Units Of The Late Roman Army, 4th Century

[JonWayne]

What were the various units of the Roman army in the 300's AD? How different were they from the second and third century, and what caused the changes in the army?

 

Thanks

[Neos Dionysos]

What were the various units of the Roman army in the 300's AD? How different were they from the second and third century, and what caused the changes in the army?

 

Thanks

 

Changes in the army occured over a period of time. The legions of the High Empire were gone, some of them still held the old names, but they were not what they were back in Trajan's day for instance. Legions were now reduced to only 1000-15000 strength and the army was for the most part divided into two setions. The comitatenses, which was the mobile field army, and the limitanei which were the frontier troops. The field army evolved from the constant nature of the army always being on campaign and on the move with the emperor's during the 3rd century. It became much easier to simply create field armies than retain the old legion forms. Severus is said to be the first to really start to this type of change, though it was not a major change to the traditional legions. Also, at this time of crisis and the constant need to move troops from here to there, the idea of fast, mobile forces seemed like an excellent idea. As for the borders, they needed a constant force that would also be tied to the land in one form or the other. The idea was for the frontier troops to engage and delay or halt the advances or invasions of an enemy force, so the field army could assemble and descieivly engage and defeat the threat. Within these two groups you had other groups, like the pseudocomitatenses which were troops who had started out with the froniter units but had proven themselves to be very capable fighters and so they were moved up. Another would be the ripenses which were another form of the froniter units. Besides this, crack, elite units were also formed, the scholae palatini which were the horse guards of the palace and always accompanied the emperor, and the auxilia palatini which was the infantry version. It should be noted that the elite units were pre-dominanty Germanic and it has been that Germans were sought after to fill this role of manning the elite units of the Late Empire over provincial citizens and Romans.

 

As I said, Severus started the reforms, with slight changes here and there, but they were added on. Another major change was with Emperor Gallenius who added a large mobile cavalry vexillationes which was a precident. Later on, more minor changes were made and with recruiting becoming so difficult and almost impossible from provincal or citizens within the Empire, more and more barbarian origin people were used and with the legions of old, so under depleted, it was changed to use a smaller number of men to fill thier new role. Diocletian furthered the transfermation and really set the standards for the new army and Constantine finalized it with additions and changes here and there where needed. In theory they new system was a masterpiece, sadly there arose problems with the system, part of it due to the nature of the hierarchy of the army.

 

At the top were the palatini

then the comintatenses

then the pseudocomintatenses

and finally the limitanei and ripenses being of around the same level.

 

The better equipment, better pay etc. favored the higher ranked units and thus more and more the frontier units were becoming less and less effective, though they still played an important role and did their job considerably well. The late army also suffered from a change and shift in training, more and more training was becoming less intense and not up to the old standards they had been during the Early and High Empire periods and so this affected the army as a whole.

 

The changes were institued to address growing needs during the 3rd Century to cope with the seemingly endless revolts, civil wars and barbarian incursions into the empire.

 

Frontier troops were for the most part stationed where they were assigned and were only pulled off from the front in cases of emergency or major concern and they predominatly stayed in a general location, so more and more of the frontier forces would become landed and have families and tile the land where they were. This was also part of the reasoning of having them in this fashion but it had it's drawbacks. The field armies on the other hand were stationed in cities and were moved from time to time to various points for whatever the emperor wished them to do or prepare for. This is in complete difference from the old legions, since they were rarely stationed inside cities, and if they were never in the homes of people, for the late empire it was practice to have citizens of that city provide shelter and food for the soldier stationed in that house, this as you can imagine is a nightmare for dicipline and unit cohesion, and these were other major problems that plauged the late army and not the early. Also, legions of old were moved and used on campaign and usually a solid unit and not split up. It was very common in the late period to mold a vexillation from various units and move them across the empire or wherever they were needed and instead of disbanding and coming back to thier own units they usually formed whole new ones.

 

I hope I have answered your questions and if you have anymore, perhaps on the reasoning for the influx and need, (and even desire over Romans), for barbarians in the army I would be glad to answer them.

