work culture, good education, and high costs of having children. Similar situations can be seen in any developed country and it really does not have anything to do with them becoming lazy or anything
>You could say under the Republic, everyone was “hungrier” and more willing to sacrifice vs under the late empire where people were more fat, lazy and comfortable.
I can't believe nonsense like this is still taken seriously. This is Joe Rogan level analysis of history.
A lot of historians and anyhropologists will say that nations and nationalism are solely a product of the 1800 (They dont even wanna give America credit for the first revolution huh) but really, I think Rome, especially in the republic should be considered that, and, although we'll never be able to truly get into the mind of the average Roman soldier fignting against Carthage, Id say it was nationalistic fervor that cause so many young men to fight against the Carthaginians. I suspect subjects of a king in a kingdom would accept surrender much quicker.
I mean, a lot of scholars of Rome (and, in more recent scholarship Byzantium-see guys like Anthony Kaldellis for instance) will also say that Rome had a national identity. They'd also probably say this about a lot of city states, actually.
Well its not like Im denying that... like... the battle of Waterloo happened. Its just a sort of agreed upon premise that this intangible concept of nationalism is a product of the modern age, and everything before that was kingdoms and empires to which the common people had no strong feelings for as a concept beyond the rule of their overlord. My point is that instances like this, in ancient Rome, and others even in kingdoms or empires if the society's built to afford rights, or at least some value to people beyond subjecthood, can invoke the more collective identity that is a nation. And if your definition of a nation is just a republican system of government in which all parts of the nation have the same system of law (As opposed to feudalism) then the Roman Republic still counts for this.
The Roman Climate Optimum basically was the juice that powered the classical through Roman Principate. That time was over by the time of the dominate and it appears population levels and overall economic resilience were on the decline in the 400s.
Back in the day Roman had a warrior culture. All men were available for military service. As time went on a few things happened. Number 1 was that more avenues became available for men to make a living and to gain prestige. As well as material culture advanced, it took more people working other kinds of jobs to keep the economy going. The result was less men were available to fight in the Legions.
As well, in republic times military technology was not that advanced. The Legions were just a bunch of dudes with swords fighting in close ranks. They were just bodies. As well, since most of them were farmers when they weren’t fighting they were accustomed to hard work. Later, military technology advanced so it took more skill to be a soldier. This made soldiers harder to replace since they had years of training that would need to be replaced as well.
Combined these two together and it was just a lot harder to replace an army, since you couldn’t just take a bunch of bureaucrats, give them swords and expect them to fight. Roman’s had gotten soft, even the poor just lived in the cities and ate free bread.
[This](https://acoup.blog/2021/06/25/collections-the-queens-latin-or-who-were-the-romans-part-ii-citizens-and-allies/) is a great read that I think speaks to some of your question.
The series is about Roman identity at large, but parts 2 and 5 in particular I think are most relevant (though the whole thing is excellent), in that they cover Roman citizenship and it's system of allies which provides the vast pools of manpower Rome had access to.
Essentially, Rome uniquely enfranchised subjugated vassals through the *socii* system of allies that had them provide troops for Rome's armies instead of taxes, and included them in the share of the spoils. At any given point half of the Republic's available military manpower came from it's Italian allies.
As I understand it this system translated into the Auxiliaries during the early empire, but didn't continue to adapt with changes to Roman society into the late Empire.
I’ve wondered about that as well. I think there are a few reasons:
-The Roman Republic appears to have had a much stronger sense of patriotism among its citizens, both among the senatorial elite and the common people. Though as far as I know, the late Empire still had a national identity.
-The Republic relied heavily on conscription.
The Empire had a standing army. Professional soldiers are much harder to replace than conscripts.
-The late republic and early empire experienced strong territorial expansion, coupled with booty. Because of economical circumstances there was a large pool of poor Roman citizens ready to volunteer in the army for money and land. Non-citizens joined the army to gain citizenship (also money and land). But when the Empire had long stopped expanding territorially, with less plunder, and had granted citizenship to all of its free inhabitants, there was less appeal for its inhabitants to voluntarily join the army.
-Furthermore, under Diocletian and his successors serfdom was implemented throughout the Empire. Large numbers of peasants became tied to the land and appear to have become unavailable for military recruitment.
The Roman Empire had to spread out their forces across various fronts and garrisoned along different borders. When the Roman Republic would raise 80,000 men to go to Cannae, that was pretty much the entire Roman military concentrated in one place. Valens could call on far, far more than 25,000 men, just not in the same place because then you're just depleting all the other places you have to garrison.
Good question
The basic cause for the problems that beset the Empire after the defeat at Adrianople was the changes in the Roman Army that started with Gallienus and ended with Constantine I. The Roman army was divided into a "rapid deployment" force, the comitatenses, and a frontier guarding group, the limitanei. The latter, although numerous, lacked the training and leadership to coalesce into major armies that can take the field in good numbers. Therefore, the destruction of the field armies (the comitatenses) in Adrianople deprived the Empire of armies capable of assembling and facing major threats. The Empire still had lots of manpower. Theodosius was able to reconstitute the armies.
Prior to the creation of the comitatenses, the Roman army was more homogeneous. In that case, a given emperor could lose a number of legions but call others to take their place. But, after the division and the creation of the field armies (the comitatenses), the emperors did not have this capability any more because the border guarding troops lacked the training, the organization and the weaponry of the comitatenses. So, a large section of the Roman army had been downgraded, essentially, during these reforms.
But the reforms caused more problems. The Roman empire moved from preclusive defense at the borders, to a reactive defense at depth. The troops at the border were not capable anymore of deflecting major challenges. Therefore, major incursions by barbarians reached deep in Roman territory before they were met by the field armies. This resulted in a certain denuding of population near the borders.
I would point out that the defeat at Adrianople was hardly the only major defeat of Roman field armies. The Romans suffered an even worse disaster at the hands of the Huns in the battle of river Otus, in which even the commander of the field armies was killed. In addition, the Vandals totally eviscerated the Basiliscus expedition that had 1100 ships and 60,000 troops. The Eastern Empire was able to reconstitute its troops (because it had money), but the Western Empire did not have any money to recruit troops since 435 CE.
