Units Of The Late Roman Army, 4th Century

[Virgil61]

..

 

Well Catholicism was not around yet, it was Niceane Christianity

 

I'd interject here that Catholics would argue this is incorrect and that that church, present at the Council of Nicaea is Catholic. Don't want to hijack the thread and turn it into a religious discussion--I much prefer a military one--just need to interject that there is a different view on the matter.

 

Regarding military matters, I think whether you call the end of infantry as the centerpiece of Roman tactical operations occurring at Adrianople or Frigudus River, by this time it had a fraction of the qualitative expertise of its professional ancestors under the Principate.

[Neos Dionysos]

I'd interject here that Catholics would argue this is incorrect and that that church, present at the Council of Nicaea is Catholic. Don't want to hijack the thread and turn it into a religious discussion--I much prefer a military one--just need to interject that there is a different view on the matter.

 

No I agree... and I am Catholic and I know that both major forms of Christianity point to that council as thier major beginning, though I was just being technical about it all so... sorry.

 

Regarding military matters, I think whether you call the end of infantry as the centerpiece of Roman tactical operations occurring at Adrianople or Frigudus River, by this time it had a fraction of the qualitative expertise of its professional ancestors under the Principate.

 

And I completely agree, the loss of a diciplined force, brought on not only by the corruption of the system but a loss of the NCO's which are VITAL to any military structure suggest and breakdown and collaspe of the old system of training, expertise, dicipline and tactics. This as we know, had the detrimental affects on the army which would culminate in her eventual destruction or evolution depending on your view.

[metforce]

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.

 

I would agree with you regarding the loyalty of Stilicho. The difference in faiths was used as an excuse to get ride of someone who had high aspirations if not for himself then for his son. Alaric was wise not to make the same mistake as Stilicho though in the end he settled for very easy terms with the empire. In the end faith prevented most of the barbarians who were willing to serve the empire from fully integrating into the empire thus denying an important source of recruits.

 

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.

 

I also don't think Adrianople (or Frigidus for that matter, but you make a good point I hadn

[Neos Dionysos]

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.

 

I also don't think Adrianople (or Frigidus for that matter, but you make a good point I hadn

[Neos Dionysos]

I would agree with you regarding the loyalty of Stilicho. The difference in faiths was used as an excuse to get ride of someone who had high aspirations if not for himself then for his son. Alaric was wise not to make the same mistake as Stilicho though in the end he settled for very easy terms with the empire. In the end faith prevented most of the barbarians who were willing to serve the empire from fully integrating into the empire thus denying an important source of recruits.

 

Indeed, sadly though I would love to learn more on Stilicho, though the most comprehensive work done on him is in Italian and I cannot read it, yet anyway.

 

Of course one wonders also the true intention of Alaric. Was he revolting for betterment of the Goths? Or was it for his personal gain because he felt that he did not get the rewards or titles he felt he deserved for his service to Theodosius against his Western rivals.