🤗 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.

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.

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.

"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

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).

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.

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.

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

DOUBLE EDGED SWORD

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

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.

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.

The auxiliary recruitment system worked as initial exposure to romanity before receiving citizenship

Leave it to Sebastian to diss on Rikimer 🤣

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.

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

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

There was also the third-century fiscal collapse. The land-owning patrician class of the past had largely been replaced with an administrative class, the latter through various means became dominant land owners, and administrative service became dynastic. Since state service brought with it tax exempt status this led to a huge erosion of the tax base. The same goes for military service, and we have examples of how wealthy families would send a son to serve in the military purely to enjoy the familial tax exemption. Sometimes they'd even adopt someone purely for that purpose. In addition, the empire was no longer aggressively expansionist, it wasn't looking to subjugate its neighbors for land, plunder and tribute, so there were no continuous new territories acquired to reward soldiers with; instead, they had to be paid by a treasury that saw ever shrinking tax revenue despite continuously growing and concentrated wealth. Against this backdrop, hiring barbarian settlers into military service for a fraction of what a Roman would need to be paid was naturally extremely attractive. Sometimes they'd be allowed to settle in return for providing cheap military service. It's just these foederati often ended up outnumbering the Romans and were of course disenfranchised by their relatively low status, low pay, and being regarded as more expendable than Romans.

I wonder how did this system contributed to technology transfer in terms of military hardware, tactics as well as governance. How Roman did the barbarians become north of the Rhine?

If anyone wants to learn more about the Roman recruitment of barbarians/Germanic tribesmen, called "receptio", I highly recommend "Barbarians Within the Gates of Rome" by Thomas S. Burns. It covers the years 375-425 A.D. and not only delves into how the receptio worked (or how it failed to), but also gives a more restrained/less apocalyptic view of the Battle of Adrianople, which I think is a highly valuable counter-argument to the normal doom and gloom perspective.

Romulus Augustulus actual full name was Flavius Romulus. Son of a barbarian Magister Militum & Italian mother. Agustus or Augustulus was actually a title meaning "emperor" and used so many times in ref. to him that the real name has been forgot, unfortunately

Might probably be a stretch considering the timeline usually covered on this channel, but if the Varangian Guard are somehow covered in the proposed upcoming video about the foederati in the Eastern Empire, that would be quite interesting

Your excellent videos are always a treat! This period of history is fascinating and it sets the foundations of medieval, and ultimately, modern Europe.❤

Large scale recruitment of Germanic soldiers was a symptoms of a declining empire not the cause. The cause were the civil wars that devastated the Roman empire. The battle of the Milvian bridge may have led to the deaths of nearly 20,000 Roman troops. The debacle of adrianople the destruction of the whole eastern army. ......The battle of the Frigdus river, also accelerated the collapse of the Roman army in the west. The losses at the Battle of the Frigidus weakened the western legions. This downturn in the capabilities of the Roman soldiers meant an increasing reliance by the Empire on barbarian mercenaries employed as foederati, who often proved to be unreliable, or even treacherous.... In between some of these civil wars were devastating plagues. Then there were all the civil wars fought in the east Roman empire draining its resources.

Gold solidi never reduced purity (95% gold) and weight… 4.3 grams. They were “solid” and even in 476, last issues were still 95% and 4.3 grams. Silver… Siliquea were in 350 90% pure silver and 3.6 grams … but by Julius II, 1.9 grams and purity looks to be 70% or less. They basically went away in 410 AD.

Can you do one on late roman villas please? I find it interesting how they were larger and more richly decorated than earlier ones

The Empire always used Germanic barbs in the army. Batavians were in the Emperor's cavalry in the Empire's prime

It was a fantastic idea. Things turned out well.

according to this, sounds like the antonine plague was the first domino that lead to the fall of rome

Recruiting barbarian armies delayed not excellerated Roman collapse. The Eastern Roman Empire used Slavic and Scandinavian mercenaries from Sweden, Finland, Russia, Serbia, Croatia and elsewhere (modern country borders) If Barbarian mercenaries destroyed western Rome as sole reason. Than why didnt slavic mercenaries sole reason collapse the whole eastern Roman Empire?