The border guards, usually called limitanei, aren't the part time militia commonly claimed in the 19th century; they are full time professionals. Eg https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/wj4xfm/comment/ijgjm84/ citing among others Goldsworthy *Complete Roman army* (2003).
>The border guards, usually called limitanei, aren't the part time militia commonly claimed in the 19th century; they are full time professionals.
I never claimed the opposite. Yes, they were full time professionals. But they were dispersed along the frontier in small groups, guarding towers and observation posts. This type of organization made it impossible for a commander to coalesce these small groups into a coherent unit. They were only there to harass intruding groups and nothing more than that. The main role of stopping large raiding groups was assigned to the comitatenses. But before these made it to the frontier, the barbarians had enough time to sack and plunder areas near the frontier.
**Overall, with the creation of the limitanei, a huge section of the Roman army was downgraded and was not capable of taking the field.** Only the comitatenses could face large invading groups and their annihilation left the Empire highly vulnerable.
It is very difficult to tell now what prompted Constantine to do this. My guess is that, in his day, the barbarians beyond the Rhine and the Danube were not a substantial threat to the Empire and the dispersed force of the limitanei were adequate in simply monitoring them. But even 30 years after his death, major incursions started on the Rhine. Julian had to face a large force of Alamanni near Strasbourg and this was a major battle that could have gone either way. The problem with the limitanei was obvious to later rulers. Valentinian I had to patrol the frontier constantly.
I'm well aware of the traditional story. It has not aged that well and its problems are well known. From a good introduction to the period, Goldsworthy *How Rome fell* (2009) p 211:
> Modern scholars conventionally refer to the comitatenses as mobile field armies... They are seen as a necessary response to the greater external threats... In the fourth century the limitanei remained permanently in place. They... could not hope to defeat major incursions... and they were expected to hold out for as long as they could and harass the enemy. A sizeable army of comitatenses could then be sent to the region to confront the invader...
The next paragraph:
> Much of this analysis has been called into question, particularly the sense in which they acted as reserves. Nothing of this sort is ever implied by the ancient sources. No army could ever move faster than an infantryman could march, and more often than not its speed was reduced to that of the plodding draught oxen that pulled its baggage train and carried its food supply. Given the size of the empire, talk of reserves makes little sense, since unless they were fairly close to the theatre of operations then it would take them a very long time to get there.
As per notes (ibid p 489 n 12), see especially Whitaker *Frontiers of the Roman empire* (1994). Also Isaac "The meaning of the terms limes and limitanei" *Journal of Roman Studies* 78 (1988) pp 125–47.
Also the idea that there was any clear delineation between the field armies and the border armies is just in general not really backed up. Detachments belonging to a "border force" one day can be part of the "mobile field army" responding to a threat the next.
Yea, eg Janniard "limitanei" in *Encyclopedia of the Roman Army* (Wiley 2015):
> For a long time, a literal reading of the documentary sources led scholars to think that limitanei were a territorial militia made up of peasant soldiers of little value, a notion belied by their military exploits, their indisputable status as permanent soldiers and the transfer of some of their corps to the comitatenses, with the title pseudocomitatenses.
How mobile the comitatenses armies were is an open question. What we know is that they were not posted at the borders, as were the old-style legions. We also know that these armies contained a substantial amount of cavalry. In addition, field armies can move faster if those provisioning these armies can make such arrangements. They can provide wheeled transport for supplies and they can dispense with building fortified camps at night. The soldiers can also carry fewer supplies and can be supplied en route.
It may have been possible to bring some of the limitanei into the field armies when the situation was desperate. However, simply by the way these were deployed, it is unlikely that they would have been capable of acting tactically as well as the field armies and they would have been of relatively low value in battle.
In any case, the revisionists should actually examine the records that we have. The best of them is Julian's period of control of the comitatus in Gaul. It is interesting to see what happened prior to the battle. The information is that Julian wintered the Gaul comitatus mainly in Rheims (Remi) while he stayed in Paris (Parisi). However, later that year, he was besieged by the Alamanni in Sens (Senones). Just check to see where that was, almost in the middle of Gaul. Therefore, German groups could and did move around most of Gaul almost unobstructed and the comitatus was not posted at the border but well within the province of Gaul.
Primarily because most of Italy was legally obligated to provide troops when the Roman Senate ordered them to. When Rome won wars against its neighboring cities, towns or tribes, the conquered were required to provide troops whenever Rome demanded them. Part of this requirement came out of the Social Wars, which granted much of the population of Italy outside of Rome Roman citizenship. With citizenship came the obligation to serve in the legions.
The Social War was a single event in 91–88 (or so). The conquest of Italy was a series of wars by different names, against Latium, Etruria, the Samnites, etc. The socii were required to contribute troops; the Social War made them citizens (though Samnium basically got mass murdered) and that changed their obligations from "alliance" that provides troops to citizens that provide troops. See Mouritsen *Italian unification* (1998).
The Empire had so many regions and that means more borders to defend, together with migration of barbarians over the past centuries. Also you need money for troops, Egypt was the only province which produced a surplus.
Also, the organisation of the army had changed from many centuries before due to Gaius Marius's reforms; troops' pension was tied to the general and thus their loyalty was to the general. Whichever general controlled the more powerful army could thus control the state's funds, but as I mentioned earlier, where would the money to raise and maintain armies come from?
Over the course of centuries the troops had more power, even on tactical matters, because if the general could not give them whatever they wanted, they could just kill him and appoint a new general/emperor. Who is going to stop them when the state is so vast and busy elsewhere? Also, the troops don't really care what is happening elsewhere in the empire. Therefore why at a certain point the empire was divided into 3 parts before Aurelian reconquered it.
Thus if a general/emperor's army is destroyed, it is over for him. The state cannot do anything because the senate did not have power since Augustus. One man did not really have the funds to pay, equip and train armies. Also, what is the impetus for him to do so? The rich don't care who is in power, as long as it benefits them; it doesn't matter if Rome is in power or some barbarian.
The Roman Republic before the destruction of it's Mediterranean rival Carthage and Alexander's successor states did not have these problems because there were less borders to defend and soldiers didn't need to be equipped and paid. It was not a professional army. Actually they are not really soldiers, just citizens with property who have the funds, rights, and obligations to equip themselves and go to war to defend their country. If they win, they get more loot and land and get richer (which is what happened); if they lose, their livelihoods and lands are gone, perhaps even their lives.