Edited January 21, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[JonWayne]

Thanks for the insightful response

A couple further questions: If so many of these barbarians were recruited in the army as foederati, weren't the Romans afraid of a large scale barbarian revolt in the army? Did they occur frequently?

[Neos Dionysos]

Thanks for the insightful response

A couple further questions: If so many of these barbarians were recruited in the army as foederati, weren't the Romans afraid of a large scale barbarian revolt in the army? Did they occur frequently?

 

That's just it, while they were increasing in Foederati, they were also recruiting them for the regular army and legions. Also you need to remember, foederati are only enrolled for a campaign season then disbanded afterward so they would no longer be part of the army to 'revolt'. They were more like a quick conscription force used in times of war or crisis and meant only to be around till the campaign was over they were never part of the regular army, nor treated as such. The late empire suffered badly when it came to recruiting and recruiting provinicials and citizens was not only hard to do to begin with, but it was very expensive. The government had to pay for recruits, as in pay to the city or town etc who furished them, and then had to pay an extra sum to the local government as well for the loss of manpower if you will, (there is much more technical laws behind it), and in the case of volunteers, they had to pay the men themsevles the money twice. Barbarians on the other hand, were MUCH cheaper. This is not to say they were mercenaries, it was just simply to intice them to serve and cheaper overral to afford to keep large numbers of them.

 

The Romans for the most part were not afraid of rebellions, because they rarely happened, and they felt they could control any situation. However, a prevailing sentiment in Roman society and culture kinda ingrained into Romans that barbarians were inferior, that they were lesser then Romans and that they could be treated like crap. This is what led to problems when they did arise and those that did cost Rome dearly. The barbarians, for the most part, who were incorperated as regular unit soldiers and not allied contingents under thier owen tribal leaders considered themselves Roman and were, argueably more loyal than many Romans. (I am using examples of high-ranking individuals). After the Goths were finally quelled in the late 4th century, the East made an all out effort to purge it's regular army ranks of barbarians. Whether by moving them to certain units and re-locating them or putting them in other work. Barbarian strength in the Eastern Army was always low and actually, the East had the hardest time recruiting. The West on the other had had little trouble and routinely raised many units due to thier proximity to Germanic peoples willing to serve. Usually, for every 1 unit that the East could muster, the West could raise 6-4. Which shows you the large difference in army strength and size and makeup as well.

Edited January 21, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Arvioustus]

I believe these 'late Roamns' were not up to the standards of the original at all, like Caesars infantry. Look at the numbers, Caesar being outnumbered greatly routed them horribly at almost all occasions. Late stages Justinian sent a force(mostlyGreek and middle Eastern) under General Belisarius handing these 'western Romans' and Goths even more amazing losses in Italy and North Africa. Being outnumberd even more than Caesar was! These facts cannot be discounted but some anglo Europeans always try to rationalize away these defeats. The late empire was in a decline for a long time and the army too. The numbers were much less and the entry of 'barbarians' in reality made the army not as effective. Belisrius and Caesar had an easy time with the barbarians,especailly given the numbers. They were extreme. We are dealing with hand to hand where numeric odds carry an even greater role. The barbarians wre only effective when they outnumbered the Romans or Eastern Romans by extreme numeric odds or a trap. Justinian,Caesar and Belisarus new the 'barbarians' were not much of a fighting force . (some historians might have put 'barbarians' on a pedestal for poltical reasons) These great leaders would not have subjected their armies being so outnumbered unless in realty they felt like I do. Numbers do not lie. These facts are so often overlooked.

[Virgil61]

What were the various units of the Roman army in the 300's AD? How different were they from the second and third century, and what caused the changes in the army?

 

Thanks

 

There was certainly a change in emphasis and complexion of the legions to the dual-role outlined in the previous post and on heavy cavalry.

 

What caused the change? There are quite a few theories out there about this, some better than others. I don't agree with the speculation it was caused by meeting more heavy-cavalry from new belligerents. Heavy infantry like legions are especially adept at stopping cavalry and to decrease it's usage is subject to some scrutiny in my opinionl.