Amazing video, Sebastian.

I love your stuff! Thanks mate!

Could you do a video on when Roman citizenship died out/how long it persisted in different parts of the former empire?

Nice historical coverage video

Another great video

I don't have to imagine being an Emperor of a huge Empire in crisis, I've played Total War Attila.

It's A Fantastic Video.

A very nice historic video, I hope it does as well as the few more recent of your videos

Great video

Communal bathing was a way that disease spread. The semitic peoples (such as the Carthaginians and observant Jews) bathed in private in little bath tubs - due to the taboo about being seen naked in public. But to adopt this practice would have been a big change for the Romans.

Thanks!

So fascinating

Short answer: Yes. Like yeah.

They should have granted the Foederrati citizenship

WOAH. Dude your channel is a fucking gem. Subbed!

It was that or create a clone army. Strange how both of these led to the collapse of an empire.

The real problem wasn't about recruiting barbarians, it was about Barbarisation of Elites. It started with Arminius and battle in Teuotoburg forest

The modern age version of this dilemma: should I outsource my SW development to India? The advantages and risks seem to be very similar.

I greatly enjoy your videos Maiorianus, your coverage of this niche topic is very much unique to the KZfaq history scene. I do think though, that you could successfully transition to a general history channel since you have great production quality. I do understand if you wish not to, but from my honest opinion, I think you'd be a good mainstream history KZfaqr as well!

Dear host, my Love from Taipei. I just want to say here, I like how you described the Roman borders, @2:30 "from the cold highlands of Northern Britannia..." This sounds so right 👍🏽

Yes

Even today a great weakness of a country is people that sends money out of the country..

Well it only would been okay to hire foederati Franci since they were more loyal and also they were great shock infantry to break centre lines

Kind of like what’s happening with the airlines 😮😢 my brother won’t fly anywhere anymore , pretty soon we will going back to traveling by boats 😮😢

We need to take notes and close our borders

Of course it was a bad idea. The Chinese dynasty Jin recruited nomads to serve as auxiliars in the army and the result was the Sixteen Kingdoms of the Five Barbarians. But going back to the Romans, in the 11th and 12th centuries the Romans employed Turks in their battles and as a result, they lost Anatolia.

2 April 2024 : I have been watching your presentations for over two years now . I always hit the " like " button . On previous devices I have subscribed . I am being persecuted . I would like to spend more time with you . I am doing all I can for you . I encourage other , appreciative and interested viewers of this channel to subscribe and contribute .

Back when I was young it was common knowlege that the Romans were a well oiled fighting machine, whereas barbarians were an unorganised and untrained rabble who hit and run. Of course it never occured that perhaps the barbarians were not so unskilled in war, having been effectively taught by the Romans during centuries of contact and cross fertilisation.

Yes.

Can you make a video on the eastern Roman Empire during the time of the start of the Islamic invasion?

ive always felt that it was probably necessary because they were so outnumbered in the west BUT I also think it was a bandaid that eventually led to the downfall. What other solution they could have used idk. I guess it could be argued they should have learned thier lesson way back with Arminus at Teutoburg. Ha yeah it sounds like such a good idea at first

nice

I wonder how much trade with China and India added to the drain of gold and silver from Rome. This kind of financial drain led to two wars between the British Empire and China. Was trade increasing during the time of the debasement of Roman money shown on the chart?

It was fine, but the West should have restructured the power of the magister militum so they don't hold too much power. Part of the reason a barbarian like Aspar wasn't able to bring down the Eastern Empire in the same way Ricimer brought down the West is due to how the eastern command was split between the Balkan and Eastern frontiers. Meanwhile, the military command in the west had no such split, which made it easier for someone like Ricimer to grind potential progress down to a halt.

I've admittedly stolen this analogy from Bryan Ward-Perkins, but anyone who thinks that its a dumb idea for empires to hire tribesmen from beyond the frontier to fight for them should be reminded of the Gurkhas, elite troops recruited from the hill tribes of Nepal who have been fiercely loyal to the British army since 1815 despite the fact that their home country was never formally part of the British Empire.