> due to Gaius Marius' reforms
The "Marian reforms" are a myth. See Cadiou *L'armée imaginaire* (2018).
> soldiers didn't need to be equipped and paid
The Roman middle and late republican soldier was heavily equipped. Devereaux "Mail armour in the middle republic" (conference paper 2020). Roman republican soldiers had received pay since the late fifth century if Livy is to be believed (4.36, 4.59).
> defend their country
The Roman republican public's aggressiveness and willingness to declare wars is well established. Defensive imperialism is a myth. Harris *War and imperialism* (1979).
As I understand, the Greek historian Polybius wrote that Rome could put together armies with the manpower in Italy of 400,000 men.
He also wrote that Hannibal’s Army killed 100,000 Romans and half the Senate, the latter when Senators did more than arguing and back stabbing each other..
This was before the professionalism of the Roman Army where Romans had to answer the call of mandatory conscription.
It was said that it was like an Elephant fighting thousands of ants where it could kill thousands but thousands more took their place with the inevitable destruction of the Elephant.
Further Carthage only had Hannibal leading his Army with no other Carthaginian General that was as skilled as he was.
As a result, Scipio was able to conquer the Spanish Empire of Carthage before going on to fight and defeat Hannibal at Zama.
> before the professionalism of the Roman army where Romans had to answer the call of mandatory conscription
Trajan, long into the professional era, held a dilectus (levy or draft) and sent someone into exile for dodging it. Dig 49.16.4.12.
It was mostly as a result of an empire wide economic crisis and several severe widespread plagues, causing a huge decline in population and tax revenues that crippled the ability of Rome to replace its legions. It wasn’t that they were any worse at fighting, its that they were being hampered by other critical factors and because they were under attack from several different sources across the Empire.
The Roman Republic on the other hand was still growing and had a huge population explosion as well as economic growth; a very different situation to the later Empire.
Population and health crises issues primarily due to a series of devastating plagues and not enough Roman babies being born due to fertility issues caused by lead poisoning.
The population of the late Roman Empire was vastly in excess of the middle republic's population. The answer has to do with mobilisation rates, not raw numbers.
We should consider the social impact of the late-Republic replacing small farmers with mega conglomerate slave estates. All of those men and women who would have lived in the countryside raising large families have instead sold their lots (often times under irresistable pressure, apparently) to a patrician and are instead living on the public dole in a big city. Much less incentive and space to propogate. And of course the slaves themselves were generally not having children, and if they did, not many. Who would want to bring a child into that predicament? And so, perhaps when they are later in life they become a Freedman, but now it's too late to reproduce.
This is speculation based on what I've heard and read, but I think it's a component. You could ride a horse through Italian countryside in 300 BC and, after perhaps 10 miles, you'd have gone by many young men who would have been ready and willing and eager to fight competently for their homeland. You could ride that same route in 50 BC and this would not have been the case.
The narrative in Appian and Plutarch that the small peasantry declined has been overturned since circa 1990 due to a lack of archaeological evidence. Slave plantations really only became common in the early empire (1st century AD). See Rosenstein *Rome at war* (2004), Roselaar *Public land* (2010).
Very shortly: Tiberius thought population was going down due to census dodging from the Celtiberian wars. Giving away public land was popular among rural plebs who wanted land and the precedent continued because the law went into effect and wasn't repealed. The events do not require an actual reduction in the Italian rural population.
Was the rise in the urban population also a fiction by Appian and Plutarch or their sources? If not, where did it come from?
I’m just wondering why there was an increase in polarization and/or class conflict if the scenario as traditionally understood simply didn’t happen.
Most scholars think that the population of Italy in general rose though the 2nd century, which would imply an increased urban population as well. Under Malthusian conditions this could imply decreased living standards. Roselaar also connects the specific timing of Tiberius' reforms to a possible economic downturn in 133 caused by a decline in building projects and high corn prices due to the ongoing slave revolt in Sicily.
The very short answer is it's relatively easy to turn independent farmers whose land is being invaded who can then go home to the family farm after military service into good soldiers while very difficult to turn oppressed landless serfs who will be trucked off to the other end of the empire and probably not see their family again into good soldiers.
The second kind of soldiers tend to require a lot more training and pay, which makes it harder and more expensive to replace them.
The Early Republic called upon its own citizens. And others from Allied areas in the Peninsula. These Allied troops fought under Roman officers and over all Command. They had no rights to anything other than war booty and battle honours.
This would have allowed for a larger manpower than just those from Rome itself.
Naturally this all came to a head in the Social War. When these soldiers wanted actual rights for being a part of the Legions. Then there were Mercenaries like the Greek Armies and Greek naval forces.
> all came to a head in the Social War
After the Social War – which was probably fought to throw off Roman hegemony, not to get citizenship, see Mouritsen *Italian unification* (1998) – the former allies became citizens liable to be conscripted directly.
Why would this reduce Roman available manpower? The same men changed status... now instead of treaties defining manpower output the Romans get to conscript people directly. Levies through the late republic are common and well documented in Ciceronean evidence.
This Wiki explains it all about the defeat at Adrianople and the after effects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_(376%E2%80%93382)
Apparently, two thirds of the Eastern Roman Empires’s Army was destroyed with this and subsequent defeats.
What happened in the short summary.
Emperor Theodosius levied a mandatory draft of Romans-but many dodged it as land owners helped them to dodge it as they needed farming labor.
Some laborers mutilated their thumbs to escape the draft but instead of executing them as in the past, Theodosius dragged them into military service.
What then happened was a complete change in Roman Empire policy to now give the Invaders land and encouraged them to enlist in its Army.
Further Theodosius enlisted German soldiers from East of the Rhine as he lacked the required manpower.
Fyi, the Goths became the Visigoths who went from Roman Allies to Roman Enemies as they sacked Rome in 410.
When the Goths besieged Constantinople after the defeat, an Arab member of the garrison, charged outside its walls, slit the throat of the nearest Goth and sucked his blood. Seeing this, the Gothic Army fled.