 

I think there's an underlying cause that maybe hasn't been as delved into. After the unrest of the mid-3rd century there are some clues that might point to a decline in the quality of legion training. Some of the hallmarks of the classic legions of the Republic and Principate are an emphasis on forced marches with daily construction of well planned and defended camps, the ability of small unit leaders at the century and cohort levels to react to tactical changes on the battlefield and so on. Centurians (usually the most senior) during this era of the classic legion were a part of the planning process along with tribunes and legates.

 

Leadership forced down to the lower levels is an indication of good training, organization and dependence. The legion's strength was it's flexible configuration from century up to an army several legions, a configuration that if it was to work needed high levels of experience as well as training.

 

Somewhere in the late 3rd century this broke down. My guess is that there are two reasons for this. First the carnage of legion v. legion combat must've been great. Even with cavalry auxiliaries, foot and horse mounted archers added, it probably came down to infantry combat. Roman infantry combat meant centurians and cohort leaders leading the way and the loss of them during this very continious cycle of combat over a 25 to thirty year period led to a great loss of institutional experience.

 

The second reason is indicated by the number of emperors during this era seated and then unseated by the legions. The legions became emperor makers on a large scale and were bribed and probably pampered more than necessary. I recall reading in one battle in the mid-3rd century ( I think under Decius) the soldiers refused to wear their helmets (too uncomfortable). That's quite an indicator of a loss of experience, discipline, leadership and most importantly training.

 

By the time of Julian, Ammanius indicates that tribunes performed acts of bravery and leadership and were called in for war counsel w/the emperor. What indicative here is the lack of lower-level leader participation--no centurians are mentioned, showing that by this time decisive tactical leadership had been 'pushed up' and to me at least, an indication of less quality in the lower ranks. Equipment also seems to have gone along with this as the shield design changed from the rectangular scuptum to the more oval late-Roman type (the name escapes me). To me the scuptum indicates a more trained soldier, it's flexibility from use in the tortoise to shield to shield and most important protection of the individual soldier in sword combat also indicates a higher requirement of training on the part of that soldier and the experienced veteran's needed to perform that training. The late shield was more suited to the shield-wall formations and I'd argue was probably more in tune with a lesser trained soldier, a shield-wall needing far less training than more flexible tactical arrangements.

 

It's only speculation (isn't is all?) but even Vegetius strongly points out to a loss of quality, whether one can really believe him or not the other clues here point strongly to a loss of quality forcing a dependence on heavy cavalry over infantry. There are arguments against it among them the need for cavalry to deploy quicker but I'd argue that a (well trained) legion traveling at 25 miles or so a day would've been a hell of an asset and not far behind. I doubt legions may have been able to do this by the mid-4th century.

[Neos Dionysos]

I believe these 'late Roamns' were not up to the standards of the original at all, like Caesars infantry. Look at the numbers, Caesar being outnumbered greatly routed them horribly at almost all occasions. Late stages Justinian sent a force(mostlyGreek and middle Eastern) under General Belisarius handing these 'western Romans' and Goths even more amazing losses in Italy and North Africa. Being outnumberd even more than Caesar was! These facts cannot be discounted but some anglo Europeans always try to rationalize away these defeats. The late empire was in a decline for a long time and the army too. The numbers were much less and the entry of 'barbarians' in reality made the army not as effective. Belisrius and Caesar had an easy time with the barbarians,especailly given the numbers. They were extreme. We are dealing with hand to hand where numeric odds carry an even greater role. The barbarians wre only effective when they outnumbered the Romans or Eastern Romans by extreme numeric odds or a trap. Justinian,Caesar and Belisarus new the 'barbarians' were not much of a fighting force . (some historians might have put 'barbarians' on a pedestal for poltical reasons) These great leaders would not have subjected their armies being so outnumbered unless in realty they felt like I do. Numbers do not lie. These facts are so often overlooked.

