The Late Roman Army

[Aphrodite]

By the 3rd century the Roman Army was very different to the images of the Roman Army we all know and love from films and TV shows, and this is the period of Roman military history I find the most interesting!

 

The main problem for the empire at this time was the fact it was being engaged on numerous fronts making it impossible to accumalate large powerful armies in one place - the empire was now on the defensive rather than the offensive.

 

Emporers at this time were forced to make changes to have any chance of survival. These included moves such as withdrawing cavalry from the front lines to form internal groups.

 

Frontier troops were know as LIMITANEI, and as their name would suggest were strung out along the fortifications of the frontiers to defend the lands.

 

I'm interested to hear what you know on this subject how effective you think this new form of the Roman army was.

 

This is approaching the dawn of the byzantine age and i think that is a lot what draws me to this period as the gold and richness of the period is more romantic and dazzling in a way!

[Neos Dionysos]

I have written on several older threads regarding the new army though the transformation was slow from the traditional imperial legions people think of to the limitanei and the comesitatines. Included in this is the Scholae Palatinae and the Auxilia Palatinae as well...

 

Is there any specific part you had in mind? Or speaking of the Romanion age, which era? That of the time of Belisarius or later during the Apogee of the Byzantines?

 

Also, I have written a review on the "Late Roman Army" for UNRV in the book section if you wish to go and check that out...

Edited March 12, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Aphrodite]

Thansk I wil og and check it out, I'm currently reading "The Late Roman Army" by Southern & Dixon, and Warfare in "Roman Europe AD350-425" by Hugh Elton, so i'm thinking of the periods looked at within these books really.

[Neos Dionysos]

Ah, so what was your opinion or what is your opinion then of Southern's work, I'm very curious to know...

[Aphrodite]

I will get back to you on that when i've finished reading all the material, i've read in some places that the work can be unreliable in places, but the book was on a university reading list so that makes me trust it somewhat more.

[Neos Dionysos]

Who claimed it to be unrelieable? Unreliabe in a small part or two or do they claim the whole book?

[Aphrodite]

I can't remeber now, i think it was in the bibligrpahy of another book. Just said it could be unreliable in parts.

 

Why the interest?

[Virgil61]

... "Roman Europe AD350-425" by Hugh Elton, so i'm thinking of the periods looked at within these books really.

 

Be aware that on the dispute about the quality of the later Roman army Elton generally comes down on the side of the argument that believes it remained at a high level. I think he tends to be in the minority of historians on this question.

[Neos Dionysos]

... "Roman Europe AD350-425" by Hugh Elton, so i'm thinking of the periods looked at within these books really.

 

Be aware that on the dispute about the quality of the later Roman army Elton generally comes down on the side of the argument that believes it remained at a high level. I think he tends to be in the minority of historians on this question.

 

LoL, indeed... and I share his view on the quality being high with the Late Roman Army...

 

 

Aphrodite, I ask because having read the book and taken much information away from it, I'd like to know what is said to be unreliable...

[Ovidius]

Hello there. In my book "Roman Warfare", the aggressive, sword armed legionary was a distant memory. Roman infantry were considered to be low quality at this stage, and the Romans did not always show their relentlessness in battle, and their armies were better suited to low level operation like counter raiding

Edited March 14, 2006 by Ovidius

[Neos Dionysos]

Hello there. In my book "Roman Warfare", the aggressive, sword armed legionary was a distant memory. Roman infantry were considered to be low quality at this stage, and the Romans did not always show their relentlessness in battle, and their armies were better suited to low level operation like counter raiding

 

 

The Roman Army in the late period was not lower in quality the difference was the quality of the enemy greatly increased... after centuries of interaction with Romans and many tribal leaders and men serving under Romans and learning thier ways they adapted and were able to employ the same tatics and organization as the Romans, Rome lost her advantage because the enemy knew her through and through by this day and age. This did not mean the late army was not potent... since it played crucial roles throughout the wanning days of the empire. The aggressiveness was not lost, only the composition, (since few 'Romans' wanted to serve at all, even forced to serve was a hard thing to pull off), but thier tactical advantage, the slow slow of the crucial NPC's that made up the core of an Imperial Army were also on the decline and so this affected them, but it should be stated that limiteani were considered 'low quality', but the comesitaties and palatinae forces were considered very high quality...

[Aphrodite]

... "Roman Europe AD350-425" by Hugh Elton, so i'm thinking of the periods looked at within these books really.

 

Be aware that on the dispute about the quality of the later Roman army Elton generally comes down on the side of the argument that believes it remained at a high level. I think he tends to be in the minority of historians on this question.

 

Thansk i'll bear that in mnd

 

... "Roman Europe AD350-425" by Hugh Elton, so i'm thinking of the periods looked at within these books really.

