cataclysm rome

After some consideration I had come to the conclusion that it is more prudent to talk about this matter using both the causes and consequences of the collapse of the military system of Rome. However, being a very broad and vital area of Rome, this matter is likely to take several entries and several books on my side to complete, but I’ll do this anyway.

Before I start the body paragraph, some important backgrounds and anecdotes highlighting the importance of the Roman’s military should be provided. It is my belief that the Roman Empire based itself on its military and its military conquests aided its prosperity greatly: The riches including slaves and gold directly gained from plunders done in military campaigns and the vast amounts of land available for agriculture and other practices greatly stimulated the Roman economy. Furthermore, the Roman military also provided a ladder to which the poor citizens of the Romans, the non-citizen within the Roman territories and the rich seeking power can ascend further in their social status (e.g. the non-citizens can obtain citizenship when they retire after years of military services) fostering individual wellbeing and eventually societal development. All of the two most significant effect of the Roman military made the Roman’s military field’s success a determining factor for the rise of the Roman Empire. (This part actually reminds me of some part of U.S history on the part of Turner’s Frontier Theory which claimed that the existence of the frontier represents U.S culture and stabilizes the U.S society.)  Its military strength wasn’t built for offensive purposes, however. Indeed it is many specialists’ belief that the Roman army was organized and trained for the more important aim of defense against foreign enemies consisted of barbarians such as the Gauls, the Germanic tribes and other powerful nations such as Carthage.

Based on these backgrounds that I’ve provided, I believe that it is not difficult to identify some problems that may occur in the Roman military field in the long run. The problems are the overwhelming power in Roman high-ranking controversies concerning the matter of the well-being of individual soldiers including treatments of them during both times within military services and times of being veterans, generals and the lack of expansion in territories through the successful defensive wars to obtain riches. All of the above following reasons, to be honest, would all eventually lead to the happening of revolutions but only with different logics for them to lead to the civil wars.

First, the problems of rising powers of regional generals. Interestingly, this feature of the Roman military system is not at all that terrible in the earlier phases of Rome (no matter the republic or the empire) through an observer’s point of view. (this is purely my claim, one should take it with a critical view point and I am open to objections in the comment section) Indeed, if operated in the right hands, the power possessed by regional generals such as those in the frontiers may act as a last precaution or rather a “reshuffling of the cards” to reset the current political environment, policies and more. The reason behind this characteristic of Rome’s was that the central exercised limited control and influence over the soldiers, no matter providential or praetorian. These soldiers, when put under unfair policies by the current emperor, would hence swear their loyalty to their generals, leading to revolutions and civil wars. (the effect of personal ambition could contribute to a civil war, though with extremely low chance of winning) After the war was won, the generals would take in charge of the country in replacement of the old emperor and he would certainly modify the policies set before in order to stabilize the country and his soldiers. This phenomenon could be seen by the civil war of 68-69. One of the more direct policy-side cause of the revolution was significant decreases in military spending (and wages of soldiers) in order to supply for massive financial failures in other parts of the empire. Responding to the issue, Vindex, the governor of Gaul, started revolution which led to the Senate declaring that Nero was the national enemy and which resulted the death of Nero and a change in government. The civil war eventually ended with Vespasian’s successful establishment and who offsets the damage done by Nero. However, I believe that the benefits of the weak control of the emperor to the regional generals were merely coincidences. To be succinct, it is hard to guarantee that the last one standing was the one who can benefit Rome in the long run and the wars itself, without the generation of a competent leader, may drag on very long and destroy the welfares of the people. This can be shown by parts of the crisis of the 3^rd century. Though the crisis was consisted of many events including invasions of barbarians, the constant breakout of wars was definitely one of the significant distresses. There were uprisings from the frontier armies and the praetorian guards, and, with most of them being unsuccessful, was not able to overthrow the current emperor and possibly reset the policies. Thus, not only were the disadvantageous policies constantly continuing to contribute to the deterioration of everyone’s living standards (except the extremely wealthy and powerful individuals of course), amplifying and deepening the effects of undesirable policies within the political system, but also the common citizens life was disturbed constantly by the wars, preventing normal production and economic prosperity, making the civil wars a great catalyst for the Roman Empire’s decline.