Rome Downfall Linked To Roman Army?

[caldrail]

The civil war of Constantine changed the roman army forever. After him, the old style heavy infantry was in decline, replaced by lighter troops. Seriously, the emphasis in the late roman army was for skirmishers rather than testudo formations. This was no different for their allies. Cavalry did retain a heavy element (cataphracts/clibanarii) and therefore a foretaste of medieval times. Actually thats it isn't it? The late roman army was already migrating toward a federalised medieval style army of light troops and heavy cavalry. Didn't quite get there of course, but the men who took over western empire completed the process by the time the dark age had finished.

Edited May 30, 2006 by caldrail

[Neos Dionysos]

The civil war of Constantine changed the roman army forever. After him, the old style heavy infantry was in decline, replaced by lighter troops.

 

Where does it say this? I know a majority of the army was light troops, but the backbone of the army, the fighting core was the field armies, which was heavy infantry. The frontier troops were designed to stall, delay, interupt major pushes into Roman lands, but they were never expected to actually defeat or repulse the threat. The Field Armies were designed for this, they were lower in number compared to the Frontier Troops but the Field Armies was the heany infantry used to engage, defeat and repluse the threats Rome faced in the Late Empire. Cavalry was more important now true, but it was almost always recruited from barbarian groups.

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, since I cannot see at all how heavy infantry was being slowly shunned by Rome after Constantine. His reforms officialized what had been going on in the army since the early 3rd century, smaller, more flexible units instead of the larger legions of the High Empire, but the core, the more highly paid, better equipped and better respected units of this new army was the Comitatenses and the Palatini which were the Heavy Infantry.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Kosmo]

As pointed by others the problem it's political. The army was the most important political force and it was increasingly provincial and barbarian. The power shifted from the roman center to periphery and finnaly to the independent "allies" or to other regional centers like Byzantion.

The military sistem of the professional army was so wrong that it needed the empire to collapse to be fixed.

And the sucesors turned to a recruitment army like it happened in the East during the VII century crisis.

[Neos Dionysos]

And the sucesors turned to a recruitment army like it happened in the East during the VII century crisis.

 

Well yeah, it went back to a land based, citizen army like that of the Republic. Farmers now had a stake in the defense since it was thier land. The Theme sytem of Heraclius, half the people served while the other half tilled and they switched, half a year or yearly, I forgot the exact arrangement.

[caldrail]

The civil war of Constantine changed the roman army forever. After him, the old style heavy infantry was in decline, replaced by lighter troops.

 

Where does it say this? I know a majority of the army was light troops, but the backbone of the army, the fighting core was the field armies, which was heavy infantry. The frontier troops were designed to stall, delay, interupt major pushes into Roman lands, but they were never expected to actually defeat or repulse the threat. The Field Armies were designed for this, they were lower in number compared to the Frontier Troops but the Field Armies was the heany infantry used to engage, defeat and repluse the threats Rome faced in the Late Empire. Cavalry was more important now true, but it was almost always recruited from barbarian groups.

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, since I cannot see at all how heavy infantry was being slowly shunned by Rome after Constantine. His reforms officialized what had been going on in the army since the early 3rd century, smaller, more flexible units instead of the larger legions of the High Empire, but the core, the more highly paid, better equipped and better respected units of this new army was the Comitatenses and the Palatini which were the Heavy Infantry.

 

The evidence from archaeology suggests a sudden downturn in the quality of equipment from around the civil wars of Constantine. Gone are the lorica segmentata, replaced with chain or sometimes scalemail (which has a serious flaw inherent in its design). Helmets are no longer roman, but more barbarian in style. The pilum has gone, replaced with a series of spear-like weapons. Gone too is the gladius, replaced by the longer cavalry spatha. Training was therefore in decline, and with the ability of troops to continue the old style tactics. Vegetius himself moans that troops of his day were not up to the old standards, although I must say they did try. Roman soldiers in the late army were less disciplined too - and I sense a certain reluctance of that army to actually meet the enemy in battle. Recruitment was a thorny issue. No longer was the roman army a respected career and people generally did what they could to avoid military service, by hiding, finding excuses, or cutting off a thumb. The later emperors of course made rulings that one excuse after another was no longer valid and you had to serve anyway. Press gangs roamed around finding able-bodied men that could be...erm... volunteered for service. I do accept that heavy infantry technically still existed, but it simply wasn't the equal of the legions of the golden age. Their attitude, equipment, and training weren't even close.