 

Be aware that on the dispute about the quality of the later Roman army Elton generally comes down on the side of the argument that believes it remained at a high level. I think he tends to be in the minority of historians on this question.

 

LoL, indeed... and I share his view on the quality being high with the Late Roman Army...

 

 

Aphrodite, I ask because having read the book and taken much information away from it, I'd like to know what is said to be unreliable...

 

I don't know i'm afraid, that comment was just from a comment I saw in someone elses bibliogrpahy.

[Virgil61]

The Roman Army in the late period was not lower in quality the difference was the quality of the enemy greatly increased... after centuries of interaction with Romans and many tribal leaders and men serving under Romans and learning thier ways they adapted and were able to employ the same tatics and organization as the Romans, Rome lost her advantage because the enemy knew her through and through by this day and age. This did not mean the late army was not potent... since it played crucial roles throughout the wanning days of the empire. The aggressiveness was not lost, only the composition, (since few 'Romans' wanted to serve at all, even forced to serve was a hard thing to pull off), but thier tactical advantage, the slow slow of the crucial NPC's that made up the core of an Imperial Army were also on the decline and so this affected them, but it should be stated that limiteani were considered 'low quality', but the comesitaties and palatinae forces were considered very high quality...

 

Allow me to present a partial counter-argument. Tactics and organization don't quite make an army by themselves.

 

It begs belief that a dozen or more different tribes with minimal state infastructure could support and conduct the large scale manouvers of the early Roman legions, practiced forced marches, constructed well-built daily fortifications as a rule while on movement, used a cadre of NCOs like centurions to command and control smaller units, applied consistant procedures on weapons training and so on and so on. Certainly if one takes even 50% of Vegetius at any value contemporaries in the later empire understood they'd lost a step. While he may not have had the military experience he didn't write in a vacuum and his manuscript would've been subjected to some scrutiny, he seems to know enough that he could claim older training methods hadn't been utilized for quite some time.

 

I think the evidence is pretty indicative that the later legions weren't of the same quality of the classic legions of the Principate, not that they were all bad by any means but their glory days were long behind them.

Edited March 14, 2006 by Virgil61

[Neos Dionysos]

The Roman Army in the late period was not lower in quality the difference was the quality of the enemy greatly increased... after centuries of interaction with Romans and many tribal leaders and men serving under Romans and learning thier ways they adapted and were able to employ the same tatics and organization as the Romans, Rome lost her advantage because the enemy knew her through and through by this day and age. This did not mean the late army was not potent... since it played crucial roles throughout the wanning days of the empire. The aggressiveness was not lost, only the composition, (since few 'Romans' wanted to serve at all, even forced to serve was a hard thing to pull off), but thier tactical advantage, the slow slow of the crucial NPC's that made up the core of an Imperial Army were also on the decline and so this affected them, but it should be stated that limiteani were considered 'low quality', but the comesitaties and palatinae forces were considered very high quality...

 

Allow me to present a partial counter-argument. Tactics and organization don't quite make an army by themselves.

 

It begs belief that a dozen or more different tribes with minimal state infastructure could support and conduct the large scale manouvers of the early Roman legions, practiced forced marches, constructed well-built daily fortifications as a rule while on movement, used a cadre of NCOs like centurions to command and control smaller units, applied consistant procedures on weapons training and so on and so on. Certainly if one takes even 50% of Vegetius at any value contemporaries in the later empire understood they'd lost a step. While he may not have had the military experience he didn't write in a vacuum and his manuscript would've been subjected to some scrutiny, he seems to know enough that he could claim older training methods hadn't been utilized for quite some time.

 

I think the evidence is pretty indicative that the later legions weren't of the same quality of the classic legions of the Principate, not that they were all bad by any means but their glory days were long behind them.

 

 

Perhaps I should rephrase myself... I beleive that the Roman Army of the Later Empire was of high quality, but it was not equal to her glory days of the High Empire period... and her enemies now had increased in tactics, organization, strength and ability... so the playing field was no for the most part level, when back in the High Empire, the playing field was completely slanted in favor of Rome...

 

I just hate seeing how people claim barbarization made the Roman Army the poorest quality, (I am in no way saying you implied this), and therefore unable to stop any of the barbarian movements against them when we have evidence showing that while thier was a decline in overall quality the army still performed its duty and performed it with a higher degree of success than not...

 

 

 

Aphrodite, if it's a simple comment in someone Bib... then I would not even consider it worth listening too since I have seen no academic source or publication claim it to be anything but relieable...

[Aphrodite]

I have read arguments that the final changes constantine made, and the abandonment of the old tactics, and introducing large numbers of german troops, were the final nails in the coffin of the roman empire...