 

 

The Ostrogoths are not "Western Romans"... and so Belisarius never fought Romans. Secondly, Belisarius excelled at the indirect approach, he fooled the enemy into thinking he had a far larger army than himself by using campfires at night and thus gained a major victory without a loss of life. He defeated Rome, and defeated a city ALWAYS gives major advantage to the defender, in Persia he had his cavalry run back and forth behind his front lines to make it seem the dust being kicked up was from a much larger army than was actually there and this made the Perisans want to discuss negotiations.

 

Now, on the matter of barbarization of the army, I HIGHLY suggest you start to read actual texts on the matters and not continue the old trend of, 'Barbarians = bad, and so Barbarians + Roman Army =very bad'. While the late army was in decline, it still performed its job quite effectively given the circumstances. The failings came adminstratively when soldiers were not being paid and corruption rampant, training declined and so the army deteriorated NOT because of barbarization but because of corruption and a collaspe of the adminstrative and logistical structures of the army.

 

I ask you cite where you are getting your information from, and where you claim historians placed barbarians on a pedestal for political reasons. And numbers are never overlooked... too often the little things are overlooked, such as in when people think of the fall of Rome, they blaim Barbarian invasions, when in fact it was an economic and fincincial collaspe and most of these 'invasions' were migrations of people who were ADMITTED into the Empire and so were never invaders.

 

My sources are:

 

The Late Roman Army

The Rise and Decline of the Late Roman Field Army

Barbarians and Bishops: Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom

Corruption and the Decline of Rome

Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD

[Arvioustus]

I believe these 'late Roamns' were not up to the standards of the original at all, like Caesars infantry. Look at the numbers, Caesar being outnumbered greatly routed them horribly at almost all occasions. Late stages Justinian sent a force(mostlyGreek and middle Eastern) under General Belisarius handing these 'western Romans' and Goths even more amazing losses in Italy and North Africa. Being outnumberd even more than Caesar was! These facts cannot be discounted but some anglo Europeans always try to rationalize away these defeats. The late empire was in a decline for a long time and the army too. The numbers were much less and the entry of 'barbarians' in reality made the army not as effective. Belisrius and Caesar had an easy time with the barbarians,especailly given the numbers. They were extreme. We are dealing with hand to hand where numeric odds carry an even greater role. The barbarians wre only effective when they outnumbered the Romans or Eastern Romans by extreme numeric odds or a trap. Justinian,Caesar and Belisarus new the 'barbarians' were not much of a fighting force . (some historians might have put 'barbarians' on a pedestal for poltical reasons) These great leaders would not have subjected their armies being so outnumbered unless in realty they felt like I do. Numbers do not lie. These facts are so often overlooked.

 

 

The Ostrogoths are not "Western Romans"... and so Belisarius never fought Romans. Secondly, Belisarius excelled at the indirect approach, he fooled the enemy into thinking he had a far larger army than himself by using campfires at night and thus gained a major victory without a loss of life. He defeated Rome, and defeated a city ALWAYS gives major advantage to the defender, in Persia he had his cavalry run back and forth behind his front lines to make it seem the dust being kicked up was from a much larger army than was actually there and this made the Perisans want to discuss negotiations.

 

Now, on the matter of barbarization of the army, I HIGHLY suggest you start to read actual texts on the matters and not continue the old trend of, 'Barbarians = bad, and so Barbarians + Roman Army =very bad'. While the late army was in decline, it still performed its job quite effectively given the circumstances. The failings came adminstratively when soldiers were not being paid and corruption rampant, training declined and so the army deteriorated NOT because of barbarization but because of corruption and a collaspe of the adminstrative and logistical structures of the army.

 

I ask you cite where you are getting your information from, and where you claim historians placed barbarians on a pedestal for political reasons. And numbers are never overlooked... too often the little things are overlooked, such as in when people think of the fall of Rome, they blaim Barbarian invasions, when in fact it was an economic and fincincial collaspe and most of these 'invasions' were migrations of people who were ADMITTED into the Empire and so were never invaders.