Without watching the video the answer is just yes. Multiethnicity especially inside an army is a time bomb. It may looks beneficial at first but as progresses the thing goes bad. It is simple logic if you think about it. Also Byzantium got strong and became more homogenized when emperor Arcadios stopped the germans in the army and made it more hellenic based.

It's not necessarily that they recruited the barbarians, it's that the Romans didn't want to serve in the army anymore. Contemporaries at the time were also saying the Romans became too effeminate and demanding. They didn't want to be separated from all the pleasures of civilized life to be thrown out in the wilderness. The barbarians were obviously used to rugged life, it wasn't much different from their normal living. So the Romans just kept replacing their own men with them for short-term benefits, but we all know what it ended up with long-term.

An overlooked fact in this video is that emperor Diocletian found the northeastern provinces depopulated. This is parts of today's Belgium, Netherlands and northwestern Germany. The population was massacred, taken as slaves across the Rhine or fled. Since Diocletian had to secure the Rhine border, he had to re-populate this area somehow. His solution: Let Germanic tribes settle there and use them as foederati to secure the border. The leaders of these people became Roman generals and later the kings of the Franks. I think one can hardly blame Diocletian for this - he had tons of problems to solve after all. But as a result you now have barbarians living within the empire who play an important military and political role. This comes on top of hiring outsiders as foederati, so at some point you have a complete mess.

For comparison around 1/3 of Napoleons Grand Armee were foreign, especially large numbers of Italians, Germans, and Dutch from annexed territories and allied puppet states. And Napoleons fiercest, most loyal elites were foreign (mainly Poles) Yet no one says the Grand Armee failed because it had too many obviously fickle, weak, insidious foreigners sneaking into the glorious empire. Even when many of these soldiers ultimately did restore their states independance or draw new borders out of the French empire. Rather they admit that he was politically outplayed and logistically overwhelmed. Now think: why do people say this about Rome, when the Roman Emperors lasted so long historians canr agree which millennia it ended or what royal families are related and were genuine Roman successors?

During Justinian the army was almost entirely barbarian but under Roman command officers

Comment for the algorithm.

Since the early Republic upwards of 1/3rd of the army was foreign, and through almost all Roman history its most competent and loyal units were all barbarians. Why does no one call the Praetorians a mistake, but question the German guards who so loyal that even in the face of Huns and dozens of kinsmen tribes didn't stop defending Rome even after multiple emperors kept assassinating their generals or double dealing on retirement colonies?

Nope. The problem was Rome failed to romance their leadership effectively which would later romanize the soldiers. The romans if this Era did a lot to keep the new germanic peopels outside of politics and this left them astranged and as the millitary elite they eventually took power

The Empire fell for the same reason all empires fall.

Somewhat reminiscent of today's practice of continually printing money while bringing in cheap third-world labor

In my fifth year of academic Latin in United States, I went to visit a northern German school, and I. Ould not understand anything (in latin) they spoke during the lesson

Hi Sebastian, in the map you use @2:39, you place not only all major western cities of Persia in Rome, but also its capital city of Ctesiphon, its most important university town at Gondishapor, and its single mot important Zoroastrain fire temple at Canzaca! What gives? Which Roman zealot made this travesty? By the same token, then, all of the eastern Mediterraean lands, from Anatolia to Syria and Egypt should be included in Persia, since they temporarily occupied them for a decae or so. In reality, the Euphrates River should be taken as a borther, despite them. both sides gaining this and losing that, now and then

👀👀

The fortifications needed to be stronger with better defenses, but the incursions they did break through could be dealt with when it was strong before it was split. This is basically an immigration crises of the third century, that can be managed by bringing barbarians into the Roman legions loyal to the emperor with promise of Roman citizenship that was used dueing the early Roman Empire. Making everyone automatically a citizen weakened this system of being barbarians into the fold. The paid military discipline was waning and so rebellions were a natural result. The empire was already weaker at this time which is why the barbarians were such a problem.