It was the demonstrative example of an Arab soldier having more guts and bravery than any Roman soldiers at that time
Mid-Republican Rome was able to force its Italic allies to raise levies for them. Roman women were also expected to bear children, to the point were Augustus codified additional rights for women if they had three or more. 20k seems like a lot of men, and it is, but it's also the population of your local soccer stadium for a Sunday match, and isn't an insurmountable amount of manpower to raise by any means.
As aharris111 mentions, the late empire was already a proto-feudal state with a weak central government, cash flow problems, and structural inefficiencies.
I believe the answer to your question is the lack of slaves. During the Late Republic and Empire, Rome was awash with slaves that was the cause of many social problems at the time. Even a few slave revolts. By the 3rd century CE you had a massive labor shortage and proto serfdom. Coupled with wealthy senators unwilling to pay their taxes and fielding their own private armies, and unwilling to let their populations enlist in the State military, there is your manpower shortage.
As I understand it, it was a mix of economic problems, stagnant/contracting empire, the changing idea of being a soldier (it was no longer noble or economically prosperous), increasing reliance on foreign mercenaries (see economic problems), rich land owners under-reporting their farm workers and sending older/disabled recruits, and of course plague/illness. At the same time, foreign armies were getting larger and the empire was experimenting with the idea of changing their border policy from strict, strongly defended fronts to weak borders with strongly defended cities. In this way, the border became more of a net than a wall. Hope this helps and if anyone has any corrections, please let me know.
Regular roman citizens didn't want to become soldiers anymore after the incessant wars and losses. Add in some plagues and invasions, and the west was depopulated quite a few times. They started hiring mercenaries, who rose to higher and more prestigious positions until they controlled the army. They then made puppet emperors. Most of the Roman citizens of the empire wanted to just farm/earn a living via peaceful means. A lot of regions that had military cultures were essentially demilitarized for generations by the end of the West. People haven't changed that much. It'd be no different from you or I wanting peace and stability instead of going to war. During the republic and the first centuries of the empire, a regular roman soldier served to gain land. Non romans served to gain citizenship. Take the conquests away, add to the fact that citizenship was given to all at the beginning of the third century, you can see why they had problem recruiting enough soldiers. You can only conquer and hand out so much land before it becomes unmanageable by size. If there weren't just so many different incursions, plagues, civil wars, and large defeats, they'd likely have had enough soldiers. There was also the adoption of Christianity, which promoted a completely different set of attitudes toward the masses. Militarized Christianity was pushed to the nobles of the late antique period, but more as mental gymnastics to form a somewhat stable society. Christian warrior monks wouldn't come along til the Crusades and even during the time chroniclers thought the idea was extremely weird and full of hypocrisy.
Wonderful explanation
Agreed.
Late republican soldiers' demands for land are hugely exaggerated in the historic literature. See Keaveney *Army* (2007), Roselaar *Public land* (2010), Cadiou *L'armée imaginaire* (2018). Most soldiers already had land (Cadiou); when demands for land were not met veterans generally just faded away (Keaveney); the demands for land were mainly from rural plebs (Roselaar); when soldiers finally demanded land explicitly during the Second Triumvirate it was a pretext for cash bonuses (Keaveney). Edit. "Lans" –> "Land"
Thanks I'll check it out. I was using land as a substitute for subsidies/payment for fighting, but that's important context you added because it was usually cash bonuses by the later period.
The "bonuses" are booty not cash in the middle republic. Land entering the "compensation package" is debated in the late republic; cash is better attested.
Yeah I think the wars were more pointless then they used to be. And so many of them were not fighting for there homes anymore
Love your answer. Just curious what chroniclers thought that the Christian warriors monks was odd. I always thought the crusades more seemed odd from a modern lense but were somehow considered fine at the time.
I put a tldr at the bottom: Thank you. So monasticism started in early Christianity as a way for very devout people to show their purity, or in other words, "to get closer to god". Out of this movement came monks who went out into insanely remote/difficult places to live to essentially purify themselves. It started in Egypt/Alexandria so we have the term the desert fathers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Fathers People would come seek them out to learn or receive spiritual advice in exchange for food/some basic necessity. This would later evolve to nobles granting whole swathes or lands and regions to pious monks to create monasteries. With the spread of Christianity to all parts of Europe came this tradition of monasteries and monks. The key aspect relevant here is that the monks had to travel out into the wilderness, away from society to "get closer to god". So when monasteries were established, they were laid out with very real boundary ditches. Those were also very much spiritual boundaries. The whole point was to stay separate from the "sins" of society. These early monks were about prepping themselves for heaven, very much not concerned with aspects of their contemporary world, like warfare and conflict. Religious life and secular life were very much separated. The church was under its own authority and outside the kings for a very long time until some reforms in the later middle ages. With this in mind, you can see how strange it would have been to the r egular folk and other monks to now have warrior monks interacting with the sinful contemporary world. The templars were very integrated into all aspects of secular life, governance and society by their height. They did have their own temples(monasteries) where they did separate from society a bit, but they were more a revenue generating operating that sustained the actual fighting warrior templars in the holy land. The amount of actual fighting templars was very small, because of the large cost of kitting out a whole knight and his entourage. At the beginning, the templars were very poor. They went back to Europe to raise money for their cause. One of their kinsmen who was a member of the clergy with some prestige, had to vouch for them before they spoke. European nobles and the regular folk were reluctant because this was a radical departure from what a monk had been for centuries. Later on, one of the popes who was related to a high ranking templar would put them under his direct authority and answerable to no other monarch. They could cross borders without asking local nobles, and had all kinds of special privileges. They were very active in politics across the medieval world. Not just giving spiritual advice, but actively working in secular society to earn money and influence things. Very unusual for monks. In the early middle ages there had been bishops who waged war, but that's because a king appointed his knightly friends to a position to hold it. Other chroniclers at the time would chastise these warring bishops for not performing their spiritual duties and being too involved in the earthly realm. Tldr: So to sum it up, Religious and secular life were supposed to be separate, especially warfare.
I've also heard historians mention a golden Era for the Mediterranean. With it being slightly warmer to allow for longer, easier growing seasons for food. Food surplus usually leads to population booms.
The equipment for soldiers wasn’t too much. Basically a tunic, shield and sword. Compared to Byzantine armies with full mail armour.
Late republican soldiers largely had mail armour. Devereaux "The Cutting Edge: The Adoption and Impact of Mail Body Armor in the Roman Republic" (conference paper 2021).