 

My sources are:

 

The Late Roman Army

The Rise and Decline of the Late Roman Field Army

Barbarians and Bishops: Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom

Corruption and the Decline of Rome

Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD

 

 

The Roman citzens of Naples certainly did(most Jewish) fought bravely against them fearing Christianity of Constantinople. Plus there were other Romans who favored the Goths over the Eastern Empire.

 

Same sources ..plus historians like Tacitus who painted the barbarians as a much more noble race than the Romans.

[Arvioustus]

Thanks for the insightful response

A couple further questions: If so many of these barbarians were recruited in the army as foederati, weren't the Romans afraid of a large scale barbarian revolt in the army? Did they occur frequently?

 

That's just it, while they were increasing in Foederati, they were also recruiting them for the regular army and legions. Also you need to remember, foederati are only enrolled for a campaign season then disbanded afterward so they would no longer be part of the army to 'revolt'. They were more like a quick conscription force used in times of war or crisis and meant only to be around till the campaign was over they were never part of the regular army, nor treated as such. The late empire suffered badly when it came to recruiting and recruiting provinicials and citizens was not only hard to do to begin with, but it was very expensive. The government had to pay for recruits, as in pay to the city or town etc who furished them, and then had to pay an extra sum to the local government as well for the loss of manpower if you will, (there is much more technical laws behind it), and in the case of volunteers, they had to pay the men themsevles the money twice. Barbarians on the other hand, were MUCH cheaper. This is not to say they were mercenaries, it was just simply to intice them to serve and cheaper overral to afford to keep large numbers of them.

 

The Romans for the most part were not afraid of rebellions, because they rarely happened, and they felt they could control any situation. However, a prevailing sentiment in Roman society and culture kinda ingrained into Romans that barbarians were inferior, that they were lesser then Romans and that they could be treated like crap. This is what led to problems when they did arise and those that did cost Rome dearly. The barbarians, for the most part, who were incorperated as regular unit soldiers and not allied contingents under thier owen tribal leaders considered themselves Roman and were, argueably more loyal than many Romans. (I am using examples of high-ranking individuals). After the Goths were finally quelled in the late 4th century, the East made an all out effort to purge it's regular army ranks of barbarians. Whether by moving them to certain units and re-locating them or putting them in other work. Barbarian strength in the Eastern Army was always low and actually, the East had the hardest time recruiting. The West on the other had had little trouble and routinely raised many units due to thier proximity to Germanic peoples willing to serve. Usually, for every 1 unit that the East could muster, the West could raise 6-4. Which shows you the large difference in army strength and size and makeup as well.

 

There were rebellions, ussually with frontier troops, such as the legions on the Rhine on more than one occasion. If I remember correctly one such rebellion in germania stopped the Romans from winning in Dacia.(troops had to be recalled)

[Neos Dionysos]

There were rebellions, ussually with frontier troops, such as the legions on the Rhine on more than one occasion. If I remember correctly one such rebellion in germania stopped the Romans from winning in Dacia.(troops had to be recalled)

 

What year, and what rebellion. Dacia was also abandaned by Aurelian as well, because he felt it was too far from additonal support to be held... Dacia was Roman since Trajan.... so I'd like to know when you are exactly speaking on.

[JonWayne]

I recall reading in one battle in the mid-3rd century ( I think under Decius) the soldiers refused to wear their helmets (too uncomfortable). That's quite an indicator of a loss of experience, discipline, leadership and most importantly training.

 

Yes, I think somewhere I've read the soldiers ditched the heavy armor such as the breastplate, and switched to using more lighter chain mail

[Neos Dionysos]

The Roman citzens of Naples certainly did(most Jewish) fought bravely against them fearing Christianity of Constantinople. Plus there were other Romans who favored the Goths over the Eastern Empire.

 

Same sources ..plus historians like Tacitus who painted the barbarians as a much more noble race than the Romans.

