What if the 468 expedition to recover North Africa from the Vandals had succeeded?

[Ecthelion]

I have it, it is a fantastic read and I highly recommend it.

For a better understanding of the function of the Roman Government in the 5th century I recommend Meaghan McEvoy's very recent work "Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West." I recommend reading it in Conjunction with Ian Hughes' "Aetius: Attila's Nemesis" and "Stilicho: The Vandal who Saved Rome", because McEvoy does mix a few things up that Dr. Hughes gets right, such as military titles and structure.

Can you recommend a good one for the Justinian period? Preferably one on Audible

You clearly are more equipped in this area than I am.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Hmm... good question. I'd say Belisarius by Ian Hughes, but I've heard there are better reads (Spartan JKM would know.)

John Julius Norwich's 3-volume "A History of Byzantium" is still a relevant read (it was written in the 1990's IIRC). James J. O'Donnell's "The Ruin of the Roman Empire" covers the 6th century pretty thoroughly if I recall correctly.

I usually look through the notes and the bibliographies of the books I read if I want to explore a topic more. Although I usually go back to primary sources personally and try to draw my own conclusions or build upon ones already established.

My expertise, admittedly, is rather thoroughly focused on the things revolving around Aetius and the Battle of Chalons (so ranging from the Hunnic Culture and Warfare to the Roman Administrative System, and everything I could scrounge up about every people inbetween and the credibility of sources from that period.)

Oh, that reminds me of a good read by Walter Goffart: The Narrators of Barbarian History. I highly recommend it, as he analyzes the authors like Jordanes and Gregory of Tours and talks about their credibility, exaggerations, etc. etc.

[Ecthelion]

Hmm... good question. I'd say Belisarius by Ian Hughes, but I've heard there are better reads (Spartan JKM would know.)

John Julius Norwich's 3-volume "A History of Byzantium" is still a relevant read (it was written in the 1990's IIRC). James J. O'Donnell's "The Ruin of the Roman Empire" covers the 6th century pretty thoroughly if I recall correctly.

I usually look through the notes and the bibliographies of the books I read if I want to explore a topic more. Although I usually go back to primary sources personally and try to draw my own conclusions or build upon ones already established.

My expertise, admittedly, is rather thoroughly focused on the things revolving around Aetius and the Battle of Chalons (so ranging from the Hunnic Culture and Warfare to the Roman Administrative System, and everything I could scrounge up about every people inbetween and the credibility of sources from that period.)

Oh, that reminds me of a good read by Walter Goffart: The Narrators of Barbarian History. I highly recommend it, as he analyzes the authors like Jordanes and Gregory of Tours and talks about their credibility, exaggerations, etc. etc.

Sadly none of these are on Audible...

Thanks though, hopefully I can change my habits at some point and start reading real books with my eyes again haha

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

What sources do you guys use for Genseric/Gaiseric's conquest of North Africa?
I mean I would love to take part in the discussion but all I really know is that the Vandals conquered the Roman provinces there and the joint East-West campaign was sunk, or rather burned by Gaiseric's fire ships. Other than that apparently the Romans allied with Gaiseric during the onslaught of Attila.

[Ecthelion]

What sources do you guys use for Genseric/Gaiseric's conquest of North Africa?
I mean I would love to take part in the discussion but all I really know is that the Vandals conquered the Roman provinces there and the joint East-West campaign was sunk, or rather burned by Gaiseric's fire ships. Other than that apparently the Romans allied with Gaiseric during the onslaught of Attila.

First rule of 5th century history:
It sucks.

We have very little in the way of credible sources during this period. There's no Polybius, Tacitus or Thucydides to point the way.
All we know is that the Vandals and Alan remnants crossed into Mauritania, defeated the meager Roman garrison there, then marched eastward, stopped for a bit after a minor battlefield reversal (there was a ceasefire period), then continued on to Carthage which fell with little resistance. Aetius immediately called Constantinople for assistance in retaking the province, and the ERE sent a massive expedition. They were all ready in Sicily, but the ERE expeditionary force was recalled to the Balkans as the Huns made their first major foray into the Roman Empire proper (this ERE was later annihilated in two major battles against the Huns).

So without the means to retake the province by force, the WRE instead decided to play nice with Geiseric, giving him de facto recognition, but not de jure.