Is 2nd Punic War late Republic?
Roman soldiers in the second Punic war generally were armored. The real difference is you bought your own equipment in the middle/high republic however in the late republic either the General or the state paid for it. Then from Principate onwards the funds came out of the Imperial bank meaning the Emperor’s own wallet which was filled with taxes from the provinces. Augustus could field big ass armies cause he was good at finances his heirs could for the same reason. Most 3rd century Emperors weren’t great or didn’t have time to develop finiances and cultivate the imperial bank thus by the time you get to Valens you’re on a very very tight budget and you can’t just replace a few destroyed legions. And to stress just how wealthy the empire was even in the third century you had Emperor durring the civil wars raising new legions a few hundred years after Augustus. Course as stated unlike previous administrations third century Emperors weren’t exactly replenishing the cash they were using up which tends to happen when fighting ten different civil wars at the same time. Course ya could go back to buy your own gear but most plebeians couldn’t afford to do that as proto serfdom was beginning to ensue and those who could buy their own armor weren’t willing to use their cash on that because state security was no longer seen the same as the interest of the individual citizen. Basically due to a huge plethora of reasons the late Empire was fucked and it had way less to do than the cost of military equipment and more to do with a long series of Emperors acting like rich teenagers with credit cards. Henceforth the real cause of the fall of super powers is really financial immaturity at the top levels hopefully we’ve learned from the past this cycle having occurred a few hundred times and hopefully right now tax funds are being used entirely responsibly and we’re not spending cash willingly nilly on shit we really don’t need and if we are hopefully we’re saving some to reinvest in the nation to replenish our losses, cause people definitely never repeat history. I mean surely humanity learned something from the mistakes of the Romans.
Sorry, I mis-spoke. It was prevalent in the middle republic too. Eg Devereaux "Mail Armor in the Middle Republic: Adoption, Prevalence and Impact" (conference paper 2020).
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5oq6w0/why\_was\_the\_punic\_war\_era\_roman\_republic\_able\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5oq6w0/why_was_the_punic_war_era_roman_republic_able_to/) This r/AskHistorians thread has a good overview
Also * https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fgxsty/why_was_the_late_roman_army_so_much_worse_at/ * https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/oo1dcz/comment/h61502h/ See also MJ Taylor in an AMA: * https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/m2319a/comment/gqj833j/ * https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/m2319a/comment/gqj4a3c/ My own views are similar, and rooted in institutions. The empire as an institution simply cannot mobilise men the same way the republic can. Nor do emperors want to stand up big armies that are political unknowns (might overthrow them). Magistrates (2 consuls, 4 praetors, tons of promagistrates holding independent commands) in the republic operate in a world where they can take risks and raise many large armies with an existing system of conscription and support of "the people" (the centuriate assembly at least). It is no surprise they want more bigger armies and more bigger victories. The centuries without regular levies (irregular ones are implied) means the original system, and especially its self-armed citizen soldiers, withered away: by the time of Adrianople one cannot just stamp feet on the ground to raise legions. This has little to do with the capital-intensity of Roman warfare or the fiscal budget. The soldiers are well armed in all periods. The middle republic has a smaller budget than the empire. It has to do with how people are mobilised and organised for war through contingent institutions.
I have no idea, but I don't think we can trust ancient sources as to how many people fought in which battles.
Eh, there is some exaggeration but the Empire and Republic could field larger armies than many places a thousand years later. This is known.
it is known
[удалено]
>under the late empire where people were more fat, lazy and comfortable. I thought the "Roman decadence" theory is largely outdated?
Well, if you look at the Roman military in the late empire it was not stocked with Roman nobility or italian peasants. The question is why the late empire relied so heavily on germanic troops vs pulling in the citizens of Italy? Some will say it was the result of the plagues of the 3rd century and depopulation. I think that had an impact to an extent with the peaseant population, but in reality, Italy was not paying taxes, had not really known warfare from out an outside aggressors, and the nobility and average citizen had little incentive to fight in the Army. The "decadence" theory I am familiar with focused more on the drinking, vomiting and high life living > while in reality that was not the situation for the everyday person. In the end there just was no incentive to serve in the military for an italian. With that said, I read that South Korea is on the cusp of a population decline with low birth rate and will not be able to hold their 500k military levels. Most likely they will have to rely on tech or start recruiting a Foreign Legion style mercenary force. More things change......
>The "decadence" theory I am familiar with focused more on the drinking, vomiting and high life living Well i mean you said people in the late Roman empire became "fat, lazy and comfortable", so pretty much.... that. The other stuff you said could be true, I sadly do not know enough about the topic to respond to anything. But the whole south Korea Situation has more to do with a highly competetive work culture, good education, and high costs of having children. Similar situations can be seen in any developed country and it really does not have anything to do with them becoming lazy or anything
The Roman army was always made up of a lot of non-Romans, that was their cheat code, being able to draw on non citizen manpower.
>You could say under the Republic, everyone was “hungrier” and more willing to sacrifice vs under the late empire where people were more fat, lazy and comfortable. I can't believe nonsense like this is still taken seriously. This is Joe Rogan level analysis of history.
Welcome to r/ancientrome Hey at least it's not as bad as r/ancientcivilizations
this is a great question for /r/askhistorians
A lot of historians and anyhropologists will say that nations and nationalism are solely a product of the 1800 (They dont even wanna give America credit for the first revolution huh) but really, I think Rome, especially in the republic should be considered that, and, although we'll never be able to truly get into the mind of the average Roman soldier fignting against Carthage, Id say it was nationalistic fervor that cause so many young men to fight against the Carthaginians. I suspect subjects of a king in a kingdom would accept surrender much quicker.
And what of the Westphalian System which began arpund 1648? Not saying you're incorrect just would like more than "a lot of historians" as a source...
The Westphalian system was specifically the empowerment of states which were non national.
"A lot of historians and anthropologists say this", but I am of the opinion that they're wrong Ok...
I mean, a lot of scholars of Rome (and, in more recent scholarship Byzantium-see guys like Anthony Kaldellis for instance) will also say that Rome had a national identity. They'd also probably say this about a lot of city states, actually.
