The primary cause of Rome’s fall was
not internal weakness, as some historians have argued,
but the deterioration of the Roman army. Arther Ferrill in his book, The
Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation, believes twentieth-century
sensibilities have clouded the issue of Rome’s fall discounting the
military mechanism that made Rome a superpower in the
ancient world. Ferrill persuasively
argues against the position of Late Antique scholars
who perpetuate the myth that the barbarians were innocent of the atrocities
ascribed to them and that they positively influenced Roman civilization
for the better, not the worse. Rome’s ability to make war made it
great and its inability to maintain strong discipline, high morale, and
capable leadership proved a fatal blow to the stability of the Empire.
This was due, in part, by the added influx of barbarian tribes and their
incorporation into the Roman army as allies. Barbarians were a cancer that
contributed, according to Ferrill, to the incompetence of the Roman army
and the downfall of the Empire. Bad habits crept into the army via the
barbarians and spread quickly through the ranks. Ferrill is
convinced ‘barbarization’ was
a plague that exponentially quickened Rome’s fall. Those familiar
with Ferrill’s other works will be pleased
with this volume. It follows the general format of his other works and
is supplemented with illustrations and maps. This book is an excellent
introduction to Roman military history in the Late Empire.
The first chapter considers the historical
debate surrounding the decline and fall of Rome. Ferrill highlights
the opinions of Edward Gibbon and A.H.M. Jones. Though Gibbon is a universally
recognized authority on Roman history, Ferrill believes that Jones offers
a more accurate assessment of Rome’s fall. Jones was intimately acquainted
with the internal mechanisms that made Rome tick and attributed Rome’s
demise to external pressures. This conclusion bears considerable weight
because Jones, a scholar whose specialty lies outside the realm of war,
lays the blame for Rome’s demise at the feet of the barbarians. Try
as hard as he might, Peter Brown cannot dissuade Ferrill from the opinion
that the barbarians orchestrated, however unlikely, a coup that crippled
the Empire.
The second chapter deals with the grand strategy
of the Roman Empire. Ferrill begins his discussion with Constantine’s
recall of frontier troops to the interior. The Roman army was a well-oiled
machine that utilized logistics and supplies efficiently and effectively.
Roads connected Rome to all her frontier provinces facilitating the freedom
of movement and communication that gave Rome an air of invincibility and
grandeur. On the whole, these factors give the Roman army a psychological
edge by boosting morale. Some historians have suggested that Rome fell
because it could not fight a war on more than one front. Ferrill retorts
that diplomacy would have effectively neutralized multiple threats along
the frontier and Rome could choose not to engage the enemy and avoid war. Ferrill contends that everything depended on the Army’s
ability to fight. Forts, walls, and any other sort of imposing structure
were of secondary importance. Diocletian proved to be a strong general
and Emperor who restored the frontiers and reorganized the Empire. He
was succeeded by Constantine, a man who adopted the defense-in-depth strategy
that would eventually handcuff the legions from imposing stability along
the frontiers:
“The grand strategy of Constantine took a terrible toll in military
efficiency and esprit de corps.” (p. 50)
The third chapter addresses the crisis on
the frontiers and begins with Julian’s botched campaign in Persia. Ferrill briefly outlines Julian’s miscalculations and
tactical errors and fails to mention Ctesiphon at all. However, Ferrill
does focus on the diminished morale of Julian’s troops and their
deflated self-confidence. In the West, Ferrill touches upon the untimely
death of Valentinian, who he calls, “the finest Emperor-soldier since
Diocletian and Constantine.” (p. 57) An excellent summary of events
provided serve as a necessary backdrop to the battle of Adrianople and
the strained relations between the Goths and the Eastern Romans. Ferrill,
using Ammianus Marcellinus’ account of the battle of Adrianople, argues
that Adrianople was not won by Gothic cavalry but by Roman tactical blunders.
It is a myth propagated by many historians, according to Ferrill, that
barbarian cavalry was superior to Roman cavalry and that they proved decisive
at Adrianople.
Theodosius bequeathed his empire to a trusted
general named Stilicho. Stilicho served as regent
while the Emperor Honorius was underage. Stilicho was loyal to the vision
of Theodosius by adopting a policy of accommodation with the barbarians
and desiring a united Empire. Ferrill believes
had Stilicho abandoned Theodosius’ policies, the Roman Empire may
have bounced back from the impending debacle of ad407
to 410. Stilicho was out of his depth in the political arena and could
not offer a satisfactory answer why he had been able to defeat a Gothic
army on more than one occasion yet unable to capture or kill their leader
Alaric. A wave of xenophobia swept through the Western Empire like wildfire
and Stilicho was martyred as a barbarian sympathizer who secretly plotted
the creation of a barbarian state. Though prone to making mistakes, Ferrill
judges Stilicho favorably, especially in his military capacity.
The grand strategy employed in the fifth century
revolved around disbanding the legions along the frontier and consolidating
power in Spain, Gaul and Italy. In order to control these regions, Roman
employed the Visigoths as shock troops. Although Roman armies consisted
of no more than 20,000 troops in a given battle, superiority in numbers
did not ensure victory. “Discipline and training, sophisticated logistics,
the techniques of siege warfare, military engineering, a professional system
of command, and high morale based upon justifiable confidence had given
Roman armies an edge no barbarian horde could hope to match.” (p.
127) Ferrill’s arguments and assumptions find encouragement
and reinforcement in the writings of Vegetius.
This short section is an outstanding introduction to Vegetius, the problems
experienced by the Army of the Late Empire, and Vegetius’ prescription
to revitalize an ailing behemoth to its former glory.