 

Of course, they were the very first city to be attacked and of course they will resist. They did not fear Christianity... they feared the Eastern Empire. Justinian and his reconquest did more damage and destroyed what remained of 'Rome' in the west than the Goths ever did. To the people of Italy, when 476 rolled on, nothing for them changed... in fact, afterward Theodoric the Great even with the blessing of Zeno in the East ruled the west like a de facto emperor but not in title, more like a subserviant role. The Goths continued the Roman laws and customs and allowed the Senate to continue... after the reconquest much of this was lost.

 

I am talking about modern historians. Tacitus and his "Germania" have many issues with it.

 

You named one... what are "Same sources"? same as in where you got the info on Naples, which would be Procopius "History of the Wars", which are not in question, we are talking about 3rd and 4th century Rome, not 6th century. Or did you mean same as the ones I cited? Because unless you can give me page references, I ask you please elaborate.

[metforce]

What were the various units of the Roman army in the 300's AD? How different were they from the second and third century, and what caused the changes in the army?

 

Thanks

 

 

In my mind the biggest change was from heavy infantry to heavy calvary. The other army organizations touched upon in this discussion are equally important (frontier troops, limitanei, and the shock horseman, comitatenses). It hasn't been mentioned here but most historians mark the battle at Adrianople and the destruction of the Emperor Valens army by the Gothic horseman as the end of the Roman heavy infantry and the start of the Roman decline. The change from infantry to cavalry would have economic repercussions since it costs more to maintain a horseman than an infantry man. Thus you see the general decline in foot soldier armaments (resource transfer from foot to horse units). My guess would be the shield changes and armor changes were an attempt to lighten the load and make the foot soldier more mobile on the field (also substitute spear for sword, less resources and more effective against cavalry).

 

Organization changes also marked a general shift in army strategy. Prior to the third century most of the legions were stationed along the frontier. During the third century the limitanei were responsible for frontier postings and the comitatenses were stationed in the heart of the empire. The basic strategy was for the limitanei to hold the cities along the frontier offering minimal resistance to an invading army. The limitanei would cut off supply lines to the hordes and the comitatenses would finish off the invading army once its supplies had run out. This strategy usually worked well but had two repercussions. One, invading armies plundered the countryside at will causing hardship for most Romans. Two, troops were now being stationed in the heart of the empire draining resources and causing problems with the local population who often did not understand them or really want them around.

 

Another big change also not mentioned here was the rise of Christianity. Most of the "barbarian" tribes had had contact with the empire for generations. The Romans knew them and they knew the Romans. Many joined in service willingly and often severed honorably. The link here is that while the Romans followed the catholic faith while most of the "barbarians" were of the Arian faith. This would prevent the barbarian tribes from ever fully integrating into the empire. The fall of Stilicho was partly predicated on this difference (no Roman would accept a heretic as an emperor). By the early to late 5th century most of the barbarian tribes in the empire were wary of the Romans and generally unwilling to fully back the Roman emperors who often used the different barbarian tribes as recruits and power bases.

[Virgil61]

In my mind the biggest change was from heavy infantry to heavy calvary. The other army organizations touched upon in this discussion are equally important (frontier troops, limitanei, and the shock horseman, comitatenses). It hasn't been mentioned here but most historians mark the battle at Adrianople and the destruction of the Emperor Valens army by the Gothic horseman as the end of the Roman heavy infantry and the start of the Roman decline. The change from infantry to cavalry would have economic repercussions since it costs more to maintain a horseman than an infantry man. Thus you see the general decline in foot soldier armaments (resource transfer from foot to horse units). My guess would be the shield changes and armor changes were an attempt to lighten the load and make the foot soldier more mobile on the field (also substitute spear for sword, less resources and more effective against cavalry).

 

...

 

Good post metforce. I think on the issue above concerning Roman infantry an argument can be made that infantry quality had begun a long decline a century before and Adrianpole was the final fruit of the seeds sown in the previous 100 years. I can't believe such deep-rooted organizational change from infantry to heavy cavalry could have begun only because of Adrianople. The Goths brought nothing to battle the Romans had never faced before, it seems to me the training, tactics and organizational leadership of Roman heavy infantry best represented under a typical legion of the Principate was in such decline that Adrianople was the final nail in the coffin (see my reasoning in my earlier post on this thread).