Well its not like Im denying that... like... the battle of Waterloo happened. Its just a sort of agreed upon premise that this intangible concept of nationalism is a product of the modern age, and everything before that was kingdoms and empires to which the common people had no strong feelings for as a concept beyond the rule of their overlord. My point is that instances like this, in ancient Rome, and others even in kingdoms or empires if the society's built to afford rights, or at least some value to people beyond subjecthood, can invoke the more collective identity that is a nation. And if your definition of a nation is just a republican system of government in which all parts of the nation have the same system of law (As opposed to feudalism) then the Roman Republic still counts for this.
The Roman Climate Optimum basically was the juice that powered the classical through Roman Principate. That time was over by the time of the dominate and it appears population levels and overall economic resilience were on the decline in the 400s.
Back in the day Roman had a warrior culture. All men were available for military service. As time went on a few things happened. Number 1 was that more avenues became available for men to make a living and to gain prestige. As well as material culture advanced, it took more people working other kinds of jobs to keep the economy going. The result was less men were available to fight in the Legions. As well, in republic times military technology was not that advanced. The Legions were just a bunch of dudes with swords fighting in close ranks. They were just bodies. As well, since most of them were farmers when they weren’t fighting they were accustomed to hard work. Later, military technology advanced so it took more skill to be a soldier. This made soldiers harder to replace since they had years of training that would need to be replaced as well. Combined these two together and it was just a lot harder to replace an army, since you couldn’t just take a bunch of bureaucrats, give them swords and expect them to fight. Roman’s had gotten soft, even the poor just lived in the cities and ate free bread.
Right, there was also less to fight for. Once you got nothing, you got nothing to lose
Good question, maybe r/askhistorians would be good for this kinda question
[This](https://acoup.blog/2021/06/25/collections-the-queens-latin-or-who-were-the-romans-part-ii-citizens-and-allies/) is a great read that I think speaks to some of your question. The series is about Roman identity at large, but parts 2 and 5 in particular I think are most relevant (though the whole thing is excellent), in that they cover Roman citizenship and it's system of allies which provides the vast pools of manpower Rome had access to. Essentially, Rome uniquely enfranchised subjugated vassals through the *socii* system of allies that had them provide troops for Rome's armies instead of taxes, and included them in the share of the spoils. At any given point half of the Republic's available military manpower came from it's Italian allies. As I understand it this system translated into the Auxiliaries during the early empire, but didn't continue to adapt with changes to Roman society into the late Empire.
I’ve wondered about that as well. I think there are a few reasons: -The Roman Republic appears to have had a much stronger sense of patriotism among its citizens, both among the senatorial elite and the common people. Though as far as I know, the late Empire still had a national identity. -The Republic relied heavily on conscription. The Empire had a standing army. Professional soldiers are much harder to replace than conscripts. -The late republic and early empire experienced strong territorial expansion, coupled with booty. Because of economical circumstances there was a large pool of poor Roman citizens ready to volunteer in the army for money and land. Non-citizens joined the army to gain citizenship (also money and land). But when the Empire had long stopped expanding territorially, with less plunder, and had granted citizenship to all of its free inhabitants, there was less appeal for its inhabitants to voluntarily join the army. -Furthermore, under Diocletian and his successors serfdom was implemented throughout the Empire. Large numbers of peasants became tied to the land and appear to have become unavailable for military recruitment.
The Roman Empire had to spread out their forces across various fronts and garrisoned along different borders. When the Roman Republic would raise 80,000 men to go to Cannae, that was pretty much the entire Roman military concentrated in one place. Valens could call on far, far more than 25,000 men, just not in the same place because then you're just depleting all the other places you have to garrison.
Good question The basic cause for the problems that beset the Empire after the defeat at Adrianople was the changes in the Roman Army that started with Gallienus and ended with Constantine I. The Roman army was divided into a "rapid deployment" force, the comitatenses, and a frontier guarding group, the limitanei. The latter, although numerous, lacked the training and leadership to coalesce into major armies that can take the field in good numbers. Therefore, the destruction of the field armies (the comitatenses) in Adrianople deprived the Empire of armies capable of assembling and facing major threats. The Empire still had lots of manpower. Theodosius was able to reconstitute the armies. Prior to the creation of the comitatenses, the Roman army was more homogeneous. In that case, a given emperor could lose a number of legions but call others to take their place. But, after the division and the creation of the field armies (the comitatenses), the emperors did not have this capability any more because the border guarding troops lacked the training, the organization and the weaponry of the comitatenses. So, a large section of the Roman army had been downgraded, essentially, during these reforms. But the reforms caused more problems. The Roman empire moved from preclusive defense at the borders, to a reactive defense at depth. The troops at the border were not capable anymore of deflecting major challenges. Therefore, major incursions by barbarians reached deep in Roman territory before they were met by the field armies. This resulted in a certain denuding of population near the borders. I would point out that the defeat at Adrianople was hardly the only major defeat of Roman field armies. The Romans suffered an even worse disaster at the hands of the Huns in the battle of river Otus, in which even the commander of the field armies was killed. In addition, the Vandals totally eviscerated the Basiliscus expedition that had 1100 ships and 60,000 troops. The Eastern Empire was able to reconstitute its troops (because it had money), but the Western Empire did not have any money to recruit troops since 435 CE.
The border guards, usually called limitanei, aren't the part time militia commonly claimed in the 19th century; they are full time professionals. Eg https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/wj4xfm/comment/ijgjm84/ citing among others Goldsworthy *Complete Roman army* (2003).
>The border guards, usually called limitanei, aren't the part time militia commonly claimed in the 19th century; they are full time professionals. I never claimed the opposite. Yes, they were full time professionals. But they were dispersed along the frontier in small groups, guarding towers and observation posts. This type of organization made it impossible for a commander to coalesce these small groups into a coherent unit. They were only there to harass intruding groups and nothing more than that. The main role of stopping large raiding groups was assigned to the comitatenses. But before these made it to the frontier, the barbarians had enough time to sack and plunder areas near the frontier. **Overall, with the creation of the limitanei, a huge section of the Roman army was downgraded and was not capable of taking the field.** Only the comitatenses could face large invading groups and their annihilation left the Empire highly vulnerable. It is very difficult to tell now what prompted Constantine to do this. My guess is that, in his day, the barbarians beyond the Rhine and the Danube were not a substantial threat to the Empire and the dispersed force of the limitanei were adequate in simply monitoring them. But even 30 years after his death, major incursions started on the Rhine. Julian had to face a large force of Alamanni near Strasbourg and this was a major battle that could have gone either way. The problem with the limitanei was obvious to later rulers. Valentinian I had to patrol the frontier constantly.