Edited May 31, 2006 by caldrail

[Kosmo]

The population of the empire was huge compared with the barbarians. If the romans really had a massive conscription Rome would have had a enormous army. So, I think conscription was very limited.

[Neos Dionysos]

The evidence from archaeology suggests a sudden downturn in the quality of equipment from around the civil wars of Constantine. Gone are the lorica segmentata, replaced with chain or sometimes scalemail (which has a serious flaw inherent in its design). Helmets are no longer roman, but more barbarian in style. The pilum has gone, replaced with a series of spear-like weapons. Gone too is the gladius, replaced by the longer cavalry spatha. Training was therefore in decline, and with the ability of troops to continue the old style tactics. Vegetius himself moans that troops of his day were not up to the old standards, although I must say they did try. Roman soldiers in the late army were less disciplined too - and I sense a certain reluctance of that army to actually meet the enemy in battle. Recruitment was a thorny issue. No longer was the roman army a respected career and people generally did what they could to avoid military service, by hiding, finding excuses, or cutting off a thumb. The later emperors of course made rulings that one excuse after another was no longer valid and you had to serve anyway. Press gangs roamed around finding able-bodied men that could be...erm... volunteered for service. I do accept that heavy infantry technically still existed, but it simply wasn't the equal of the legions of the golden age. Their attitude, equipment, and training weren't even close.

 

Therin shows the problem when you compare Vegetius to Ammanius. One laments at the decline of quality in the army, while the other claims that while weaponry has changed, the overall discipline and training has not.

 

In either case, my arguement was your point that heavy infantry was being abandoned, none of what you have written there states that. Recruitment I know very well the problems of it in the late empire and the laws issued to try and insure service. To compare the legions of the 'golden age' you must also compare the climate. Rome, during the principate was not besieged on all sides. Emperors could muster most of the army to one location for a campaign, that was simply impossible following the 3rd Century Crisis. Now Rome had encrouchments from organized, large barbarians peoples, (and partially because of thier interaction with Rome they learned how to become more structured), and you had a much more aggressive and expanisionist Persia who knew how take major cities through siege and who could field large armies as well. The Army of the Principate, I do not disagree could defeat any of these threats, but could they do so while being in several different places at once? I don't think so, hence the emphasis on more flexible, smaller formations of troops. You may contend that overall qualitiy has dropped, but what good is the best force when it can't even be brought to bear against the enemy.

 

Also, I don't think that a change in weaponry leads to a decline in training, just a change in them to adapt to the new equipment and weapons now being used. Perhaps this is the cause of his 'moans' over the decline in training because the old ways are not being used, since why would they when they are meant for the 'old form' of legions and not the new.

 

Perhaps the best example I can say is, look at the battles and engagements the Late Army fought. Strasborg, Adrianople, Ad Salices, Chalons, Verona, on the Persian Front and countless smaller ones against various barbarian groups. Almost all are victory for Roman arms and ff the major engagements, Adrianople is the only defeat and which happened only after the command structure of the Romans made tactical errors, if the army was such in a 'terrible' state then the battle would not have continued on till dusk regardless of being encircled and the surviving section of the army would not/could not have broken out of the trap and retreated in good order. This is given to us by Ammanius.

 

In short, personally I feel it's irrelevent if the army of the Late Empire was not as trained or diciplined exactly like that of the Early Empire. Times had changes, situations had changed and threats had completly changed. I am willing to accept that the Late Army was not up to the standards of the High Empire, but should not the final judegement of thier quality be based upon if they can actually do thier job, and win Rome's battles and wars? If so, then they pass, and therefore the Army while in decline to early standards, was the best it could be to late standards.

 

Rome's Downfall I will argue is not because the Roman Army, but because the Decline of the State then transfered to a Decline of the Army.

