Roman Legions At Chalons

[Mrld]

At the Battle of Chalons in 451, did Aetius have any Roman Legions with or were the soldiers all Foederati and Germanic mercenaries? I know that there were no legions left in 476 when the Empire fell but were there any in 451?

[Divi Filius]

You can find the answer to your question in this topic.

 

Chalons is one of the last well documented battles of the Roman Empire and from what we can gather: most, if not all, of the roman army was made up of Foederatii. In fact, even Aetius' personal cavalry troop(bucellari) was composed of Hunnic mercenaries that followed him quite closely.

Edited April 10, 2007 by Divi Filius

[DecimusCaesar]

You can find the answer to your question in this topic.

 

Chalons is one of the last well documented battles of the Roman Empire and from what we can gather: most, if not all, of the roman army was made up of Foederatii. In fact, even Aetius' personal cavalry troop(bucellari) was composed of Hunnic mercenaries that followed him quite closely.

 

 

Most of the forces that fought against Attila and his allies were Germanic soldiers. A lot of whom had a dubious alliance with Rome. Sangiban, King of the Alans, needed to be kept under watch by Aetius and his men at Chalons, for they feared that he and his warriors would turn against the Romans, as he had been on the verge of doing when Attila's forces besieged Orleans. Other's in Aetius army consisted of Visigoths (under the command of King Theoderic) and Franks.

 

I agree that by 451 most of the soldiers of the Roman army were Germanic Foederatii under the command of their own tribal leaders. Most of the others were Bucellarii, soldiers that were hired by the Roman upper classes to serve them instead of the Emperor Valentinian III. S. MacDowall says for instance that there was not a single true Roman on the field of battle. This might be true. According to sources most Italians were conscripted to serve in local militia. The last of these conscriptions took place in the decade preeceding the battle of Chalons.

 

According to some sources, Attila told his men before battle that the Romans were, "poor soldiers, who are utterly contemptible - the Visigoths and the Alans are the only worthy enemies."

[Divi Filius]

This might be true. According to sources most Italians were conscripted to serve in local militia.

 

If Italian recruits are the only "Romans", then I would say that the Roman Empire's army had ceased to be Roman by the time of the Antonines.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Divi Filius

[Caius Maxentius]

I wonder what the high Roman officers would have looked like in the 5th century.

 

How long were the traditional helmets and breastplates used? Would Aetius still have worn them?

[Divi Filius]

Thats a good question. Even late Byzantine emperors portray themselves in the more "traditional" military attire of the Romans, so it may be possible that the more conservative Italian originated (or those simply wishing to mimic the greater period) generals looked back to the time of old and wore, at least what they thought to be, classical Roman attire.

 

Carving of Stilicho

 

Stilicho here doesnt seem to drift away from earlier "late Roman" clothing that we see...

 

Perhaps Aetius wore something closer to the barbarian in order to receive more sympathy from those he so heavily relied on, or perhaps he wore something that was more Roman in order to differentiate himself from the barbarians.

 

As for officers: by the time of Chalons, I would think that most of them were composed of the people that they lead (Alan "officers" leading Alans).

Edited April 11, 2007 by Divi Filius

[Mrld]

So when did the Roman legions fall then? Did they cease to exist in the 440s, 430s, 420s or earlier?

[Divi Filius]

The fourth and fifth century legions would have been completely unrecognizable to the Romans of old. However, large parts of the Roman legions survived deep into the 6th and 7th century in a hollow form .

 

The "evaporation" of it, though, can probably be placed in the early to middle 5th century. Until that point we could still trace the location of various legions.

Edited April 12, 2007 by Divi Filius

[Mrld]

What about the Eastern Empire? Did they have any legions left?

[Divi Filius]

the Byzantine empire is not my specialty, so my answer wont be too clear.

 

However, from what I can tell, the army of the eastern Roman Empire continued the legacy of the Diocletianic and Constantinian reforms. The only difference is that they seem to have better adapted to the differing military circumstances better then the western legions. The fact that much of the military terminology of the Byzantine empire remained Latin originated attests to the continuing tradition.

 

What was left of the legions probably died out in the post-Justinian age.

[Pompieus]

What about the Eastern Empire? Did they have any legions left?

 

The Eastern Roman Army apparently retained remarkable affinities to the late Roman Army described in the Notitia Dignitatum up to the beginning of the seventh century. The sources are The Strategicon written by the emperor Maurice (d.602) and Byzantium and Its Army by W. Treadgold. The regional and praesental field armies apparently still existed, as did some of the limitanei (although thier pay had been stopped in 545). Although new formations had been added (Federates. Bucellarii etc) and the nomenclature had changed to include Greek titles as well as the old latin ones (Magister=Strategos, prefect/tribune, centurion, decarch=chiliarch, hecatontarch, decarch and legions, auxilia, vexillations and alae all are refered to as banda); some of the formations listed in the Notitia (Victores, Theodosiaci) seem to have survived to give their names to units in the Themes that existed in the tenth century.

