Military historian Ian Hughes on the fall of Rome

I love to read about history, and the period that I like the most is what historians refer to as "Late Antiquity," a period from about A.D. 300 to about AD 650 when the ancient world was fading away and the medieval world was beginning.It's the period when elements of both worlds were still around. Even as Germanic tribes such as the Franks were establishing medieval kingdoms in the West, citizens of the "New Rome" in Constantinople were going to public baths and watching chariot races, much as people did in the days of Julius Caesar.Late Antiquity was also the period of the fall of the western half of the Roman Empire, usually officially dated as A.D. 476 when the last western Roman Emperor was deposed. How such a powerful empire could have gone away is an endless fascinating problem, and it's an event that British military historian Ian Hughes has focused upon.The five books he has written so far all concern important military leaders in the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity. His books include "Belisarius: The Last Roman General," "Stilicho: The Vandal Who Saved Rome," "Aetius: Attila's Nemesis," and "Valentinian, Valens and the Disaster at Adrianople." His latest book, "Patricians and Emperors: The Last Rulers of the Western Roman Empire," was released in November and covers the last few rulers of the Roman Empire in Italy. He is currently working on his sixth book, "Gaiseric: The Vandal Who Destroyed Rome." On his website, Hughes says that he loved history from an early age.But apparently it didn't occur to him he could make a living as a historian. Raised by a single parent in government housing, he dropped out when he was 17, working as a car mechanic, a library worker and a factory worker."I was lucky that friends and family pestered me for so long that eventually I gave in and applied to go to college," writes Hughes, who found that listening to lectures a few hours a week was easier than factory work.Hughes worked as a history teacher before becoming a stay-at-home father and author. He has survived a bout with cancer, an experience he wrote about on his blog. When he isn't writing or reading history books, he enjoys playing the guitar, wargaming and playing soccer.I was very pleased when he agreed to take my questions:SANDUSKY REGISTER: The five books you've written so far concentrate on the later Roman Empire, and your sixth planned book apparently focuses on it, too. How did you get interested in that period of history, as opposed to the days of the Roman Republic and early empire that seem to fascinate most authors?IAN HUGHES: I have a wide interest in history, from Sumer to the Second World War. However my focus from a young age was on the Etruscans, the Samnites and Late Antiquity. I think in part this stems from the fact that in all three cases there was very little information available and as a result there were so many questions that went unanswered. I find the challenge of attempting to answer previously unanswered questions irresistible. In addition, I was fascinated by the 'untold' stories of some of the main players, such as Stilicho, Aetius, Majorian, Ricimer et al. On the other hand, I found the almost constant coverage of the republican and early imperial periods to be saturated and hence uninteresting. Maybe this just highlights my stubborn nature!SANDUSKY REGISTER: Your latest book is "Patricians and Emperors: The Last Rulers of the Western Roman Empire." If we read your book, will we find out if there's anything that could have been done at that late stage to prevent the western Roman Empire's fall?IAN HUGHES: I would hope that anyone reading 'Patricians' would realize that in my opinion the Western Empire could not have survived as a major force. Financially, the loss of Africa to the Vandals had effectively bankrupted the Empire, but more importantly the Empire was beginning to disintegrate, with large areas of Gaul and Hispania attempting to break free: at least, that is my view of the emergence of the Bacaudae. At best the West would have been a political entity restricted to Italy and possibly Sicily and not deserving of the designation 'Empire.'SANDUSKY REGISTER: The conventional wisdom used to be that Rome's armies declined because of "barbarization" in the later days of the empire, but that's been challenged by historian Hugh Elton and others. Do you think Rome's army deteriorated, and did that contribute to the "fall"?IAN HUGHES: Like many historians, I see the increased use of autonomous barbarians in the army as a symptom of the decline, rather than a cause. One of the major themes throughout my books has been the concept that the loss of recruiting areas such as Illyricum for the West resulted in the need to rely on Gaul and Italy for men. Sadly, large parts of these regions were controlled by the aristocracy who refused to accept the Emperor's demand for men but obstinately held the image of the Roman army overcoming all opposition. It isn't surprising that the Empire faded away.SANDUSKY REGISTER: Why did Roman soldiers switch from using short swords as their main combat weapon to using spears?IAN HUGHES: This question is impossible to answer with any hope of accuracy, as we simply don't know and many alternative reasons are possible — possibly in combination. My own take is that financially the production of the pilum became prohibitive, especially with the expanded later army. The result was the change to using spears, the heads of which were cheaper to produce. On the other hand, as recruitment became a problem, the defensive properties of the spear may have become more important. The longer reach of the spear may have helped convince emperors and generals that it was more useful, as it helped to keep losses in combat down. [Interviewer's note: The pilum was the Roman javelin, a short spear meant to be thrown. Roman soldiers at the time of Julius Caesar would throw their javelins and then close to engage the enemy with short swords — Tom.]SANDUSKY REGISTER: Aside from yourself, who is your favorite military historian of the later Roman empire?IAN HUGHES: In recent years many new and important historians have emerged who have published on the military aspects of Late Antiquity, such as Hugh Elton, Peter Heather and Martijn Nicasie, but it is difficult for me to pick a favourite from these authors. Possibly Hugh Elton, as his views coincided to a large extent with my own. It's easier to think highly of somebody if they agree with you! However if you were to ask the same question for the whole of Late Antiquity, then my choice would fall on Peter Brown. Although his work tends to focus upon the religious controversies of the period, within his discussions are many thought-provoking conclusions concerning the wider aspects of the Later Rome Empire.More author interviews also are available.