Little Emperors, big warlords

[Erpingham]

I thought this case study on Sarus the Goth might be of interest to those trying to get their heads round Late Roman warlords.

Look out for an appearance by an assassin called Dubius

[Imperial Dave]

thanks Anthony. Right up my street.

[Justin Swanton]

Very interesting. The article emphasises the importance of legitimacy in the late Empire. A military commander who spent too much time operating independently of the system was doomed to failure sooner or later. There was a peculiar balance - or imbalance - after Theodosius. IMHO Theodosius was single-handedly responsible for destroying the Western Empire and nearly destroying the Eastern Empire. For centuries the Empire had been a military absolutism: the emperor (the word itself means 'commander') held his power principally from the army, with the Senate rubber-stamping his decisions that first and foremost had to please his soldiers. If his soldiers were displeased there was a new emperor. The Emperor held supreme political and military command in his hands and that combination of power was what created the stability of the Roman state.

Theodosius wrecked the system by separating political and military command. It poisoned everything. Emperors would henceforth be especially jealous and mistrustful of generals who were doing the job they were supposed to be doing themselves. So they did nothing to help the generals when the generals needed help, e.g. Valentinian refusing Aetius any reinforcements from Italy against Attila. And their lack of military authority weakened their political authority. Throughout the 5th century emperors didn't really do much except exist. Magistri militum were really supposed to be emperors but none of them gained enough power to become one. Stilicho was a barbarian which excluded him from the throne, and in any case his entire time in office was spent countering one threat after another, leaving him no time to consolidate any political authority. After Stilicho no Magister militum really stands out except Aetius, and his power was confined to Gaul were he had to spend all his time and energy pacifying and defending it. Ricimer's influence was confined to Italy, and he always had to take the Eastern Empire into account. None of the Magistri militum had the necessary political authority to re-establish imperial control over the whole West. Only a general-emperor could do that. As the article points out, things were made worse by military commanders undermining each other in the name of loyalty to the throne, which made it impossible for any general to become militarily and then politically supreme.

I think what kept the imperial system going for so long was the fact that nobody was trying to replace it. The barbarians weren't really nations, just commanders with retinues looking for a semi-legitimate part in the imperial structure rather like mafia bosses. So the system kept going, just in a state of paralysis. But it did mean that legitimacy was supreme - it was necessary to be part of the system.

When an Emperor was his own general things turned around with incredible speed. Majorian reconquered Gaul and Spain in a couple of whirlwind campaigns and would have conquered North Africa if he had lived long enough. I think that if he had killed Ricimer rather than vice versa the Western Empire might have survived.

[Imperial Dave]

interesting thoughts Justin. A side topic in its own right

[Duncan Head]

Very interesting piece, thanks.

[Anton]

Yes, thanks very much, an excellent read.

I was pleased to see this in the author's notes on the Bacaudae because the first sentence is what I have come to believe was the case.

"It is reasonable to see them as a collection of war bands or private militias raised by local gentry as a matter of self-defence in provinces officially governed but no longer defended by the empire. Perhaps the ones that Sarus encountered may have been former limitanei previously established in Raetia, who had deserted their station during Radagaisus' invasion"

[Justin Swanton]

Yes, thanks very much, an excellent read.

I was pleased to see this in the author's notes on the Bacaudae because the first sentence is what I have come to believe was the case.

"It is reasonable to see them as a collection of war bands or private militias raised by local gentry as a matter of self-defence in provinces officially governed but no longer defended by the empire. Perhaps the ones that Sarus encountered may have been former limitanei previously established in Raetia, who had deserted their station during Radagaisus' invasion"

Agreed. I tend to think this is also what the Arborychi were.