Flavius Aetius - Last of the Romans? Or Backstabbing Generalissimo?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The western roman empire had plenty of income - it was just all being focused on the army. Im sure the ERE backed up the pope with gold too, but disease and Aetius had worn attila down, that and a lack of supply lines

[Offensive Bias]

Hmm, so Aetius played a large part in saving Rome? I would consider him a decent Roman.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

A very large part in reversing the decline of the empire.

[Offensive Bias]

But decline was still inevitable. Year after year of terrible Emperors really took their toll.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Well, yeah after Aetius... They burned away his reconquests

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

Flavius Aetius - Last of the Romans? Or Backstabbing Generalissimo?

Well, both...but I think we've had this discussion before. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Aetius' rivalry with Boniface is not well known, but seriously cripples his legacy. Aetius tricked the Imperial family into believing that Count Boniface was guilty of treason, to try and get the upper hand politically. It worked, and Boniface, fearing for his life, requested aid from the Vandals in the form of mercenary troops. The entire Vandal people then migrated to Africa. When Boniface was finally able to reconcile with the Imperial family, he informed the Vandals that he didn't need their help any longer. Instead of leaving, the Vandals found it more convienent to seize the entire Africa province from the Western Empire.

Why is this signifigant?

Africa, with Carthage as its capital city, was the breadbasket of the Western Empire, a vital source of income, a focal point of early Christianity, and was the only part of the Western Empire that was reletively stable in the 5th century. The loss of Africa was to prove to be a wound that would eventually bleed the Western Empire to death.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

This is based primarily on gibbon - and what you've said is outdated. Research shows that Placidia - not Aetius - started the war and the Vandals crossed over on thier own accord. The theory with boni and the vandals is still open though

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Sooo.... well I looked around And Aetius may have had around 15000 - 20000 romans at chalons. The rest were barbarians but his army totaled around 50000

[Spartan JKM]

Very nice, Magister, particularly your inspiration over Flavius Aetius, certainly a figure who overtly merits a following of admiration. He was one of those leaders who constantly found himself on the horns of a dilemma.

I'm sorry I had him ranked lower than you feel he should be, but my knowledge of this era is not my strong point. He did cross my mind, as did Attila, whether he should go to TIER 2, but I think I didn't elevate him because, basically, I am too affected by various assessments of generals' battles. In this case, he lost to Boniface (yes, a battle which doesn't reveal the winner outright superior), and the famous battle he is renowned for was actually a 'battle of nations', hence it wasn't his victory on an exclusive level, and, on top of that, Attila was already in a rearguard, and retired solidly; it seems Aetius, on the face of it, compromised the security of Italy. But his reign was amid a backdrop of defensive operations, thus such a verdict is probably too abstract. We'll put him higher on the list, but I cannot just edit it easily now, as limited space has since been set down by twc (it doesn't get cut, but it can't be changed a little and stay as is).

I opine no - Aetius was far from a backstabber, but a superb 'diplomat in the field' who understood the political climates of his strategic settings. I'm sorry I still cannot elaborate. I'll try to join in as soon as I get the chance. Here's two directly relevant sources for your OP, both in stark contrast (if you don't have them already). I have both, so if you don't have them and can't get them easily, let me know

The Effects of the Policies of Aetius on the History of the Western Empire, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 22, no. 4 (1973), by J. R. Moss, who asserts that Aetius was a traitor to the empire: we read on p. 729 (19th of the journal article) that Aetius' "policy of exclusive concentration on the defense of Gaul, of exclusive reliance on the Huns, of abandonment of the sea, and of connivance at the Vandal occupation of Africa, was catastrophic." Wel, you've covered these yourself with credible polemics.

However, this is convincingly challenged (IMHO) by one John Michael O'Flynn, whose book Generalissimos of the Western Roman Empire (1983) makes a good case against the harsh but considerable notions of Moss (the career of Aetius spans two chapters in this fine work, nos.6 & 7 over pp. 74-104, titled Aetius' Struggle for Power and Defending the Empire , respectively). JSTOR and googlebooks have these works to at least glance at more concretely.

Enjoy, James

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Thanks, but you must remember that something was done about the African situation - Between 435 and 439 Aetius hired Aspar (an eastern magister militum) to Defend Africa and Mauretania from the encroaching vandals. Also Vitus, Merobaudes (The pangerycist) and another guy were sent to spain - in which Vitus returned most of Catagenesis but was defeated by the suebes. But his reconquests held until after aetius' death...

There were some other reconquests - Raetia and Noricum, Narbonesis, and Lugdenesis (After defeating the burgundians).

Also Aetius defeat was probably due to inferior troop types - at the stage he was at in 432 those were weak limitanei and foederati most likely, while bonmifacius hadcomitatenses which although weakend were still superior to Aetius' troops. And the Naval situation was not entirely neglected - Aetius had 1100 ships at panormus (enough for 70000 men w/out supplies and horses) ready to go for an enormus african campaign in 440 but Attila attacked the east and w/out reinforcements from thrace he called it off.