[Neos Dionysos]

S. MacDowall says for instance that there was not a single true Roman on the field of battle. This might be true. According to sources most Italians were conscripted to serve in local militia. The last of these conscriptions took place in the decade preeceding the battle of Chalons.

 

According to some sources, Attila told his men before battle that the Romans were, "poor soldiers, who are utterly contemptible - the Visigoths and the Alans are the only worthy enemies."

 

 

Can you give me the complete source on that Decimus. That comment rather intrigues me since H. Elton takes a completely different approach and says that Roman forces were equal to those of the foederati on the field and in terms of fighting capability were still far superior to Germanic forces they faced.

 

Also, my only comment to the source of Attila's attack on the soldiers under Rome is that if that were true, how did they campaign successfully against the Visiboths and Burgundians in the decades before Chalons?

Edited April 16, 2007 by Neos Dionysos

[Maladict]

Can you give me the complete source on that Decimus. That comment rather intrigues me since H. Elton takes a completely different approach and says that Roman forces were equal to those of the foederati on the field and in terms of fighting capability were still far superior to Germanic forces they faced.

Elton makes a rather convincing case for the superiority of the Roman army throughout the fifth century. And 'not a single true Roman'? Not even Aetius? What does it even mean?

[DecimusCaesar]

Can you give me the complete source on that Decimus. That comment rather intrigues me since H. Elton takes a completely different approach and says that Roman forces were equal to those of the foederati on the field and in terms of fighting capability were still far superior to Germanic forces they faced.

Elton makes a rather convincing case for the superiority of the Roman army throughout the fifth century. And 'not a single true Roman'? Not even Aetius? What does it even mean?

 

I belive that when MacDowall said that, he meant that there wasn't a single soldier from the city of Rome on the battlefield, although this is arguable. I think he was exaggeratting his case that by the the time of Chalons, the Foederati played a dominant part in Western Roman warfare. He said:

 

"There probably was not a true Roman anywhere in Aetius' army, even those nominally Roman units would have been composed of German military settlers.

 

- From 'Late Roman Infantryman AD 236-565' (pub. 1994) - Simon MacDowall.

 

Would the majority of Aetius forces have been soldiers from Gaul? Afterall Jordanes does mention that Aetius' army consisted of Gauls and numerous other peoples, although he also mentions that Attila commanded Bastarnae, and we know that they were no longer in existance by the fifth century. Aetius had also been made 'Magister Militum per Gallias' in 425, so we know that he commanded troops in Gaul. It is likely that by 451, Aetius had already been given command of troops from other Roman provinces. Does anyone know what Roman troops (according to the Notitia Dignitatum) Aetius would have commanded? According to our sources the army of Gaul would have consisted of four units Vexillatio Palatina, and twenty-one units of pseudocomitatenses, plus numerous other units - fifty eight in all. Would it have still been up to this strength in 451? Perhaps on paper, but maybe not in reality. Maybe he commanded more troops. Anyone care to venture his army's strength?

 

Jordanes also mentions that the Roman army was in poor condition at Chalons. He mentions Attila's pre-battle speech to the Huns and their barbarian allies, where he commands them to attack the Alans and the Visigoths as the Romans are 'poor soldiers...contemptible'. Whether this is another exaggeration or an outright lie by Jordanes is hard to tell. He isn't very reliable, yet he's one of the main sources we have on Chalons.

 

Still this is an interesting topic. Even in the last few years of the Western empire, Ricimer was comanding several field armies. In 471 we hear that an army was sent from Italy to fight in Gaul, although it was defeated at Arles. Could we suppose that this army was made up of native units of Romans and Italians and not of German foederati?

 

I wonder what the high Roman officers would have looked like in the 5th century.

 

We can't be sure of their apperance but the carving of Stilicho posted by Divi Filius would give us a good idea. This is a re-enactor dressed as a late Roman officer. His costume might be from an earlier period, although it might be possible that the officers at Chalon woul have worn similar clothing:

 

 

From Comitatus, a British late Roman re-enactment group.

[Neos Dionysos]

Can you give me the complete source on that Decimus. That comment rather intrigues me since H. Elton takes a completely different approach and says that Roman forces were equal to those of the foederati on the field and in terms of fighting capability were still far superior to Germanic forces they faced.

Elton makes a rather convincing case for the superiority of the Roman army throughout the fifth century. And 'not a single true Roman'? Not even Aetius? What does it even mean?

 

 

Indeed and Drinkwater also falls into this camp as does Heather, (though Heather believes the decline began with the loss of Africa... losing the tax base to pay and upkeep the army as we have the one comment from Valentinian III, the source escapes me at the moment, saying he can't even pay for them army he has), while Elton feels it is with the death of Majorian and the breakaway of Aegidius. I'd like to add Marcellinus as well in Dalmatia, taking away the other units in the Western Empire from central authority as well.

 

 

 

Decimus, allow me some time to go over that. This is a great topic and I'd like to explore this in more depth. Perhaps we can turn it into a discussion on the Academia sub-forum...