Flavius Aetius, the last Roman general.

[kenshiroIT]

Flavius Aetius

the man who could have saved the Empire from the destruction!

The early to mid Fifth Century was a time of terrible crisis for the Roman Empire
in the West. The gifted and loyal Flavius Aetius did more than any one man to help
slow the inevitable fall of the Roman Empire to the barbarian nations in the West
during the reign of Valentinian III. His career follows a course similar to
another Roman patriot, Flavius Stilicho. In the end, he was, like Stilicho,
betrayed by the sovereign whom he had served so well because the cowardly emperor
believed that Aetius was about to murder him in order to take his throne.

Aetius was raised amongst Visigoths and had many opportunities to interact with
Hunnic tribesmen. It was common in that day for two bordering nations to exchange
hostages of royal blood to ensure the good behavior of each party. Aetius was one
such hostage in the court of the Huns. Aetius learned the arts of war well and at
a young age he could hold his own with grown men. He learned all about fighting
from the back of a horse from his Hun friends and combined this with his knowledge
of standard Roman infantry tactics to come up with deadly strategies for dealing
with almost any enemy.

Some of the battles fought by Aetius became famous while others are known only to
scholars of history. In A. D. 436, Aetius and his Hun allies totally devastated
the Burgundians in a battle near the German frontier. The slaughter of Burgundian
by Hun and Roman was so great that the famous German folk legend of the Ring of
the Nieblung was born out of the disaster encountered by the German people in this
one battle.

By the late 440’s, the Huns had a new ambitious leader. Attila cared nothing for a
treaty with Rome; he was only interested in conquest. After terrorizing the
Western Roman Empire and camping about the walls of Constantinople, which could
not be taken by the Hunnish horsemen, the Roman army and their new Visigothic
allies met Attila in a battlefield near Chalons, France in 451. There was
desperate fighting all day and Theodoric, the Visigothic king was killed. (This is
not the same Theodoric who was king of Italy sixty years later). The slaughter
amongst the Huns was stupendous. It was only because night was falling that the
Huns escaped at all. Attila himself prepared a pile of captured saddles and other
booty which he intended to set fire to and leap upon if the Romans got too near,
preferring death to capture. The slaughter was so great on both sides that the
Romans could not follow up their victory and the Attila escaped with the remname
of his army.

In September, A. D. 454, Aetius was holding discussions with his emperor
concerning the marriage of his son to one of the emperor’s daughters. Valentinian
III had been growing more and more uneasy over the great popularity and power that
his master general possessed. By the same token, Aetius was becoming more and more
insistent that his son should someday become emperor. Seized by a sudden fit of
fear and anger, Valentinian drew his dagger and slew the faithful general,
murdering the only one who stood between the Roman Empire and dismemberment by
barbarian nations. The death of Flavius Aetius sounded the death knell for the
empire in the West. Twenty - one years later, the last Western emperor was forced
to abdicate and the imperial regalia were sent to Zeno in the East with a letter
stating they would no longer be needed because there was no longer a western
emperor.

Valentinian III eventually got what he so richly deserved for his cowardly little
act of treachery. A Hun by the name of Optila who was a friend and admirer of
Aetius stabbed the emperor in the temple as he dismounted in the Campus Martius
and prepared for a session of archery practice. As the stunned emperor turned to
see who had struck him, Optila finished him off with another thrust of his blade.
Most of the soldiers standing close by had been faithful followers of Aetius and
none lifted a hand to save the cowardly emperor.

Im sure 100% if Aetius became emperor the history would have moved on another path and surely avoided the fall of Rome!



from http://marbletower.freehosting.net/

[wiking]

Wonder how the world would be if the Roman Empire didn't fall.
But in theory, with the impact the Romans made on society in civilization for over a 1000 years, and still today (there are still roman roads and bridges standing some places, isn't there. And Hadrian's wall) you could say it didn't fall. More or less.

[kenshiroIT]

well surely Rome would mix with the Visigoths and last maybe up to present day! Aetius was a smart man appreciate by everyone, Visigoths and yes even Huns! He had knoledge about the Huns war tactics and and the Visigoth. He knew even how to mix them with the roman infantry tactics! Sadly he got killed by Valentinian III and guess what, he got revenget by a HUN!!!!
He was a great man, the last of he's kind, if he became emperor surely Odoacer wouldn never be the king of Italy.

[wanderer]

It is insane what Europeans believe themselves to come from the Romans! and their ancestors regard as barbarians!! The Romans had a dark skin and had never seen white before seeing the Gallic ones!