Edited May 31, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[caldrail]

Weaponry is an important factor in warfare. Is it any good? Are you troops able to use it to good effect? Are they being trained to do so?

 

The adoption of the spatha in preference to the gladius says two things. Firstly that the soldiers were not so willing to get in close with a short blade. Secondly that they were no longer being trained to fight close in and therefore requiring less skill.

 

No longer were the legions massed in battle formations to steamroller the opposition aside. They formed compact skirmish units a sixth smaller for a more mobile approach. This requires lightweight forces. Heavy infantry can't force march everywhere.

 

It certainly isn't irrelevant that the late roman army was less effective. The external threat to rome was becoming constant and the legions of the time were both unwilling and unable to contain it. Their forces were poorly trained, poorly disciplined, poorly equipped, badly led, badly organised. The huns for instance would not likely have succeeded against rome at its height. Against the 'soft' later army, they made deep penetrations. Roman was surviving on political and military momentum and it was running out.

 

That doesn't mean they couldn't win victories if any particular leader managed to motivate and lead his men effectively. But were there any such leaders? Not many. The roman infrastructure was becoming insular, with country manors almost cutting themselves off from what remained of mainstream life. Rome simply wasn't what it was, neither were her armed forces, whom she relied on to keep the borders safe.

 

Which they weren't....

[Neos Dionysos]

It certainly isn't irrelevant that the late roman army was less effective. The external threat to rome was becoming constant and the legions of the time were both unwilling and unable to contain it. Their forces were poorly trained, poorly disciplined, poorly equipped, badly led, badly organised. The huns for instance would not likely have succeeded against rome at its height. Against the 'soft' later army, they made deep penetrations. Roman was surviving on political and military momentum and it was running out.

 

If EVERY catagory of the army was in such terrible or horrific shape then how do you explain Rome holding together as long as it did? How was Rome able to rebuild her Eastern Army after Adrianople, (which would later ensure that half's survival)?

 

That doesn't mean they couldn't win victories if any particular leader managed to motivate and lead his men effectively. But were there any such leaders? Not many.

 

I disagree there were pleny effective and victorious leaders of the Late Empire, I think there were fewer in the earlier days, (also they were much more spread out of time). Without effective leaders things would have collasped quite quickly under the pressure of so many threats.

 

The roman infrastructure was becoming insular, with country manors almost cutting themselves off from what remained of mainstream life. Rome simply wasn't what it was, neither were her armed forces, whom she relied on to keep the borders safe.

 

And I totally agree with that.... those actions of the villas isolating themselves off from the major cities is what helped bring about the decline of the major urban areas in the West. Though I will disagree still with the armed forces, they were different, transformed, but so was the whole Roman World, and they still kept the 'borders' secure. I say 'borders' because what was important to Late Roman Emperors were Italy, Africa, Greece/Illyricum/Macedonia because of the highway route b/w East-West, Thrace and Asia Minor the breadbasket of the East, You can throw in Egypt as well... the other areas were second priority and often the most neglected and the first to be 'cut off' when things got bad.

[caldrail]

If EVERY catagory of the army was in such terrible or horrific shape then how do you explain Rome holding together as long as it did? How was Rome able to rebuild her Eastern Army after Adrianople, (which would later ensure that half's survival)?

 

Rome went to considerable trouble to patch up her armies. Of course she did. They needed defence. All too often it wasn't there however in the late stage. Communities were hiring tribes wholesale as mercenary defenders because the roman army could not adequately contain an enemy threat. They simply weren't there. Roman defense policy was no longer offensive, it was about bringing enemy incursions to a halt before they penetrated too deep.

 

Actually I doubt EVERY unit in the late roman army was terrible. They were trying to live up to the old reputation in many cases and with a decent commander I can imagine a 1000 strong legion proving effective at its chosen task. Most could not, or would not. The impression I get is a sense of hoplessness toward the end - a sense of 'why fight too hard, we can't win'. There is definitely a problem with morale and motivation in the late army. Given that a large percentage of that army were in fact Goths, and that a large percentage of their attackers were roman deserters, I can also see an increasing amount of brigandage by both sides. Even those attempting to enforce the law weren't to keen on obeying it. Law and order, like any modern society riven by warfare, was becoming a lost art. There are many examples of this situation today. The balkans? Iraq? Many african states?