Also Chalons was a stalemate - the battle was inconclusve but by persuading the other barbarians to leave the field he made it lok like a roman victory although it was moreso a visigothic.

Thank you for your input.

[Spartan JKM]

That was quick!! Thanks, and it's my pleasure.

Yes, regarding Africa, and I believe that Gaesiric's son married Valentinian's daughter, and the he didn't exude any substantial aggression with his power until after the deaths of Attila and Aetius (confirmation?).

Anyway, and, IIRC, Procopius alluded to Aetius' murder (Sept., 454 A.C.E.) as an act by Valentinian of 'cutting his hand of with the other' (at least attributing those words to the 'famous Roman' who was the executioner). A very complex and fascinating backdrop, with so much cause and effect from multiple theaters.

We'll go over it. Nice work + rep

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Thanks. Yes, Gaiseric didn't show aggression until after the deaths of Aetius and Valentinian III, because those deaths nullified the treaty allowing him to sack rome. Sidonius Apollinaris is credited with that quote:

I am ignorant, sir, of your motives or provocations; but I do know that you have acted like a man who has cut off his right hand with his left.

Aetius was killed when valentinian ran his sword into him and then petronius came around and stabbed him in the back. Then he was stabbed 98 more times and the government was purged of his supporters except those who had either fled or were in the field (eg. thraustila, marcellinus (who immediately rebelled having been friends with aetius since their childhood), Aegidius (who would rebel in 457), Avitus, and others). Merobaudes was probably killed in this process too but we have no records of that.

The Exact date is September 20th or 21st, but generally the 20th is accepted.

Feel free to PM about this. :

[Antigenes]

This is based primarily on gibbon - and what you've said is outdated. Research shows that Placidia - not Aetius - started the war and the Vandals crossed over on thier own accord. The theory with boni and the vandals is still open though

Prokopios and Prosper of Aquitaine are the chroniclers who claim that it was all Placidia's fault, and they aren't exactly unbiased.

As for the Vandal crossing, that's actually not confirmed by "research" and still hotly debated. Possible explanations include, yes, that they crossed of their own accord, but also that Aetius himself more or less allowed them to cross to help him wipe out Bonifatius. That Bonifatius himself invited them over seems rather unlikely since he ended up fighting them shortly after their arrival. Explanations involving a cunning plan gone horribly awry on Bonifatius' part suffer from a lack of actual supporting evidence.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Thank you and I believe at this time (429) Aetius was in northern gaul and he probably knew that not having an army of his own to drive the vandals back out within range after putting them in africa would make such a plan as aetius inviting the vandals unlikely.

[Antigenes]

That's precisely the reason Aetius might have actually sent them in - because he had no other significant local forces with which to deal with Bonifatius.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

hmm.. maybe...

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

@Offensive Bias I think gold pretty much speaks for itself.

[lee1980]

Disease and Aetius did not wear down Atilla, Atilla was too stubborn, headstrung, and only wanted to rule the world, his focus was so blinding, though he was excellent at war. His taste in women, one in particular was his downfall, he became so complacent that he actually thought his slaves had begun to love him, and the last one he married, succeeded in poisoning Atilla, if she had not, Europe and the Middle East would be fairly different today.

Aetius was backstabbing, he was released from prison to only fight for Rome, in the end after setting up Atilla to be murdered by a slave that was a planted slave girl planted to get Atilla's attention, basically to assassinate Atilla (and she did), after this Valentinian thought he no longer needed Aetius and stabbed him (no others helped in stabbing Aetius), to include, this is when the Dark Ages began.

Without Atilla, no one could continue to build his domain, that would have ultimately did just what he wanted, and he wanted to rule the world, with that stopped and without Aetius (assassinated by Valentinian) Rome became vulnerable to everyone that raped and pilaged land with no ambition at all. The downfall of Rome was brought on by the ignorance of the mother of Valentinian, and the downfall of the Huns was brought on by the man who wanted to be King of the world, Atilla. Greed is a horrible mess.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Umm... and you are basing this entirely off of a really bad Hollywood movie that came out int he wake of Gladiator.

Flavius Aetius was certainly of an impeccable character and commanded respect from his subordinates, otherwise his generals would have overthrown him. Had he not been a man that almost always lived up to his word, then he would not have been allowed to recruit Bucellarii from the Huns, and would have been executed by Bonifatius after the Battle of the Rimini. The Army was entirely loyal to Aetius, and Valentinian would have been a pawn to someone else anyways if Aetius didn't exist. The fact that it only took 22 years for the empire to collapse without Aetius is a complete testament to his determination to hold it together.

I should also mention that Attila died of Cirrhosis of the Liver, he was never poisoned. Aetius was also never imprisoned, although Boniface's incompetent sone Sebastian attempted to Assassinate the retired Aetius in 432 and 433.