The arrival of the Huns was both a blessing
and a curse. Initially, the Huns were used to do the dirty work of the
Empire but when the Huns unified under Attila, they became an imminent
threat. Why did Attila attack the West? The Eastern Empire refused to pay
the annual gold tribute they had paid for some years. Angered, Attila took
out his frustration on the West. To make matters worse, Valentinian’s sister Honoria pledged her hand in marriage
to Attila if he would free her. He agreed … but required half the
Empire as a suitable dowry. Aetius and his federates,
a hodge-podge of nationalities, faced the Huns at Chalons where they narrowly
escaped annihilation. The most humiliating aspect of this battle was the
minor role Roman infantry played and the insults hurled by Attila. Valentinian rewarded Aetius by personally killing him. In
turn, Aetius’ supporters killed Valentinian.
This left the door open for the rise of Ricimer, a bloodthirsty barbarian
who ran the Empire into the ground. The Vandals took advantage of the instability
of Italy by seizing North Africa, entrenching themselves there despite
a concerted effort by both halves of the Empire to reconquer Africa. Roman
influence shrank in Gaul, and was completely removed from Britain and North
Africa. Rome found itself in a tailspin it was unable to survive because
of a weakened army and enemies (barbarians) assimilated in every level
of society.
Those familiar with Ferrill’s work
in general may be surprised how often the author addresses historiographical
debates in this volume. Most revolve around military issues but a few encompass
political considerations too. This writer selected a few historiographical
controversies that gave him pause for consideration and resulted in a re-shaping
of his own historical understanding of the period. Constantine’s
adoption of the defense-in-depth strategy was motivated by political rather
than military considerations. Modern historians applaud Constantine’s
strategy because its focus on a central reserve is a method employed in
the modern world. The strategy had far-reaching consequences resulting
in the creation of an elite force in the heart of the Empire that was pulled
in every direction to meet new threats diminishing its war-making capacity.
The frontier troops, however, were all but forgotten. “Troops that
are not expected to defeat the enemy can hardly be blamed for wanting to
avoid him altogether. Indeed as time went by, the frontier troops of the
Roman Empire became virtually worthless while the mobile army was expected
to do all the fighting.” (p. 46) Constantine severely mismanaged “Rome’s
effective combatant manpower” by dividing his troops into two categories:
border troops and mobile troops. If fear of intrigue and secret enemies
was removed, perhaps Constantine would not have adopted the defense-in-depth
strategy and Rome would have been able to maintain the borders.
The Goths are remembered primarily for their
impressive performance at Adrianople smashing Roman legions with their
mounted cavalry. Using Ammianus’ account
of the battle, Ferrill concludes that “for
the most part Gothic warriors fought on foot as infantry.”
Furthermore, Ferrill debunks the old-fashioned view that
Adrianople was, “a medieval battle involving large numbers of cavalry
as simply not sound.” (p. 60) Rome was the superior force and should
have easily defeated the Goths. The Roman Emperor Valens was “driven
by jealousy into a hasty and precipitous assault” resulting in his
death and a humiliating defeat (p. 61). If Valens had only waited for Gratian’s
forces to arrive or had taken into consideration the extreme heat of the
day, the outcome may have been different. An Emperor driven by a lust for
glory and honor is bound to make rash decisions and miscalculations that,
individually, may be corrected and/or adjusted; but a series of poor tactical
decisions create a domino effect that proves insurmountable to even the
most capable commanders.
Ferrill points an accusatory finger at those
historians
“who see this period as one of transformation rather than collapse.” He
charges that they, “either ignore, dismiss, or ridicule the evidence
of human suffering in the age of invasions.” Erik Hildinger (author
of Warriors of the Steppe) provides an excellent introduction of
the warrior cultures of the Steppe and their clash with the West. Hildinger agrees
with Ferrill’s premise that the barbarians, especially the
Huns, were a vicious, brutal, and cruel people who were conditioned by
a harsh climate and bitter life on the Steppes. The Vandals are also highlighted
in Ferrill’s study as a destructive force in North Africa. “Unfortunately
it has become a common mistake,” observes Ferrill, “to let
sympathy for twentieth-century oppressed minorities blind us to the savagery
of ancient barbarians (p. 137; cf. 141).”
Archaeological evidence in North Africa has recently
been unearthed and reveals
“evidence of blind, gruesome bloodshed” under Vandal occupation
(p. 137). A topic threaded throughout Hildinger’s study
and touched upon in Ferrill’s is the barbarian tactic of terror. Terror
was used with success in the West but was primarily a tactic employed perfectly
in the Middle East by the Mongols. The Huns, however, used terror expertly
under Attila and inspired unquenchable fear in their enemies. This tactic
would evolve under Genghis Khan and Tamerlane in a modified version Hildinger
termed
“calculated terror.”
Ferrill’s analysis
may not satisfy some scholars but his case is systematically presented
and cannot be brushed aside. Rome was built through conquest and maintained
by policing its borders with crack troops. When Rome was unable to manage
the frontiers and was plagued by internal divisions, the barbarians capitalized
on an opportunity to advance themselves at the
future cost of the Empire. The fall of Rome is dated at ad476
though traces of the decay are strongly visible in the events leading and
following ad410. The deterioration
of the Roman army, however, is the chief culprit according to Ferrill. Once feared, the Roman legions
in the Late Empire were now openly mocked by Attila. Soldiers grumbled
at the severity of their tenure and were disgruntled with their barbarian
“allies” who were treated leniently and were paid handsomely. Ferrill unequivocally
attributes the fall of Rome as a failure to meet external and internal
threats with a strong military response. Sometimes his single-mindedness
can lead him to conclusions that challenge popular beliefs and schools
of thought, but he does so with the conviction that his faithfulness to
the sources will vindicate him, no matter how unfashionable it may be.