Roman army 395-410 AD

[Amalina]

I am known that by the time Alaric and the Visigoth's were becoming a substantial threat the state of the Roman army was not so well, but how changed was it from the old 'golden years' of the empire? Did they still have the set-up of legions with centurions and such? Also, was it possible that a person in this army could be transfurred to another camp/place (say they were stationed in Britain and wanted to go to Rhine instead). Finally, does anyone know the name of the legion/army that Stilicho led at battle of Pollentia?

Thanks to you in advance for any help. It would be very appreciated!

 

*apologies for spelling/grammer error. English is a second language.

[sonic]

I don't know if this helps, but my book on Stilicho is being published in June.

 

Stilicho

 

 

This will - hopefully! - answer some of the questions you've posted here.

[caldrail]

The nature of legions at this stage had changed somewhat though still recognisably Roman. However, a legion wasn't a regiment in a national army in quite the same way as we see today, though it had developed closer to our concept in that the Romans had for some established five armies under whom units were allocated. Hiowever, the idea of the legion was that is was a brotherhood, a familia for soldiers, and whilst eroded by foreign practice and some lapses of tradition, not to mention an increasingly expedient method of recruitment, the individual soldiers were expected to remain as part of a legion they join. Men were sworn to serve certainly but their immediate loyalty was to their legionary commander as their patron and representative of Rome.

 

Transfers from one unit to another in the modern sense did not occur. If a man was a problem case, you didn't trabsfer him, you simply punished him again, more severely until he gets the right idea. The Romans were very keen to avoid soldiers serving in their home country for security reasons which was bound to happen if transfers took place at their request. In any case, by this stage of the empire many units were tribal formations brought under the Roman banner to serve as mercenaries with their own commanders, and thus the loyalty of these men was to their chief and his ability to provide for their living whilst serving Rome and not actually to the state.

[barca]

I am known that by the time Alaric and the Visigoth's were becoming a substantial threat the state of the Roman army was not so well, but how changed was it from the old 'golden years' of the empire? Did they still have the set-up of legions with centurions and such? Also, was it possible that a person in this army could be transfurred to another camp/place (say they were stationed in Britain and wanted to go to Rhine instead). Finally, does anyone know the name of the legion/army that Stilicho led at battle of Pollentia?

Thanks to you in advance for any help. It would be very appreciated!

 

*apologies for spelling/grammer error. English is a second language.

 

A recent article by Ross Cowan in Ancient Warfare Magazine addresses some of these issues:

 

Special: Ross Cowan, 'Changing formations and Specialists. Aspects of later Roman battle tactics'. Illustrated by Andrew Brozyna.

 

This article examines three aspects of Roman b ttle tactics in the second to fourth centuries AD. First, what is the evidence in this period for the triplex acies, the classic triple battleline? Second,

how did Roman light cavalry and clubmen operate against cataphracts and Clibanarii? Third, what were forfex, orbis and cuneus formations?

 

http://www.ancient-warfare.com/cms/issues/...are-6-2009.html

[Yehudah]

Legions are supposed to have been smaller - maybe like 500 or 1000 men, by this time period. Most "legions" of the 4th Century were actually legionary vexillations of the 3rd Century under a new name.

 

I recall reading that the last evidence for the rank of centurion dates to the beginning of the 4th Century. But logically it would have continued (mayhaps been renamed).

[Gaiseric]

If you were to take Vegetius at his word, we have a few changes:

 

* Discipline - he argues that the discipline had changed, since most fought for profit rather than glory. If we look at Adrianople as an example, we can see that the lack of unified discipline lead to disaster when two units charged the field without orders at the beginning of the battle.

* Armour - he makes the point that there had been a complete turnaround in standards. His reason for this is that by this time the Roman infantry was not the 'wall of iron' that it had been, and that most infantry weren't equipped with heavy armour or even helmets as the classc infantry had been. In contrast, the cavalry had undergone influence from the barbarian tribes and foreign enemies that surrounded the Roman Empire, so that rather than being a light force it had become a medium to heavy force. The cavalry was adapted along the lines of the Goths, Alans, Huns and Sarmatians. We have depictions of cavalrymen wearing the lorica squamata (scale mail) and using long cavalry swords. The influence of the Huns, Alans, Sarmatians and other steppe peoples on the Empire's cavalry force can be seen on the use of horse archers (equites sagitarii) in Roman battles. Additionally, the Persian/Parthian influence can be seen in the use of the very heavily armoured shock cavalry such as the equites clibinarii.

* An increase in the use of barbarian troops - although the argument can be made that the Roman Empire had made excellent use of Roman troops over the centuries before that, and they had proved no less or no more loyal than normal troops (Elton, 1996). In fact, they were used as bodyguards and often their loyalty came to the fore when they went on killing sprees to avenge a murdered emperor, rather than looking for monetary distributions to support an imperial candidate as was the case with the Praetorians.

 

Those are just a few examples, but they do paint a different image. The introduction of the draco as a standard in Roman armies is an example of changes, this being a Dacian and Sarmatian-based emblem.

 

Vale,

 

Gaiseric

[Northern Neil]

Legions are supposed to have been smaller - maybe like 500 or 1000 men, by this time period. Most "legions" of the 4th Century were actually legionary vexillations of the 3rd Century under a new name.

 

I recall reading that the last evidence for the rank of centurion dates to the beginning of the 4th Century. But logically it would have continued (mayhaps been renamed).