When the Hunnic Empire fell and Ricimer came to a deal with Constantinople to take on Anthemius as Emperor, the final 468 invasion was committed to.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

First rule of 5th century history:
It sucks.

We have very little in the way of credible sources during this period. There's no Polybius, Tacitus or Thucydides to point the way.
All we know is that the Vandals and Alan remnants crossed into Mauritania, defeated the meager Roman garrison there, then marched eastward, stopped for a bit after a minor battlefield reversal (there was a ceasefire period), then continued on to Carthage which fell with little resistance. Aetius immediately called Constantinople for assistance in retaking the province, and the ERE sent a massive expedition. They were all ready in Sicily, but the ERE expeditionary force was recalled to the Balkans as the Huns made their first major foray into the Roman Empire proper (this ERE was later annihilated in two major battles against the Huns).

So without the means to retake the province by force, the WRE instead decided to play nice with Geiseric, giving him de facto recognition, but not de jure.

When the Hunnic Empire fell and Ricimer came to a deal with Constantinople to take on Anthemius as Emperor, the final 468 invasion was committed to.

That's a bit oversimplified.

Much of what we know comes from the Chroniclers: Hydatius, Procopius, Cassiodorus/Jordanes, the two Gallic Chronicles, etc. They usually had quite extensive agendas. Occasionally we get a few gems: Sidonius Apollinaris is the obvious one. There's also the Theodosian Code, Prosper Tiro of Aquitaine, and others like St. Augustine of Hippo. Most of the good ones have been lost to time, e.g. Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus, and most of Priscus of Panium.

This is basically what we know:

Gaiseric crossed to Africa in 429 AD seeing opportunity in the fracturing of the Roman state between its three military commanders and invaded with a total population of 80,000 men, women, children, etc. Gaiseric was a military genius, and (probably) smashed the small Roman field army in Mauretania and quickly marched his way east, where he sacked Altava in Mauretania Caesariensis. He met Bonifacius, the Comes Africae, at the head of the African Field army and additional Gothic Foederati under Sigisvultus somewhere in the Roman province of Mauretania Sitifensis or Numidia in 429 or 430 AD. After defeating Bonifacius and Sigisvultus, he laid siege to where they were stationed in Hippo Regius for 14 months, and in the end the Romans were allowed to retreat in exchange for handing over the city, which was sacked and made Gaiseric's base of operations.

Immediately the Eastern Roman Empire sent assisstance under their Magister Militum per Orientem, Aspar, son of Ardaburius, who he and his father had led a military expedition against Ioannes and placed Valentinian III on the Western Throne in 425. Bonifacius and the additional forces from the Eastern Empire engaged Gaiseric again, but were once more defeated. This same year, 432, Bonifacius was appointed supreme commander (Comes et Magister Utriusque Militiae in Praesentis cum Imperio Seniore) of the Western Administrative Half and left to take command of the Praesental Army in Italy, where he ended up confronting Aetius and later dying.

Meanwhile, Sigisvult and Aspar continued skirmishing and campaigning against Gaiseric in Africa until the year 435, when the first treaty was signed. This granted Gaiseric Numidia and Mauretania Sitifensis, but left Mauretania Tingitania, Mauretania Caesariensis, Tripolitania, Byzacena, and Africa Proconsularis under Roman control. Nevertheless, the Romans' only prior untouched tax base had been damaged, and the future was bleak.

In 439, using his newly appointed title of Dux (Probably Dux Mauretaniae Caesariensis in the Notitia Dignitatum), he was able to enter the city of Carthage on his own accord with his bodyguard forces on October 19th, and subsequently sacked it. This crippled the Roman economy and military beyond repair: it was an invaluable source of taxes and grain for the Empire.

Aetius immediately responded: in 440 the Vandals attacked Panormus and the province of Bruttium, but retreated upon his approach (and were allegedly defeated in Bruttium by the grandfather of the Gothic History author Cassiodorus). Sigisvult organized the defense of Italy while Aetius returned (victorious) from the war with the Visigoths and prepared a campaign to retake the province in Panormus, which he used as his base. The Eastern Roman Empire sent a fleet of 1100 ships under five generals in 441 AD, which totals approximately enough space for 70,000 men. This would obviously include Aetius' army, but the Balkans had been drained of its field armies to reinforce the Western units. In 442, the Huns attacked the Balkans under Attila and Bleda, and it was called off and the fleet withdrew. Aetius, without a fleet, could do nothing and sent his army back to Gaul.

