Roman Army at the Fall

[Mrld]

I always get confused when I think of the Roman Army at the fall. I know that the Barbarization contributed to the fall. In 476, were there any legions left or was it all Barbarian soldiers?

[Divi Filius]

Around 410 the Notitia Dignitatum tells us that there were still deep elements of the [more] traditional Roman military organization. It is really impossible to give a definite answer, but by 476 the Roman army was made up almost entirely of Foederatii. What remained of the "Roman" army was dispersed as small garrison groups.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Basically, the last "Roman" army was made up of German mercenaries. They revolted in 476 and the West was gone.

[caldrail]

The legions of old had gone long before that. During the late empire the army was reorganised and legions afterward were much smaller, only 1000 soldiers strong.

[DecimusCaesar]

It is difficult to say what the army of 476 would look like. DF is corret when he says that the late army of the fifth century would have consisted of Foederati - the Germanic mercenaries. By this time the Romans could not afford to pay for their armies, and after the last victory of the Western Empire at Chalons in 451, the Roman army had drifted away - destroyed by heavy losses, deserting soldiers and lack of pay.

 

Even at Chalons, Flavius Aetius relied heavily on his Germanic allies for victory, as most of Gaul and Western Europe had already fallen to the Barabarian tribes by this period; therefore drying up the Empire's recruting pools.

 

As for Italy, most of the armed men around AD 476 would have been armed soldiers working on the behalf of rich nobles, rather than the Imperial Government. The last known conscriptions for the army in Italy occured around 440 and 443 and by then they were only for local urban militias. These could only deal with the Barbarian threat on a local level, and any chance of a organized strategic strike at the Barbarian foe would have been out of the question. Most of the work for these local conscripts would have been bandit control rather than battling Germanic invaders.

[Maladict]

The Roman army of the fifth century suffered from lack of money and reinforcements.

However, it was still superior to the 'barbarians'. They never lost a major battle throughout the century afaik.

I believe Gaul was still solidly under Roman control until 461, and lost because of political upheaval rather than military weakness.

[Gaius Octavius]

Do these responses apply to the legions of the eastern Emperor?

[Maladict]

Do these responses apply to the legions of the eastern Emperor?

 

Good point. Mine applies to the west.

[Divi Filius]

Do these responses apply to the legions of the eastern Emperor?

 

Certainly nowhere near the extent of the west, the east still had most of its recruiting territory. However, following Adrianople, Germanic barbarians made up a considerable portion of the Byzantine army; and from what I hear, this continued until relatively late.

 

Btw, the Roman army did not disappear right after 476. We can find traces of them deep into the Merovingian period.

[Zeke]

The Eastern Emperors had a large pool of recruits in Anatolia, that was their major center of their Catapract Calvary...I think it was because of the "I don't care toward the west" that the government at Constantinople didn't run off to save Rome in 476, as well as a lack of funds.

 

When the Byzantines did finnally liberate Italy in the 500s...well they didn't accually have the money to pay for that campagain either. Theodosius is said to have paid his soliders with money from the treasury then tax it out of them double the price latter on, a very clever but unfair system of money raising.

[Nikephoros Phokas]

Our perception of the Roman Empire is heavily influenced by English culture. Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" has been one of the most important sources in shaping western (American and European) views of Late Antiquity. There is a tendency to treat 476 AD as a terminal point in European history and thus the survival of the Eastern Roman Empire is overlooked. Added to this tendency is the fact that the east evolved into the Byzantine Empire so stopped being Roman.

 

The Roman Empire continued as a recognizable political entity until the conquest of its remaining vestiges by the Ottoman Turks in the 15th century.

 

Another reason for being confused about the empire is the establishment of the second or Holy Roman Empire in the 9th Century. This was dissolved by Napoleon in 1809 and became the Austro-Hungarian Empire (among other names).

 

The Byzantine army maintained all of the traditions and doctrines of the Roman army. The Germanic successor states in the west also maintained elements of the imperial government including the military.

 

The Byzantine army is well identified in the Notitia Dignitatum and a search of the Internet will provide many sources listing military units in Latin and English. Whether this provides a true order of battle for the Roman army is debatable, although it is a good starting point.