[kenshiroIT]

you sound racistic now!
Romans are European and Europe culture include the Roman and the Greek, just as the Gallic one. No need to offend other cultures and people!!!

[wanderer]

I point out a fact: the Romans were not white! where is racism! Europe were Gallic-German ones, not the Romans who made only the war! ;)

[kenshiroIT]

Europe is Europe, what you are talking about are the third reich!!!

and Wanderer you are off topik!

[Rantanplan]

nyet

[tsuri]

The Romans had a dark skin and had never seen white before
There were not "The Romans" Western,Middle and Southern European people as well as North Africans etc were part of the Roman Empire.

Rome's days were numbered. I doubt that one man could have changed history so much. Rome had become too big.
But it is always interesting to read how advanced people back then actually were.

[wiking]

The technological advances of the Romans were extreme, to mention one thing they had elaborate and well functioning sewage system, while London had no such thing untill the Victorian age.

[wanderer]

The technological advances of the Romans were extreme, to mention one thing they had elaborate and well functioning sewage system, while London had no such thing untill the Victorian age.

The Romans especially had technology after the invasion of the gaule. Jule césar itself lived close to a hydro-mechanical workshop without anything to see nor its men! How you explain! Learn how Napoleon made a phantasmagoria of the superiority of Jules césar, it is for that that it has to order archaeological research! Medicine, fattening bio of the fields, reaping-machine, pharmacy, better machining and of the centuries before the Roman invasion! You want to crawl in front of this looser? go!

[kenshiroIT]

The technological advances of the Romans were extreme, to mention one thing they had elaborate and well functioning sewage system, while London had no such thing untill the Victorian age.

Agree 100% and that's not all, many of their constructions and "highways" are still in use to day! And with'out mentioning various building who are in use today with there original purpose. Im talking about the Pantheon, constructed like a temple for all the gods worshipped in the ancient Rome, and later converted (sadly) to a church! and after 2000 years the Pantheon are still there and it's still a (temple) a church woot .

Beside that....I am wery intrigued with the idea about Aetius emperor!!!
Ok I know im wandering to a <<what if area>> but if Aetius instead of being killed by Valentinian III managed to be emperor, he would surely avoided the fall of Rome!
Aetius was the kind of man who was admired everywhere he went, he was like a Rommel of ancient times, maybe even more thant that!
He growt up between Huns (he was a hostage, while Attila was a hostage in Rome) there he learned everything, the huns royals (I do not remeber their name...my apologies) teached him everything, from hunting to warfare. Later he lived some years between the Goth (the german federati) where he learned their wartactics. Later when he went bak to Rome he could mix the fighting skills of the Huns and the goths with the roman infantry tactiks...becaming invincible!!!!!
The Hunn king Alaric (Yes the man who sacked Rome just after the dead of Stilicho) with'out a blink of an eye lended to Aetius a full equiped Hunn army who mixed to the Aetius roman troops they fought back and almust sterminaded the Burgundians (here the slaughter between the Germanic people was so great that the tale << the ring of the Nibelungh>> where born.

Years later, when Attila where sacking Europe (and he ended to be the impersonification of Odin between the Danes) the Goth, and the roman army led by Aetius (Aetius was the commander of all the three army) led the first defeat to Attila, who was forced to flee (but it was not a definitive defeat) in the battle at Chalons ( France ) in 451 the slaughter of the Huns where so great that even to day is there rumors that the hills around the ancient battlefield are made by Hun bones.
But the high losses was not only by the Hun side, between the "allies" there was high losses and the king Theodorik died in battle (Aetius best friend). Aetius was the only who knew how to defeat Attila!!!!!!

Sadly Aetius ended murdered by he's own emperor, and a year later Atila sacked northen Italy!
But if Aetius became emperor he could have done the military reforms the army needed, maybe espelling the large number of mercenaries (that almust outnumber the roman "regulars") and building a strong cavalry.
Possibly there would have been a common empire between Rome and the Goth's (who where almust romaniced) and maybe together they could have pushed back first the Vandals from the south, then the Franks and the Longobards. The new empire would have florished and many lives could have been spared (the various invasion in Europe cost tons of lives of locals) but the history moved on another path!
Odoacer sixty years later became king of Italy (the first barbarian king to rule Italy) and he ended defeated (after a siege lasted two years at Ravenna) and strangled by king Theodoric (not Aetius friend).

Surely if Aetius became emperor the history of Europe would have been quite different!!!

[kenshiroIT]

tsuri
I doubt that one man could have changed history so much.

as G-man in Half life 2 says : the right man in the wrong place, can make all the difference in the world ;-)))

[lastdingo]

Roman technological advance was next to non-existent. They did merely absorb other's advances very well.