The Vandals then recieved a new treaty with Rome, which granted them status as the first independent kingdom within Rome's borders (Socius et Amicus or "Friend and Ally" of the Emperor) and they recieved Numidia, Byzacena, and Africa Proconsularis, while Rome kept the three Mauretanias and Tripolitania (which would remain untouched until 455). The Grain supply was partially restored to Rome, but it was a massive economic upheaval for the empire and left it with 1/8 of its prior revenue from the Mauretanias, and revenue from the African provinces completely lost.

The treaty with the Vandals held until 455, and the Vandals even fulfilled their role as Foederati in 445, attacking the Suebes for Aetius at Portus Turones in Gallaecia. In 455, with Valentinian III dead and the promised betrothal to Gaiseric's son Huneric unfulfilled, the Vandals attacked Italy and sacked Rome, capturing the Empress Eudoxia (allegedly the most beautiful woman in the empire), her three daughters (including Honoria whom had allegedly betrothed herself to Attila), and Aetius' son Flavius Gaudentius Aetius (whom was probably guarding them considering his age at that time, which would have been 14 or 15). He used them to try and press claims on Aetius' estates in Gaul, and the Imperial estates of the Theodosian Dynasty.

Majorian, Aetius' virtual successor and the last capable emperor, mounted the next expedition. Following up on Aetius' plan to retake Africa via a Spanish conquest and then crossing over the strait of Gibraltar (which was begun in 453 but abandoned upon Aetius' death), Majorian first secured his position as Magister Utriusque Militiae (Senior) and then Emperor (with Ricimer becoming the senior Magister Militum), before using diplomacy and foederati to secure parts of Gaul. Aegidius gave his support, and the Franks of Childeric committed to the Roman cause, while Majorian managed to subdue the Burgundii (this would lead to his demise as Ricimer worked for Gundobad) and recapture the territory they had gained after Aetius' death. With these reinforcements, Majorian attacked and defeated the Visigoths at Arelate, and incorporated their Foederati into his army. He moved into Spain where he defeated the Suebes, and began constructing a fleet at Portus Illicitanus, which amounted to 300 transports and warships, while his junior Magister Militum (whose name I can't remember off the top of my head) finished off the Suebes in Gallaecia, and also reduced them to Foederati status, incorporating them into Majorian's barbarian army.

Gaiseric knew what Majorian was doing, and sought a solution: he ended up bribing the citizens of Portus Illicitanus into setting fire to the Roman fleet, ending the campaign permanently.

The final attempt was under Anthemius, in 468, with the help of the Eastern Empire who sent another fleet even larger than the one they had sent in 442. It consisted of probably about 80,000 men, and was led by Basiliscus, and they also managed to secure the help of the remants of Aetius' old army and foederati under Marcellinus in Illyria et Dalmatia, who moved to Sicily in preparation for the campaign. The Romans made a massive tactical blunder, in that Basiliscus decided to anchor offshore for the night rather than unload immediately and set up camp. Gaiseric took grain ships (dried grain is highly explosive), set them on fire, and pushed them into the Roman fleet, much in the same manner that the British would later defeat the Spanish Armada. The majority of the fleet was sunk and the campaign was the most expensive military catastrophe in Roman history, costing the Eastern Empire about 1/3-1/2 of their total field army.

Marcellinus and his army survived though, as they were still at Panormus, and Marcellinus (and Anthemius) end up being executed at the hands of Ricimer.

Although the West was truly sentenced to death in the failure of Aetius' first expedition, the expedition of Anthemius pretty much established the fact that there was nothing left that could be done for the West: it left the East in financial ruin for a few decades and devoid of much of their mobile field army (hence why they sent Theodoric the Great to reconquer Italy in 480, although the Balkans had been devastated beyond repair under Attila, so Anthemius' defeat really had nothing to do with the lack of a military presence there.)

[Ecthelion]

That's a bit oversimplified.

Much of what we know comes from the Chroniclers: Hydatius, Procopius, Cassiodorus/Jordanes, the two Gallic Chronicles, etc. They usually had quite extensive agendas. Occasionally we get a few gems: Sidonius Apollinaris is the obvious one. There's also the Theodosian Code, Prosper Tiro of Aquitaine, and others like St. Augustine of Hippo. Most of the good ones have been lost to time, e.g. Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus, and most of Priscus of Panium.

