>

I could be wrong but I am pretty sure I read that in Eastern Roman Empire they would use mercenaries to make up most of their army. When the Huns attacked they just gave the mercenaries money so they would either not participate in the battle or slow down so the don't make it to the battle.
Wasn’t one of the downfalls for the Roman Empire the creation of private armies that only answered to the paymaster and not the emperor? >

The Republic, specifically? Sure. The Marian reforms basically ensured that the legions were loyal to their commander, as he was responsible for their pay. The Senate was notorious for not paying the soldiers on time (if they bothered to pay them at all). That system pretty much guaranteed that the legions didn't give a shit about the Senate (and thus the republic) because their financial hopes rested solely upon the skill of the man commanding them.
The empire? More specifically the Western empire in the 5th century CE? A lot more complex. In that case the foederati ("allies", basically barbarians who were allowed to settle within the borders of the empire in exchange for military service and a degree of autonomy) had... questionable loyalty to the empire and the emperor, either due to issues with pay or simply due to Roman/Imperial prejudice that often lead to cold or hot hostility between the emperor and his "subjects".
It kind of became a moot point as the power of the Western emperors waned, however. The Western empire doesn't so much collapse in one catastrophic event as it does slowly fade out of relevance leading to its existence being essentially only nominal in large swathes of the provinces. (For example, the first titular king of the Franks, who were foederati themselves, was Clovis I, and he had, early on, conflicts with the nominal Roman "governor" of Gaul at the time. It's apparent by Clovis' time that Imperial power had waned so significantly in Gaul that the concept of the empire was really more an idea than a reality.) Foederati did absolutely revolt and run rampant through both the East and West at times, but they were only capable of doing so due to the overall degradation of Imperial authority, and even then they weren't always hostile. The Gothic foederati were crucial in the Roman victory over Atilla, for example.
So, really, I'd say the appropriate anology here would be the fall of the republic, not the empire. Hopefully the Russians are going to speedrun that shit and get the fuck out of Ukraine ASAP.
(Sorry that this post is so long. I'm a history nerd.) >

I could be wrong but I am pretty sure I read that in Eastern Roman Empire they would use mercenaries to make up most of their army. When the Huns attacked they just gave the mercenaries money so they would either not participate in the battle or slow down so the don't make it to the battle. >

Oh the East absolutely bought off the Huns. The East was the rich part of the Empire, as it had a larger number of highly developed cities (thanks in part to the Greeks and Alexander), as well as being the Western end point of the Silk Road. The East was rarely lacking for money in late antiquity, although the tendency to debase the currency never helped. (They didn't have the benefit of modern economics.) Comparatively the West tended to be relatively strapped for cash, as it didn't really have much in the way of foreign trade partners, nor did it have nearly as many large, flourishing cities to fuel its economy.
Of course, I have to imagine that Atilla rolled up to the earlier incarnation of the Theodosian walls at Constantinople and was like "well fuck THAT noise" and took the bribe instead. Of course then he went straight for the Western Empire so... oops?
And they did variously use mercenaries to pad out their armies, but you could make the argument that that's what foederati were: a form of mercenary. Later on (like, properly medieval), mercenaries were a relatively common feature of Byzantine (i.e., Eastern Roman) armies. Hell, the first crusade started off with the Byzantine emperor asking the Pope for "Frankish" (read: Western European) knights. He wanted mercenaries but the Pope kinda took that and ran with it.
Also the personal bodyguards of the Byzantine emperors were the Varangian Guard. They were Viking mercenaries (yes, those Vikings... the apparently quite bored Scandinavians). They apparently raided Constantinople at some point and their ferocity so impressed the emperor at the time that he hired them.
Quasi-related fact: Kyiv was founded by Vikings. The vikings would sail their longships up the Volga, raiding as they went, and then carry them over land to sail down the Dnipro, ultimately leading them into the Black Sea. When they weren't doing the murder and pillage thing they managed to settle some cities along the way, both in modern Ukraine as well as Russia. Crazy bastards. >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot)


The fighting for the salt mining town of Soledar and the nearby city of Bakhmut has highlighted a bitter rift between the Russian Defense Ministry leadership and Yevgeny Prigozhin, a rogue millionaire whose private military force known as the Wagner Group has played an increasingly visible role in Ukraine.
He has found a powerful ally in Chechnya's leader Ramzan Kadyrov, who has deployed elite troops from his southern Russian region to fight in Ukraine and also assailed the military leadership and the Kremlin for being too soft and indecisive.
Prigozhin has taken advantage of military setbacks in Ukraine to expand his clout by making the Wagner Group a pivotal element of the Russian fighting force, augmenting the regular army that has suffered a heavy attrition.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Russian^#1 military^#2 Gerasimov^#3 Ukraine^#4 Wagner^#5 >


who has deployed elite troops

Remember that "elite Russian troops" really just means, "has roughly the same gear and knowledge as a US soldier going through basic training. >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot)


The fighting for the salt mining town of Soledar and the nearby city of Bakhmut has highlighted a bitter rift between the Russian Defense Ministry leadership and Yevgeny Prigozhin, a rogue millionaire whose private military force known as the Wagner Group has played an increasingly visible role in Ukraine.
He has found a powerful ally in Chechnya's leader Ramzan Kadyrov, who has deployed elite troops from his southern Russian region to fight in Ukraine and also assailed the military leadership and the Kremlin for being too soft and indecisive.
Prigozhin has taken advantage of military setbacks in Ukraine to expand his clout by making the Wagner Group a pivotal element of the Russian fighting force, augmenting the regular army that has suffered a heavy attrition.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Russian^#1 military^#2 Gerasimov^#3 Ukraine^#4 Wagner^#5 >

There is a russian command ?? >

Wasn’t one of the downfalls for the Roman Empire the creation of private armies that only answered to the paymaster and not the emperor? >

The Republic, specifically? Sure. The Marian reforms basically ensured that the legions were loyal to their commander, as he was responsible for their pay. The Senate was notorious for not paying the soldiers on time (if they bothered to pay them at all). That system pretty much guaranteed that the legions didn't give a shit about the Senate (and thus the republic) because their financial hopes rested solely upon the skill of the man commanding them.
The empire? More specifically the Western empire in the 5th century CE? A lot more complex. In that case the foederati ("allies", basically barbarians who were allowed to settle within the borders of the empire in exchange for military service and a degree of autonomy) had... questionable loyalty to the empire and the emperor, either due to issues with pay or simply due to Roman/Imperial prejudice that often lead to cold or hot hostility between the emperor and his "subjects".
It kind of became a moot point as the power of the Western emperors waned, however. The Western empire doesn't so much collapse in one catastrophic event as it does slowly fade out of relevance leading to its existence being essentially only nominal in large swathes of the provinces. (For example, the first titular king of the Franks, who were foederati themselves, was Clovis I, and he had, early on, conflicts with the nominal Roman "governor" of Gaul at the time. It's apparent by Clovis' time that Imperial power had waned so significantly in Gaul that the concept of the empire was really more an idea than a reality.) Foederati did absolutely revolt and run rampant through both the East and West at times, but they were only capable of doing so due to the overall degradation of Imperial authority, and even then they weren't always hostile. The Gothic foederati were crucial in the Roman victory over Atilla, for example.
So, really, I'd say the appropriate anology here would be the fall of the republic, not the empire. Hopefully the Russians are going to speedrun that shit and get the fuck out of Ukraine ASAP.
(Sorry that this post is so long. I'm a history nerd.)