[Neos Dionysos]

Rome went to considerable trouble to patch up her armies. Of course she did. They needed defence. All too often it wasn't there however in the late stage. Communities were hiring tribes wholesale as mercenary defenders because the roman army could not adequately contain an enemy threat. They simply weren't there. Roman defense policy was no longer offensive, it was about bringing enemy incursions to a halt before they penetrated too deep.

 

Right, as I stated, the regions they could not defend well and which were not really a priority were left to thier own defence, or Rome used federate allies to defend the areas. Over time the Field Armies, being stationed so long in major cities which is good and bad, the negative aspect is over time the soldiers families are then all from the surrounding area and region and so now the "flexible" and "very mobile" armies were only able to operate regional, thus the only real Roman Army in the West in the late empire after Theodosius was that of Italy. The rest were pre-dominatly some garrions and federate allies.

 

I can also see an increasing amount of brigandage by both sides. Even those attempting to enforce the law weren't to keen on obeying it. Law and order, like any modern society riven by warfare, was becoming a lost art. There are many examples of this situation today. The balkans? Iraq? Many african states?

 

And I agree, brigands were everywhere, especially in the West in regions like Hispania, Gaul, Britain, but in the priority areas it was kept in check for the most part. Corruption was absolutely rampant, so it's no surprise of the break down.

 

Actually I doubt EVERY unit in the late roman army was terrible. They were trying to live up to the old reputation in many cases and with a decent commander I can imagine a 1000 strong legion proving effective at its chosen task. Most could not, or would not. The impression I get is a sense of hoplessness toward the end - a sense of 'why fight too hard, we can't win'. There is definitely a problem with morale and motivation in the late army.

 

I agree with your statement of a problem with morale and motivation... but I do not think it was of 'hopelessness', or of 'giving up'. Morale I think was issues due to the fact that over time the billeting of troops in cities and over time many became lazy, idle, and simply just didn't give a rat's ass; not that, "...we can't win."

[caldrail]

So our viewpoint isn't that far apart. I see a greater emphasis on the way soldiers lived because to me it has great bearing on their activities. If you billet rough tough soldiers amongst civilians sooner or later you get problems. One roman advised his friends not to argue with a legionary and just let him take what he wants - and that wasn't even the relatively lawless late empire. Most people of course simply wanted to get on with their lives. Constant demands for taxation and recruitment were making them feel a little under the thumb. If your children disappear to the front who brings in the harvest this year? Worse still, the troops guarding you aren't roman. Most don't speak latin. Would you trust them? It would have been a difficult time to live I guess.

 

Interestingly enough I understand Adrian Goldsworthy ("The Complete Roman Army") has an opposite view to me in many respects. Ok, he's done research on this but as yet I can't see it that way myself. I'm certainly going to look deeper into this period.

[Neos Dionysos]

I'm certainly going to look deeper into this period.

 

I never stop, to me, you can't get any better than the Late Period because of issues just like this... and above all, you always learn something new. Whether through research or debate.

 

I have several selections of books you may like if you are interested?

Edited June 4, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[caldrail]

Go for it.

[Neos Dionysos]

Go for it.

 

 

Here we go...

 

 

1). Theodosius: The Empire At Bay by Stephen Williams and Gerard Friell.

 

2). Theodosian Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity by Kenneth G. Holum.

 

3). Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD by Noel Lenski.

 

4). The Rome That Did Not Fall by Stephen Williams and Gerard Friell.

 

5). Barbarians and Bishops : Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom by J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz.

 

6). Generalissimos of the Western Roman Empire by John M. O'Flynn.

 

7). The Fall of the Roman Empire : A New History of Rome and the Barbarians by Peter Heather.

 

8). Barbarians Within the Gates of Rome: A Study of Roman Military Policy and Barbarians, Ca. 375-425 A.D. by Thomas S. Burns.

 

9). The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples by Herwig Wolfram.

 

10). Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, AD 364-425 by John Matthews.

 

 

These should get you off on an excellent start...