This is basically what we know:

Gaiseric crossed to Africa in 429 AD seeing opportunity in the fracturing of the Roman state between its three military commanders and invaded with a total population of 80,000 men, women, children, etc. Gaiseric was a military genius, and (probably) smashed the small Roman field army in Mauretania and quickly marched his way east, where he sacked Altava in Mauretania Caesariensis. He met Bonifacius, the Comes Africae, at the head of the African Field army and additional Gothic Foederati under Sigisvultus somewhere in the Roman province of Mauretania Sitifensis or Numidia in 429 or 430 AD. After defeating Bonifacius and Sigisvultus, he laid siege to where they were stationed in Hippo Regius for 14 months, and in the end the Romans were allowed to retreat in exchange for handing over the city, which was sacked and made Gaiseric's base of operations.

Immediately the Eastern Roman Empire sent assisstance under their Magister Militum per Orientem, Aspar, son of Ardaburius, who he and his father had led a military expedition against Ioannes and placed Valentinian III on the Western Throne in 425. Bonifacius and the additional forces from the Eastern Empire engaged Gaiseric again, but were once more defeated. This same year, 432, Bonifacius was appointed supreme commander (Comes et Magister Utriusque Militiae in Praesentis cum Imperio Seniore) of the Western Administrative Half and left to take command of the Praesental Army in Italy, where he ended up confronting Aetius and later dying.

Meanwhile, Sigisvult and Aspar continued skirmishing and campaigning against Gaiseric in Africa until the year 435, when the first treaty was signed. This granted Gaiseric Numidia and Mauretania Sitifensis, but left Mauretania Tingitania, Mauretania Caesariensis, Tripolitania, Byzacena, and Africa Proconsularis under Roman control. Nevertheless, the Romans' only prior untouched tax base had been damaged, and the future was bleak.

In 439, using his newly appointed title of Dux (Probably Dux Mauretaniae Caesariensis in the Notitia Dignitatum), he was able to enter the city of Carthage on his own accord with his bodyguard forces on October 19th, and subsequently sacked it. This crippled the Roman economy and military beyond repair: it was an invaluable source of taxes and grain for the Empire.

Aetius immediately responded: in 440 the Vandals attacked Panormus and the province of Bruttium, but retreated upon his approach (and were allegedly defeated in Bruttium by the grandfather of the Gothic History author Cassiodorus). Sigisvult organized the defense of Italy while Aetius returned (victorious) from the war with the Visigoths and prepared a campaign to retake the province in Panormus, which he used as his base. The Eastern Roman Empire sent a fleet of 1100 ships under five generals in 441 AD, which totals approximately enough space for 70,000 men. This would obviously include Aetius' army, but the Balkans had been drained of its field armies to reinforce the Western units. In 442, the Huns attacked the Balkans under Attila and Bleda, and it was called off and the fleet withdrew. Aetius, without a fleet, could do nothing and sent his army back to Gaul.

The Vandals then recieved a new treaty with Rome, which granted them status as the first independent kingdom within Rome's borders (Socius et Amicus or "Friend and Ally" of the Emperor) and they recieved Numidia, Byzacena, and Africa Proconsularis, while Rome kept the three Mauretanias and Tripolitania (which would remain untouched until 455). The Grain supply was partially restored to Rome, but it was a massive economic upheaval for the empire and left it with 1/8 of its prior revenue from the Mauretanias, and revenue from the African provinces completely lost.

The treaty with the Vandals held until 455, and the Vandals even fulfilled their role as Foederati in 445, attacking the Suebes for Aetius at Portus Turones in Gallaecia. In 455, with Valentinian III dead and the promised betrothal to Gaiseric's son Huneric unfulfilled, the Vandals attacked Italy and sacked Rome, capturing the Empress Eudoxia (allegedly the most beautiful woman in the empire), her three daughters (including Honoria whom had allegedly betrothed herself to Attila), and Aetius' son Flavius Gaudentius Aetius (whom was probably guarding them considering his age at that time, which would have been 14 or 15). He used them to try and press claims on Aetius' estates in Gaul, and the Imperial estates of the Theodosian Dynasty.