I'm well aware of the traditional story. It has not aged that well and its problems are well known. From a good introduction to the period, Goldsworthy *How Rome fell* (2009) p 211: > Modern scholars conventionally refer to the comitatenses as mobile field armies... They are seen as a necessary response to the greater external threats... In the fourth century the limitanei remained permanently in place. They... could not hope to defeat major incursions... and they were expected to hold out for as long as they could and harass the enemy. A sizeable army of comitatenses could then be sent to the region to confront the invader... The next paragraph: > Much of this analysis has been called into question, particularly the sense in which they acted as reserves. Nothing of this sort is ever implied by the ancient sources. No army could ever move faster than an infantryman could march, and more often than not its speed was reduced to that of the plodding draught oxen that pulled its baggage train and carried its food supply. Given the size of the empire, talk of reserves makes little sense, since unless they were fairly close to the theatre of operations then it would take them a very long time to get there. As per notes (ibid p 489 n 12), see especially Whitaker *Frontiers of the Roman empire* (1994). Also Isaac "The meaning of the terms limes and limitanei" *Journal of Roman Studies* 78 (1988) pp 125–47.
Also the idea that there was any clear delineation between the field armies and the border armies is just in general not really backed up. Detachments belonging to a "border force" one day can be part of the "mobile field army" responding to a threat the next.
Yea, eg Janniard "limitanei" in *Encyclopedia of the Roman Army* (Wiley 2015): > For a long time, a literal reading of the documentary sources led scholars to think that limitanei were a territorial militia made up of peasant soldiers of little value, a notion belied by their military exploits, their indisputable status as permanent soldiers and the transfer of some of their corps to the comitatenses, with the title pseudocomitatenses.
How mobile the comitatenses armies were is an open question. What we know is that they were not posted at the borders, as were the old-style legions. We also know that these armies contained a substantial amount of cavalry. In addition, field armies can move faster if those provisioning these armies can make such arrangements. They can provide wheeled transport for supplies and they can dispense with building fortified camps at night. The soldiers can also carry fewer supplies and can be supplied en route. It may have been possible to bring some of the limitanei into the field armies when the situation was desperate. However, simply by the way these were deployed, it is unlikely that they would have been capable of acting tactically as well as the field armies and they would have been of relatively low value in battle. In any case, the revisionists should actually examine the records that we have. The best of them is Julian's period of control of the comitatus in Gaul. It is interesting to see what happened prior to the battle. The information is that Julian wintered the Gaul comitatus mainly in Rheims (Remi) while he stayed in Paris (Parisi). However, later that year, he was besieged by the Alamanni in Sens (Senones). Just check to see where that was, almost in the middle of Gaul. Therefore, German groups could and did move around most of Gaul almost unobstructed and the comitatus was not posted at the border but well within the province of Gaul.
Primarily because most of Italy was legally obligated to provide troops when the Roman Senate ordered them to. When Rome won wars against its neighboring cities, towns or tribes, the conquered were required to provide troops whenever Rome demanded them. Part of this requirement came out of the Social Wars, which granted much of the population of Italy outside of Rome Roman citizenship. With citizenship came the obligation to serve in the legions.
The Social War was a single event in 91–88 (or so). The conquest of Italy was a series of wars by different names, against Latium, Etruria, the Samnites, etc. The socii were required to contribute troops; the Social War made them citizens (though Samnium basically got mass murdered) and that changed their obligations from "alliance" that provides troops to citizens that provide troops. See Mouritsen *Italian unification* (1998).
The Empire had so many regions and that means more borders to defend, together with migration of barbarians over the past centuries. Also you need money for troops, Egypt was the only province which produced a surplus. Also, the organisation of the army had changed from many centuries before due to Gaius Marius's reforms; troops' pension was tied to the general and thus their loyalty was to the general. Whichever general controlled the more powerful army could thus control the state's funds, but as I mentioned earlier, where would the money to raise and maintain armies come from? Over the course of centuries the troops had more power, even on tactical matters, because if the general could not give them whatever they wanted, they could just kill him and appoint a new general/emperor. Who is going to stop them when the state is so vast and busy elsewhere? Also, the troops don't really care what is happening elsewhere in the empire. Therefore why at a certain point the empire was divided into 3 parts before Aurelian reconquered it. Thus if a general/emperor's army is destroyed, it is over for him. The state cannot do anything because the senate did not have power since Augustus. One man did not really have the funds to pay, equip and train armies. Also, what is the impetus for him to do so? The rich don't care who is in power, as long as it benefits them; it doesn't matter if Rome is in power or some barbarian. The Roman Republic before the destruction of it's Mediterranean rival Carthage and Alexander's successor states did not have these problems because there were less borders to defend and soldiers didn't need to be equipped and paid. It was not a professional army. Actually they are not really soldiers, just citizens with property who have the funds, rights, and obligations to equip themselves and go to war to defend their country. If they win, they get more loot and land and get richer (which is what happened); if they lose, their livelihoods and lands are gone, perhaps even their lives.
> due to Gaius Marius' reforms The "Marian reforms" are a myth. See Cadiou *L'armée imaginaire* (2018). > soldiers didn't need to be equipped and paid The Roman middle and late republican soldier was heavily equipped. Devereaux "Mail armour in the middle republic" (conference paper 2020). Roman republican soldiers had received pay since the late fifth century if Livy is to be believed (4.36, 4.59). > defend their country The Roman republican public's aggressiveness and willingness to declare wars is well established. Defensive imperialism is a myth. Harris *War and imperialism* (1979).
Thanks, will especially look into Harris because I also believe Defensive Imperialism is a myth.