This is indeed the case - during the 4th century the rank of 'Centenarius' seems to have replaced the centurion. It is unclear wether or not a centenarius could avail himself of the same career structure which was a feature of the earlier centurionate. The rank of 'Praepositus' appears to have replaced the earlier rank of Legate, and the latest documentary evidence for Camp Prefect is the mid third century, an inscription from Chester.

 

In the late 4th century Ammianus Marcellinus was present in the war against the Allemanni, and Julian's war against the Persians. In his history the legions still appear recognisable, their engineering skills are commented upon, their eagerness for battle referred to, and also there is mention of time-honoured formations such as the testudo. But as Yehudeh states, the size of a legion was now 1'000 men. In addition, there was no longer the distinction of citizenship which gave the legions superior social status in earlier times. From the early third century onwards, every free person in the Empire was a citizen. The fourth century legionary, in his chain mail shirt, large oval shield and basic but efficient ridge-helmet all provided by the state, may not have cut quite the figure of his Trajanic or Augustan counterpart. But he was still a well trained and equipped soldier, and generally speaking, still had the advantage over the average Gothic or Angle raider.

 

By the early fifth century, the tax base of the Western empire was greatly reduced. In addition, 'citizen' troops - if the term had meaning any longer - found themselves being conscripted rather than volunteering. Roman armies now as often fought each other as they did non-Roman forces, and the army was no longer seen as a desireable career. The final nail in the coffin of the old Roman army was probably when Theodosius employed 40'000 Germans and Alans to protect the frontiers, offering them land grants because the funds were no longer available. From then on, disgruntled 'Roman' officers such as Alaric found themselves acquiring land rather than being paid by the state. As this happened, Rome's tax base shrank still further, and so more barbarian troops were offered payment in land.

 

That is the general picture of the situation of the Late Roman army in the fifth century. For the sake of brevity I have made a few generalisations of course!

 

EDIT: During the sixth and early 7th centuries the Eastern Roman Empire still had units which were denoted as legions, the Legio V Macedonia for example.

[auxilia]

Excellent summary by Northern Neil.

One thing: where did you learn that Theodosius employed 40'000 barbarians? I know he recruited many of them but I don't know of any such specific number.

[Sebastianus]

Is it fair to say that the political and military decisions made by Theodosius I after the battle of Adrianople, where the main reasons of the Western Empire's decline in the 5th century? I know many blame his son, but would he have failed so miserably if his father hadn't set up a bunch of disastrous policy's during his reign?

[caldrail]

Is it fair to say that the political and military decisions made by Theodosius I after the battle of Adrianople, where the main reasons of the Western Empire's decline in the 5th century? I know many blame his son, but would he have failed so miserably if his father hadn't set up a bunch of disastrous policy's during his reign?

 

Not necessarily. The leaders of the day made decisions that might seem to us to have had undesirable implications, but then they didn't have the benefit of knowing exactly what was going to happen, so is it fair to apportion blame so readily? The fact is the west had already declined by the time of Adrianople and why exactly are we blaming the fall of the west on the emperor of the eastern half?

 

Okay, I know he ruled both sides, but bear in mind the eastern half was where the money was, where the political power was, and in any event, finding himself running an increasingly disunited empire with weak legions that had suffered a major military reverse, why is his desire to seek to a short term answer to security so bad? In fact, one could decide that he was making positive steps to assimilate potential enemies and increase his tax base in the process. Perhaps the problem then is not so much his decisions over the empire, but that the empire was in terminal decline and the will and strength to reforge it was lacking, even though Theodosius made efforts to restore order in faraway places like Britain, itslef defensive moves at retaining territory and property rather than developing it.

Edited January 9, 2011 by caldrail

[Kosmo]

The evidence for decline is not very convincing. The empire collapsed because it was defeated first by goths then by vandals&co and these defeats sparked the usual infighting among the roman elite. Alaric was a problem because romans have been forced to accept the goths in the empire in the first place and because they were not able to defeat or stop him and from that moment on they were not able to stop anybody. The East came pretty close at some point to a gothic coup in the stile of what delivered the last blow in the West and had to rely on isaurian bandits as the only force that could balance the germans in the army.

[Northern Neil]

Excellent summary by Northern Neil.

One thing: where did you learn that Theodosius employed 40'000 barbarians? I know he recruited many of them but I don't know of any such specific number.

I've forgotten exactly where I read this, but it was quite a reputable book. When I find the precise reference I will let you know! I think this figure may have been arrived at on account of the garrison strength required to man the Rhine / Danubian frontier in earlier years, plus the average strength of a barbarbian 'horde' which Peter Heather (Fall of the Roman Empire) suggests to be around 20'000 individuals of fighting quality.

[caldrail]

The evidence for decline is not very convincing. The empire collapsed because it was defeated first by goths then by vandals&co and these defeats sparked the usual infighting among the roman elite. Alaric was a problem because romans have been forced to accept the goths in the empire in the first place and because they were not able to defeat or stop him and from that moment on they were not able to stop anybody. The East came pretty close at some point to a gothic coup in the stile of what delivered the last blow in the West and had to rely on isaurian bandits as the only force that could balance the germans in the army.

 

But that's just it. it didn't collapse. It was subject to a hostile takeover in the west after a decline to the point where Roman imperatism was ineffectual and unable to resist the eviction. Although we discount the western Roman empire from that point the state still existed in its atrophied form. The fact remains that financially the west was doomed after Constantine. Further, the bonds of society were becoming less coherent during the last century of the western empire to the point that communities were opting out of governmental control, rsisting taxation, and looking to their own defence. If that's not evidence of a decline, I don't know what is.