Majorian, Aetius' virtual successor and the last capable emperor, mounted the next expedition. Following up on Aetius' plan to retake Africa via a Spanish conquest and then crossing over the strait of Gibraltar (which was begun in 453 but abandoned upon Aetius' death), Majorian first secured his position as Magister Utriusque Militiae (Senior) and then Emperor (with Ricimer becoming the senior Magister Militum), before using diplomacy and foederati to secure parts of Gaul. Aegidius gave his support, and the Franks of Childeric committed to the Roman cause, while Majorian managed to subdue the Burgundii (this would lead to his demise as Ricimer worked for Gundobad) and recapture the territory they had gained after Aetius' death. With these reinforcements, Majorian attacked and defeated the Visigoths at Arelate, and incorporated their Foederati into his army. He moved into Spain where he defeated the Suebes, and began constructing a fleet at Portus Illicitanus, which amounted to 300 transports and warships, while his junior Magister Militum (whose name I can't remember off the top of my head) finished off the Suebes in Gallaecia, and also reduced them to Foederati status, incorporating them into Majorian's barbarian army.

Gaiseric knew what Majorian was doing, and sought a solution: he ended up bribing the citizens of Portus Illicitanus into setting fire to the Roman fleet, ending the campaign permanently.

The final attempt was under Anthemius, in 468, with the help of the Eastern Empire who sent another fleet even larger than the one they had sent in 442. It consisted of probably about 80,000 men, and was led by Basiliscus, and they also managed to secure the help of the remants of Aetius' old army and foederati under Marcellinus in Illyria et Dalmatia, who moved to Sicily in preparation for the campaign. The Romans made a massive tactical blunder, in that Basiliscus decided to anchor offshore for the night rather than unload immediately and set up camp. Gaiseric took grain ships (dried grain is highly explosive), set them on fire, and pushed them into the Roman fleet, much in the same manner that the British would later defeat the Spanish Armada. The majority of the fleet was sunk and the campaign was the most expensive military catastrophe in Roman history, costing the Eastern Empire about 1/3-1/2 of their total field army.

Marcellinus and his army survived though, as they were still at Panormus, and Marcellinus (and Anthemius) end up being executed at the hands of Ricimer.

Although the West was truly sentenced to death in the failure of Aetius' first expedition, the expedition of Anthemius pretty much established the fact that there was nothing left that could be done for the West: it left the East in financial ruin for a few decades and devoid of much of their mobile field army (hence why they sent Theodoric the Great to reconquer Italy in 480, although the Balkans had been devastated beyond repair under Attila, so Anthemius' defeat really had nothing to do with the lack of a military presence there.)

I'm just curious, are you a professional? You don't seem to be an amateur historian...

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I'm not a professional, I can't afford to get a degree in Classics: it's an additonal 18K a year (and that's with a 5000 dollar a year scholarship) in loans and that amounts to over 60K in debt, so unless I was making at least 70K a year, I could never afford it. That doesn't include the cost of Grad school either.

For reference, the number of Classics positions in the US decreased by 20 places from 2013 to 2014, most of the available jobs were 1-year positions, and the average paycheck is about 28K a year.

I am authoring a book on the subject of the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields, but since I don't have a Ph.D I have doubts as to whether anyone will take me seriously. So if it does get published, which is expensive and would take several more year than the two years I've already put into it, I doubt it would sell well.

I have friends who are professionals in the field of Classics and Roman History (I'm acquainted with D'Amato who writes a lot of Osprey books, D.B. Cambell, Mike Bishop, and a few others), who respect my views and hypothesis, but the overwhelming majority don't know who I am. This mostly stems from my involvement in the reenactment community, because I've met people who specialize in Classical warfare, military equipment, etc, but know pretty much nobody outside of that area. Barring a few exceptions, I'm friends with Ian Hughes who writes books on Late Antique figures like Aetius, Stilicho, Belisarius, and currently he's working on one about Ricimer.

EDIT: I have Asperger's Syndrome, and one of the beneficial aspects of that is high IQ's and autodidactic learning habits, so in a nutshell I obsess over something until I learn everything humanly possible about it, and then usually maintain that interest for the rest of my life: hence why I seem like a professional. Even the stuff I liked as a little kid, like Cheetahs, Clownfish, the Planet Saturn, and Parasitic Worms, I still keep tabs on, even though my focus is on Roman History (and of course my major, which is Chemistry).