[Neos Dionysos]

In my mind the biggest change was from heavy infantry to heavy calvary. The other army organizations touched upon in this discussion are equally important (frontier troops, limitanei, and the shock horseman, comitatenses). It hasn't been mentioned here but most historians mark the battle at Adrianople and the destruction of the Emperor Valens army by the Gothic horseman as the end of the Roman heavy infantry and the start of the Roman decline. The change from infantry to cavalry would have economic repercussions since it costs more to maintain a horseman than an infantry man. Thus you see the general decline in foot soldier armaments (resource transfer from foot to horse units). My guess would be the shield changes and armor changes were an attempt to lighten the load and make the foot soldier more mobile on the field (also substitute spear for sword, less resources and more effective against cavalry).

 

The changes in equipment and shields, and from glaudius to spatha by the regular infantry began in the 3rd Century and Galleinus was the first to use a large cavalry force all it's own, realizing the imporantance of cavalry, but hardly having it replace heavy infantry. Cavarly was never exploited or used to its full potential in the West like that in the East, this is primarily due to the East having a better understanding of cavalry due to thier constant contact with the Persians, the West, could simply rely on Germanic allies to supply the cavalry, while the East had to creat there own.

 

Organization changes also marked a general shift in army strategy. Prior to the third century most of the legions were stationed along the frontier. During the third century the limitanei were responsible for frontier postings and the comitatenses were stationed in the heart of the empire. The basic strategy was for the limitanei to hold the cities along the frontier offering minimal resistance to an invading army. The limitanei would cut off supply lines to the hordes and the comitatenses would finish off the invading army once its supplies had run out. This strategy usually worked well but had two repercussions. One, invading armies plundered the countryside at will causing hardship for most Romans. Two, troops were now being stationed in the heart of the empire draining resources and causing problems with the local population who often did not understand them or really want them around.

 

Exactly, and in the event that the field army were defeated, the enemy force had free reign throughout the region to cause further devastiation and choas.

 

Another big change also not mentioned here was the rise of Christianity. Most of the "barbarian" tribes had had contact with the empire for generations. The Romans knew them and they knew the Romans. Many joined in service willingly and often severed honorably. The link here is that while the Romans followed the catholic faith while most of the "barbarians" were of the Arian faith. This would prevent the barbarian tribes from ever fully integrating into the empire. The fall of Stilicho was partly predicated on this difference (no Roman would accept a heretic as an emperor). By the early to late 5th century most of the barbarian tribes in the empire were wary of the Romans and generally unwilling to fully back the Roman emperors who often used the different barbarian tribes as recruits and power bases.

 

 

Well Catholicism was not around yet, it was Niceane Christianity, Arianism and then two others which was more of a compromise b/w the two though with each favors one extreme or the other. Stilicho was never trying to become emperor, he was a loyal servent to the Theodoius house, and so a great servent of Theodosius himself though it is claimed that he was in discussions with Alaric to plan an attack on the Eastern Empire, (the reasonings are unknown), and this led to his death and then the persecution of the germanic troops under him, 30,000 of them and they went to Alaric, who now reinforced with this, and his chief adversary gone was able to sack Rome.

 

 

Personally, I don't think Adrianople was what broke the back of the empire. 1/3 of the Eastern Army had already been transfered to the West years before under Valentinian's command and then 2/3 of the remaining Eastern Army was destroyed. The battle marked the end of a pre-dominate Roman Army in the East, (the Western Army was not pre-dominatly Roman for a long time now), at least until the barbarians were purged from the Eastern Army ranks from the regular army by Theodoisus. The battle that really broke the army's back was in 394AD, when Theodoisus destroyed the Western Army at the Frigidus River. This battle is little known and always overlooked but had more of an effect on the army overal than did Adrianople.