Aetius couldn't have saved the Western Roman empire - there were many characters like him in the late Roman Empire and comparable ones also in the Eastern Empire. Least of all could military successes save the Empire. Reforms of economy and administration as well as a change of attitude over two generations at least would have been necessary to achieve that. Winning battles did no more than to buy some time, as many generals demonstrated very well.

[Sir Zach of R.]

The Visigoths were the West Goths right?

[kenshiroIT]

Agree about the tecnology.

Back to Aetius :well Aetius could have saved Rome, but of course not only with weapons. One of the economic reform should have been the elimination of all the mercenaries unit's, at least must of them. They was a large burden for the Roman economy.
Aetius had plan to mix with the Gotic royal family so the two people would be one (the Goths at that time they where big fans of the Romans) and that would surely change a drammatic situation in to a more optimistick one.

[lastdingo]

Visigoths = West Goths, correct

I disagree on the "mercenary units"; much of the Roman military of that time consisted of foederatii; barbarian tribes that were allowed to settle in the empire in exchange for military duty. That did ruin the internal and external power of the empire in the long run. The only well paid military force was the field army, a kind of elite and not very large IIRC.

The pay cannot ahve been so troublesome in itself if dozens of millions inhabitants of the Roman empire have to pay a field army of just some ten thousand men plus garrison forces. The real reason for the financial troubles must have been in the system itself.

Also don't agree about the mixing plan; Alexander tried the same with Greeks and Persians and failed. The Visigoths were also too few to have lasting impact. The Italians would simply have sucked them up with little lasting effect. It's not about blood, but about whether the state is able to raise the money it needs without strangling the economy and without loosing too much money to ineffieciencies.

[mountainbear]

The Roman Empire disappeared mostly because of economic and internal politic reasons.
Firstly it had a very bad commercial balance whit other civilisation. In clear the Romans where importing more then they where exporting. So that helped to bring a lack of founding.
Secondly the slavery system led to the disappearance of the middle class because most of the farmers and artisan where replaced by slaves. Like nowadays the middle class was the pillar of the roman society, it was the first source of income for the State and the basis of an efficient and motivated army.
The political instability is also one of the main reasons of the disappearance of the Roman Empire. They never managed to have a good succession system for the emperors, and this is strange for a civilisation known for its managing capabilities all over their empire.
So I don’t think Aetius could save the Roman Empire, only huge changes in their system could do that and I don’t think he would done these. Even if he did it was probably too late.

[lastdingo]

A bad trade balance could not exist at that time. Money was still gold & silver, which were raw materials that can be and should be considered as trading goods, too. So it's impossible for the empire to have a trade deficit.

The erosion of the Italian/Roman middle class did happen and was a major problem, but that happened around 100 BC. The process was nearly complete at the time when Rome hadn't more than half of its maximum expansion. It can be accounted for being the seal on the fate of the republic, together with Marius' army reform (professional soldiers that were loyal to tehir commander, not to the republic) - but not as a reason for the downfall of the empire.

[mountainbear]

I don’t understand why a bad trade balance could not exist. When you have plenty of goods but no money to pay the soldiers and other State workers because all of the gold and silver was used to get those goods it is the result of a trade deficit.
Your second point sounds right but I still think the disappearing of the middle class in all the empire is one of the reasons of its fall even if it appended very early.
My opinion is made out of what I understood at school and what I read in books so it’s not just made up out of my mind but I am not an Historian so I don’t claim that I am right on everything.

[Ballistic]

Very interesting article and discussion. I love learning more about the Roman Empire !! I'm now going to play some more Rome Total War. :D

[lastdingo]

I don’t understand why a bad trade balance could not exist. When you have plenty of goods but no money to pay the soldiers and other State workers because all of the gold and silver was used to get those goods it is the result of a trade deficit.
Your second point sounds right but I still think the disappearing of the middle class in all the empire is one of the reasons of its fall even if it appended very early.
My opinion is made out of what I understood at school and what I read in books so it’s not just made up out of my mind but I am not an Historian so I don’t claim that I am right on everything.

You have a trade deficit when the result of your trading is that your your net debt climbed. Debts didn't exist in that time in trading, therefore no trade deficit.
It's simple; either you pay at once or you won't get the other's stuff.
Since money at that time was still gold & silver, equalling the value of the raw material that acts as money, it cannot be counted in the trade balance as money, but only as the metal called "gold" or "silver". Or whatever they mixed into it.

Technically and in reality no trade deficit possible. You need to invent true money or create debts for that (well, money was for a versy long time only another kind of debt document...so it's all about debts).