Basically the brain takes away "processing power" from the social part to "fuel" the intelligence part, so this comes at the expense of having to learn social skills, while most people have an inherent knowledge of them. I also lack some feelings, like sympathy and empathy, and don't have a proper Theory of Mind. Unfortunately though, not everyone with Aspergers gets the heightened intelligence, but many of the most famous people to have ever lived, including Bill Gates (although he denies it), I think Kirk Cameron, and even Hitler, have had this syndrome.

[vikior]

I see that most agree that Rome could have raised an army in Italy if Africa was recovered, but I remember reading somewhere (Gibbon, I think) that in 405-406, while Africa was still firmly under Roman control, Stilicho struggled to raise an effective army, going as far as to include slaves in the army. What could have been the reason for that?

Despite that, I agree with you. Rome most likely could have gone through some period of recover if the 468 expedition succeded. But with the failure of the expedition, it was doomed. Too much men and money went into that expedition.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Stilicho struggled to raise an effective army, going as far as to include slaves in the army. What could have been the reason for that?

Gibbon isn't exactly an up-to date source, although for many he is a good start for understanding the period.

Stilicho had an army in Italy: the Praesental Field Army, and he bolstered it with large numbers of Gothic recruits which were trained and turned into Professional Roman soldiers. But the Senate alienated these Goths and they all defected after Stilicho's death, and this resulted in most of the Italic army disbanding.

Meanwhile, the Gallic and Spanish Field armies were both supporting usurpers: Constantine III in Gaul and Maximianus in Spain respectively. This left Rome with the Illyrian Field army, which sent 5000 men in 409 to reinforce the city of Rome, but were destroyed by Alaric.

This left Rome with only Illyria, Africa, and Italy as recruiting bases. The aristocracy in Africa and Italy would not give up their indentured citizens to the army, but both Illyria and Gaul were viable recruiting grounds (Gaul was in revolt, and Illyria was where Alaric was camped). So Stilicho and Honorius didn't have much to work with.

[vikior]

Gibbon isn't exactly an up-to date source, although for many he is a good start for understanding the period.

Stilicho had an army in Italy: the Praesental Field Army, and he bolstered it with large numbers of Gothic recruits which were trained and turned into Professional Roman soldiers. But the Senate alienated these Goths and they all defected after Stilicho's death, and this resulted in most of the Italic army disbanding.

Meanwhile, the Gallic and Spanish Field armies were both supporting usurpers: Constantine III in Gaul and Maximianus in Spain respectively. This left Rome with the Illyrian Field army, which sent 5000 men in 409 to reinforce the city of Rome, but were destroyed by Alaric.

This left Rome with only Illyria, Africa, and Italy as recruiting bases. The aristocracy in Africa and Italy would not give up their indentured citizens to the army, but both Illyria and Gaul were viable recruiting grounds (Gaul was in revolt, and Illyria was where Alaric was camped). So Stilicho and Honorius didn't have much to work with.

I'm aware of the political situation in the early 5th century, but even with all those revolts going on, Rome was still in a better shape than in 468. As you said, they still had Gaul, Hispania (Albeit in revolt, for the time being) and Illyricum (Which was occupied by the Goths). The empire was virtually intact. And yet no men could have been found to enter the army so Stilicho had to bolster his forces with Goths and through forced conscriptions. How do we know that the same Italian and African aristocracy would be more willing to help the Roman army had Africa been recaptured in 468?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

It's in effect a matter of that their political and financial interests, even in 408, really weren't that threatened by the Barbarians at that point. In 468, the situation was completely different, with the Empire entirely reliant on barbarian federates, who did began to demand territory for settlement in Italy, and non-federates that could raid into and strike at the heart of the Empire.

[Ecthelion]

I'm not a professional, I can't afford to get a degree in Classics: it's an additonal 18K a year (and that's with a 5000 dollar a year scholarship) in loans and that amounts to over 60K in debt, so unless I was making at least 70K a year, I could never afford it. That doesn't include the cost of Grad school either.

For reference, the number of Classics positions in the US decreased by 20 places from 2013 to 2014, most of the available jobs were 1-year positions, and the average paycheck is about 28K a year.

I am authoring a book on the subject of the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields, but since I don't have a Ph.D I have doubts as to whether anyone will take me seriously. So if it does get published, which is expensive and would take several more year than the two years I've already put into it, I doubt it would sell well.