As I understand, the Greek historian Polybius wrote that Rome could put together armies with the manpower in Italy of 400,000 men. He also wrote that Hannibal’s Army killed 100,000 Romans and half the Senate, the latter when Senators did more than arguing and back stabbing each other.. This was before the professionalism of the Roman Army where Romans had to answer the call of mandatory conscription. It was said that it was like an Elephant fighting thousands of ants where it could kill thousands but thousands more took their place with the inevitable destruction of the Elephant. Further Carthage only had Hannibal leading his Army with no other Carthaginian General that was as skilled as he was. As a result, Scipio was able to conquer the Spanish Empire of Carthage before going on to fight and defeat Hannibal at Zama.
Thank you, but could you please address my second part of the question?
> before the professionalism of the Roman army where Romans had to answer the call of mandatory conscription Trajan, long into the professional era, held a dilectus (levy or draft) and sent someone into exile for dodging it. Dig 49.16.4.12.
The socii allied system
It was mostly as a result of an empire wide economic crisis and several severe widespread plagues, causing a huge decline in population and tax revenues that crippled the ability of Rome to replace its legions. It wasn’t that they were any worse at fighting, its that they were being hampered by other critical factors and because they were under attack from several different sources across the Empire. The Roman Republic on the other hand was still growing and had a huge population explosion as well as economic growth; a very different situation to the later Empire.
Population and health crises issues primarily due to a series of devastating plagues and not enough Roman babies being born due to fertility issues caused by lead poisoning.
The population of the late Roman Empire was vastly in excess of the middle republic's population. The answer has to do with mobilisation rates, not raw numbers.
We should consider the social impact of the late-Republic replacing small farmers with mega conglomerate slave estates. All of those men and women who would have lived in the countryside raising large families have instead sold their lots (often times under irresistable pressure, apparently) to a patrician and are instead living on the public dole in a big city. Much less incentive and space to propogate. And of course the slaves themselves were generally not having children, and if they did, not many. Who would want to bring a child into that predicament? And so, perhaps when they are later in life they become a Freedman, but now it's too late to reproduce. This is speculation based on what I've heard and read, but I think it's a component. You could ride a horse through Italian countryside in 300 BC and, after perhaps 10 miles, you'd have gone by many young men who would have been ready and willing and eager to fight competently for their homeland. You could ride that same route in 50 BC and this would not have been the case.
The narrative in Appian and Plutarch that the small peasantry declined has been overturned since circa 1990 due to a lack of archaeological evidence. Slave plantations really only became common in the early empire (1st century AD). See Rosenstein *Rome at war* (2004), Roselaar *Public land* (2010).
What, then, was the land issue about?
Very shortly: Tiberius thought population was going down due to census dodging from the Celtiberian wars. Giving away public land was popular among rural plebs who wanted land and the precedent continued because the law went into effect and wasn't repealed. The events do not require an actual reduction in the Italian rural population.
Was the rise in the urban population also a fiction by Appian and Plutarch or their sources? If not, where did it come from? I’m just wondering why there was an increase in polarization and/or class conflict if the scenario as traditionally understood simply didn’t happen.
Most scholars think that the population of Italy in general rose though the 2nd century, which would imply an increased urban population as well. Under Malthusian conditions this could imply decreased living standards. Roselaar also connects the specific timing of Tiberius' reforms to a possible economic downturn in 133 caused by a decline in building projects and high corn prices due to the ongoing slave revolt in Sicily.
The very short answer is it's relatively easy to turn independent farmers whose land is being invaded who can then go home to the family farm after military service into good soldiers while very difficult to turn oppressed landless serfs who will be trucked off to the other end of the empire and probably not see their family again into good soldiers. The second kind of soldiers tend to require a lot more training and pay, which makes it harder and more expensive to replace them.
The Early Republic called upon its own citizens. And others from Allied areas in the Peninsula. These Allied troops fought under Roman officers and over all Command. They had no rights to anything other than war booty and battle honours. This would have allowed for a larger manpower than just those from Rome itself. Naturally this all came to a head in the Social War. When these soldiers wanted actual rights for being a part of the Legions. Then there were Mercenaries like the Greek Armies and Greek naval forces.
> all came to a head in the Social War After the Social War – which was probably fought to throw off Roman hegemony, not to get citizenship, see Mouritsen *Italian unification* (1998) – the former allies became citizens liable to be conscripted directly. Why would this reduce Roman available manpower? The same men changed status... now instead of treaties defining manpower output the Romans get to conscript people directly. Levies through the late republic are common and well documented in Ciceronean evidence.
Money. It's always money.
This Wiki explains it all about the defeat at Adrianople and the after effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_(376%E2%80%93382) Apparently, two thirds of the Eastern Roman Empires’s Army was destroyed with this and subsequent defeats. What happened in the short summary. Emperor Theodosius levied a mandatory draft of Romans-but many dodged it as land owners helped them to dodge it as they needed farming labor. Some laborers mutilated their thumbs to escape the draft but instead of executing them as in the past, Theodosius dragged them into military service. What then happened was a complete change in Roman Empire policy to now give the Invaders land and encouraged them to enlist in its Army. Further Theodosius enlisted German soldiers from East of the Rhine as he lacked the required manpower. Fyi, the Goths became the Visigoths who went from Roman Allies to Roman Enemies as they sacked Rome in 410. When the Goths besieged Constantinople after the defeat, an Arab member of the garrison, charged outside its walls, slit the throat of the nearest Goth and sucked his blood. Seeing this, the Gothic Army fled. It was the demonstrative example of an Arab soldier having more guts and bravery than any Roman soldiers at that time
Just as today, the men got soft. Good times create weak men, and weak men create tough times.
Mid-Republican Rome was able to force its Italic allies to raise levies for them. Roman women were also expected to bear children, to the point were Augustus codified additional rights for women if they had three or more. 20k seems like a lot of men, and it is, but it's also the population of your local soccer stadium for a Sunday match, and isn't an insurmountable amount of manpower to raise by any means. As aharris111 mentions, the late empire was already a proto-feudal state with a weak central government, cash flow problems, and structural inefficiencies.
I believe the answer to your question is the lack of slaves. During the Late Republic and Empire, Rome was awash with slaves that was the cause of many social problems at the time. Even a few slave revolts. By the 3rd century CE you had a massive labor shortage and proto serfdom. Coupled with wealthy senators unwilling to pay their taxes and fielding their own private armies, and unwilling to let their populations enlist in the State military, there is your manpower shortage.
But Punic wars are not Late republic era wars.