Foederati worked on the East, until suddently all of Anatolia was guarded by Turkish tribes, who rebelled and conquered the country in a few years.

Germania Magna was not a large place, that could be conquered and the threat of invasions could be eliminated until Huns. Romans in August and later did go into the depth of the territory (probably 300, 000-400,000 sq km) and successfully. Alas constant civil wars, fearful emperors, and lack of potential loot in germania has prevented Romans from permanent presence there. Should Romans invent heavy plow then German lands would become fine for agriculture. On the topic, adopting Federati was a huge mistake, probably a mortal one.

Real reason MAYBE??? YES

The Germans are my faves of those that fought the Romans

When you don’t have hardy capable loyal men of your own, you do have to hire barbarians. Ideally you will want to grow your own capability back but as a stop gap measure you should recruit the barbarians. What else are you going to do?

Romanized ‘barbarians’ standing guard on the edges was not the problem. Once rome allowed germanic tribes to enter the empire in whole, as separate people and still with their weapons, they had an issue.

There is a repetition of 19:20 at 19:40

The US looks like they are set to repeat the same mistake.

The voice recording was rather quiet when compared to the background music. We come for the story, not the music. I think an empire unable to muster its own defenses is an empire doomed. Mercenaries may have helped stave off the inevitable. But... it's not a binary matter. I think Romans have always used mercenaries, the matter is simply to which degree.

I think it was the exact opposite. Rome should have embraced the Germanic people into Rome, modernized them, and then made them citizens. It was precisely because Rome shunned the Germanic tribes during the time of Atilla that they marched into Rome and sacked it, when all they really wanted was permission to settle on Roman land and have Rome's protection against the Huns. If the Germanic people had been accepted into Roman territory, and were treated well, then the Western empire could have continued for longer, if not indefinitely. A strong Western Empire could have also made the Eastern Empire stronger and more able to resist the Ottomans. I think Rome's fall is more closely tied to their poor treatment of conquered peoples, as well as the poor treatment of their former allies. They bred a lot of animosity against them, their fall was inevitable in that context. A lot of their internal and foreign policy would have to have changed to prevent it.

The Roman demographic crisis of the 3rd century (and following) is not be under estimated after all.

No. Rome was always constantly falling apart. They couldnt even keep their promises to aid the territories under their rule. Its why they had the capitol sacked so many times and its why the whole thing fell appart. Too many different groups in too many different situations. If they cannot be aided in things like sunsidies of harvest lost due to no fault of their own then whole groups would rise to go to war on Rome. The whole thing fell appart from the inside out. The first death was when the empire was split into two. The second was the cultural change and large migration period. The final death was the disolving of the legions and thus loss of control over former territories. The whole thing imploded in itself.

Here’s a comment.

you hail from germany brother?

how could a land filled with chaotic warbands that coalesced only when commanded by a strong enough leader field more soldiers than a 500 hundred years old stabilized empire populated with millions of well fed potential recruits? moreso when rome had included barbarians in its armies since before becomming an empire ... any answer seems insufficient to placate my curiosity

As already Cesar used them to conquer what we see as the Roman Empire there probably wouldn't even be a Roman Empire without the Germanic mercenaries...auxiliary troops. Or what they were called. Your Question shouldn't be about the Empire it should be about the Republic. There are chances that Cesar would have lost his civil wars without the Germanic soldiers so the Empire, that was from the beginning in a downfall, would never been born. Now we have to fantasize. What the Tetrarchy did, maybe the Senate would also have done. Maybe the Senate would have the insight that a State as big as the Roman Republic can not be organized by a central state and it would start a decentralization process. Emperors were never good at giving up power as the creation of the Tetrarchy proved. As I said. The moment Rome lost it's Republic the Empire was to fall. You might name all the great buildings that were created by the Empire but creating the building already was a symptom of a degenerated statehood.

They fell because they treated the Goths like shit and the goths turned out to be not the ones to F with. Especially when the huns came about