I have friends who are professionals in the field of Classics and Roman History (I'm acquainted with D'Amato who writes a lot of Osprey books, D.B. Cambell, Mike Bishop, and a few others), who respect my views and hypothesis, but the overwhelming majority don't know who I am. This mostly stems from my involvement in the reenactment community, because I've met people who specialize in Classical warfare, military equipment, etc, but know pretty much nobody outside of that area. Barring a few exceptions, I'm friends with Ian Hughes who writes books on Late Antique figures like Aetius, Stilicho, Belisarius, and currently he's working on one about Ricimer.

EDIT: I have Asperger's Syndrome, and one of the beneficial aspects of that is high IQ's and autodidactic learning habits, so in a nutshell I obsess over something until I learn everything humanly possible about it, and then usually maintain that interest for the rest of my life: hence why I seem like a professional. Even the stuff I liked as a little kid, like Cheetahs, Clownfish, the Planet Saturn, and Parasitic Worms, I still keep tabs on, even though my focus is on Roman History (and of course my major, which is Chemistry).

Basically the brain takes away "processing power" from the social part to "fuel" the intelligence part, so this comes at the expense of having to learn social skills, while most people have an inherent knowledge of them. I also lack some feelings, like sympathy and empathy, and don't have a proper Theory of Mind. Unfortunately though, not everyone with Aspergers gets the heightened intelligence, but many of the most famous people to have ever lived, including Bill Gates (although he denies it), I think Kirk Cameron, and even Hitler, have had this syndrome.

Sorry I haven't kept up to date in this thread, I've been getting my jollies trolling the kiddies and the SJWs in other sections.

Thanks for sharing your personal background. It's rare to see someone who actually knows what they're talking about at the level of detail to be deemed "professional".

I'm fascinated by the period of the fall of the Western Empire. I believe there's a lot to be learned from this process in terms of political decay and collective action failures.

Also the inter-cultural and inter-ethnic dynamic gives great insight to how a conflict of cultures can play out.

[Dromikaites]

The Vandals had an invasion force of 80,000 nuclear families, so that was about 15,000 fighting men. And they were all veterans of the wars in Spain between the Suebes, Alans, and Romans there between 409-429. However, the primary sources say that many disgruntled berber groups assisted Gaiseric in his march across north Africa.

The 80,000 estimated Vandal population given by Procopius is a very large number. Moving so many people around (and starting the whole invasion by crossing the sea) would have been quite difficult. I would suspect the actual numbers were much smaller (probably closer to half of that amount).

What did work in the Vandals' favor was their army was battle-hardened and that the Berbers were more than willing to help. Even if they would have had an army of about 7,000 and some 2,000 - 3,000 Berber allies, that would have created a lot of problems to the Romans.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The 80,000 estimated Vandal population given by Procopius is a very large number. Moving so many people around (and starting the whole invasion by crossing the sea) would have been quite difficult. I would suspect the actual numbers were much smaller (probably closer to half of that amount).

What did work in the Vandals' favor was their army was battle-hardened and that the Berbers were more than willing to help. Even if they would have had an army of about 7,000 and some 2,000 - 3,000 Berber allies, that would have created a lot of problems to the Romans.

Not really, when the Romans wanted to give large numbers they tended to tack a 0 on the end. 165,000 deaths at Chalons may have really been 16,500, for example.

[Dromikaites]

80,000 is nevertheless a lot of people to be ferried across the sea. To put things into perspective, the British and Imperial troops landing on D-Day numbered 83,000 men.

How likely is for the Vandals to have access to a fleet of an adequate size? The ships of the time were much smaller than those used in 1944. So even if we don't count the Allied ships which carried the vehicles and ammo we still end up with a huge fleet if we are to trust Procopius.

For instance we're told that Basiliscus' fleet had 1113 ships for an army of 100,000 soldiers. The Vandals would have therefore needed some 800+ ships of equal size. Or more, if theirs were smaller than the Romans'.

Even if we assume the crossing was made in several batches, we're still talking about several hundreds of ships which needed to be at hand in Southern Spain for this task.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

80,000 is nevertheless a lot of people to be ferried across the sea. To put things into perspective, the British and Imperial troops landing on D-Day numbered 83,000 men.

How likely is for the Vandals to have access to a fleet of an adequate size? The ships of the time were much smaller than those used in 1944. So even if we don't count the Allied ships which carried the vehicles and ammo we still end up with a huge fleet if we are to trust Procopius.

For instance we're told that Basiliscus' fleet had 1113 ships for an army of 100,000 soldiers. The Vandals would have therefore needed some 800+ ships of equal size. Or more, if theirs were smaller than the Romans'.

Even if we assume the crossing was made in several batches, we're still talking about several hundreds of ships which needed to be at hand in Southern Spain for this task.

The Vandals did have a very large fleet of grain ships, but you realize they never actually engaged the Romans right? They set a bunch of ships loaded with dry grain on fire into the Roman fleet, which exploded and caught the surrounding ships on fire.

For instance we're told that Basiliscus' fleet had 1113 ships for an army of 100,000 soldiers. The Vandals would have therefore needed some 800+ ships of equal size. Or more, if theirs were smaller than the Romans'.

Reading up on the Roman navy I'd estimate most of these were actually the Remiges, Classarii, etc. who were counted as soldiers, but manned the ships themselves. Also Kim points out that Basiliscus' fleet is to be taken suspect because the number parallels an ancient Greek naval battle.

80,000 is nevertheless a lot of people to be ferried across the sea. To put things into perspective, the British and Imperial troops landing on D-Day numbered 83,000 men.

Even if we assume the crossing was made in several batches, we're still talking about several hundreds of ships which needed to be at hand in Southern Spain for this task.

We know the Vandals had been raiding Mauretania for quite some time (several years) before the crossing so I doubt it was all accomplished at once. Probably they sent the military across first and then after they cleared a path, spent several months getting their families across. They didn't sack Altava until the end of 429, when if they crossed far earlier that year when the seas were favorable they would have reached Hippo Regius long before 430 AD. So it's rather obvious they spent quite some time getting across into Mauretania.

In fact I'd go as far to suggest that the persistent raiding suggests that they had been planning to cross to Africa for several years and these raids were softening up the Roman defenses for when they eventually did.

[Dromikaites]

The number of 80k Vandals is addressed by Walter Goffart in "Barbarians and Romans, A.D. 418-584: The Techniques of Accommodation" and his conclusion is it is quite likely a "poetic number" not a realistic estimate of the number of people who came with Geiseric. His main argument is centered on two facts:

1) most of the Ancient Greek and Roman authors tend to describe the non-Roman/non-Greek armies as organised in multiples of 8k;

2) Procopius explicitly wrote that Geiseric made his army look bigger by inflating the number of "chiliarchs" (leaders of 1000 soldiers). Procopius himself thinks 50 chiliarchs would have sufficed instead of 80 (putting the number of Vandal soldiers at the very implausible 50,000 level).

I think the Vandals had some 6,000 - 8,000 soldiers at most + families. But even that would have been enough to defeat the Romans especially if the Vandals had enlisted the help of some of the Berber tribes and if the Romans were disorganized.

[LinusLinothorax]

EDIT: I have Asperger's Syndrome, and one of the beneficial aspects of that is high IQ's and autodidactic learning habits(...)

Damn, that explains your highly detailed posts about historical stuff. Question: Did you just freestyled post #26 or did you looked some details up while writing, like for example dates or names?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Most of that was drawn from memory but I double-checked some of it with books.

2) Procopius explicitly wrote that Geiseric made his army look bigger by inflating the number of "chiliarchs" (leaders of 1000 soldiers). Procopius himself thinks 50 chiliarchs would have sufficed instead of 80 (putting the number of Vandal soldiers at the very implausible 50,000 level).

Most modern authors agree that the ancient texts indicate that the Families, slaves, etc were put under "Chiliarchs" for both organization of the crossing and to make Gaiseric's army seem bigger than it actually was. Generally speaking for every Soldier in a Barbarian culture you would have 5 servants/family members, so 1/6 of 80,000 is a reasonable estimate for the actual troop count, which comes out to between 10,000 to 15,000 men. More than enough to smash the Roman armies in Africa, especially considering he was later bolstered by disgruntled Moors.

I haven't seen much of a correlation between multiples of 8 and army counts myself in late antique sources, so I'm a bit skeptical of Goffart on that point. I'll have to check his Narrators of Barbarian History to see what he cites there.