Late Roman Army

[Arvioustus]

Some experts feel that the late Roman army really wasnt` Roman at all but mostly German or German blends. So the legions at their decline and even when they stopped the Huns there were few Roman left. I have read that Romans did every thing they can to not fight for Rome and even prefered the German tribes! Some say the population decrease and just the intense assimilation that occured that the 'Romans' just ceased to be. The Germans being the greatest in numbers became the Roman legions. Any truth?

[Neos Dionysos]

Some experts feel that the late Roman army really wasnt` Roman at all but mostly German or German blends. So the legions at their decline and even when they stopped the Huns there were few Roman left.

 

The late army was more and more increasingly becoming germanic or 'barbarian'. Reasons for this stem from the 3rd Century Crisis when the army was no longer a career people wished to go into and would go to the extent of mutilating themselves in order to save themselves from being recruited. Germanic peoples were seen as a much easier, more plentiful and cheaper source of men. Another bad aspect of recruiting citizens of provincials was that it cost the government a lot of money to recruit in the late empire. For every soldier recruited they had to pay for him to the family or the established of where he came, and if he volunteered they had to pay the volunteer. Having to pay to just get you to sign up was something they did not have to do for germans. In fact, some of the settled peoples were given land on the pretext that they would supply men to Roman armies in times of war or crisis.

 

I have read that Romans did every thing they can to not fight for Rome and even prefered the German tribes!

 

This makes no sense at all. Please rephrase.

 

Some say the population decrease and just the intense assimilation that occured that the 'Romans' just ceased to be. The Germans being the greatest in numbers became the Roman legions. Any truth?

 

Who is 'Some say'? Please give exact referenences.

 

While it is true that more and more germanic peoples made up the legions, it does not mean thier loyalty was not to Rome. We are in an age of intense Nationalism, something that did not occur until the 19th Century. Germans had no problems killing other Germans, (unless they were fighting the same members of thier tribe which I believe was never recorded.), Some germanic, assimilated people were more Roman than the Romans, and I use Stilicho as an example. He was a loyal servent of the Theodosius house and cared greatly for the Eastern Empire's defence and after that Rome as well. His germanic troops were, (like many men fighting in the age,) were loyal to thier commander. And so when Stilicho was murdered, and Romans persecuted thier germans allies and those who even THOUGHT themselves Roman, they had no where else to go except to Alaric or others who would sympathize with them. Rome's history is very hostile to different people and to germanic ones especially. Assilimation for some was a sense of heresy and something that should not be allowed, this is mirrored in how Germanic peoples were treated outside and inside Roman borders.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

May I add that the Christian religion minorly kind of made the common Roman more peaceful and anti-violence while the Gaul/German were still better fitted for fighting.

[Neos Dionysos]

May I add that the Christian religion minorly kind of made the common Roman more peaceful and anti-violence while the Gaul/German were still better fitted for fighting.

 

Of course, Liebeschuetz addresses that very well in Barbarians and Bishops. Christians were more violent and more geared to fight against each other on monastic beliefs than outside forces. Also the monastic life of self sacrifice and service to God also took away quite elegible men for recruiting, in some imperial reigns, when emperors would persecut certain Christian sects, they would force monks into the legions, this was a way to increase recruits but it also shows the desperation of some emperors and this was in the East, not the West.

[Neos Dionysos]

I would also like to add the fact that many Roman Emperors during the late empire prefered to seek out German troops for thier elite units and personal guards, over Roman citizens or provincials. And this was not just in the West, but also the East, an example being that when Julian was called upon by Constantius II to send some of his best German units of Auxilia to the East, he instead offered to send recruits for his gaurd units from Germans settled within the empire, "laeti", and from "dediticii" or German prisoners of war. Julian assumed the East would never be self-sufficent in soldiers of first-rate quality and so he offered to send these units for the rest of his life.

 

The Scholae Palatina, the elite palace horse guards of the late empire were 10 out of 12 officers of German origin and so was the case in other crack units of the late empire and despite the population decline in the west, it was far easier to raise units in the west than the east, because many of the people were considered unsuitable for service or not avaiable for conscription and so more and more units rasied in the west were sent east to fill gaps in the Imperial ranks. It is significant that until Theodosius the East did not have many germanic auxilia and his reorginization rectified this as we would see that some very famous germanic leaders came out from serving under Theodosius, among them Alaric and Stilicho. It is also important to note that just like the west, the eastern army also used the German war cry in battle, something that many felt only exisited in the west and not the east.

[Tobias]

Certainly much of the Roman army of the time was composed of Germans. It is hardly surprising considering the amount of migrations of the time, and (as has been above mentioned) the slight apathetic phase that the Roman citizens seemed to be going through.

The Germans were of considerable use to the Romans as allies - and of course terrible as foes - and this is demonstrated at the Battle of Chalons. Aetius (amazingly) managed to ally both the Goths and the Alans to his cause (defeating Attila). I think that gives a bit of insight into whether the empire may have lasted longer or fought better if the Germans had not been ill treated.

[Nikephoros Phokas]

There are a number of misconceptions about the composition of the army. Infantry continued to outnumber cavalry well into the Byzantine period. The ratio was roughly 3:1. Most of the soldiers were Roman citizens despite many of the tribal names given to the units. The empire recruited from a variety of sources with the German element being one of many, albeit historians tend to highlight the German presence.

 

Diocletian introduced a law that required a son to follow the father in terms of career, so the sons of soldiers were expected to join the military. The recruits were a mix of conscripts and volunteers, civilian and non-civilian. This was the traditional method of recruiting although the granting of citizenship after 212 to all occupants of the empire (except slaves) did obscure the earlier distinctions between citizens and non-citizens. The separation of the two into legions and auxiliaries became blurred so it is difficult to identify the origin of the troops as time passed.

 

Many of the so-called German officers were possibly citizens like Stilicho, who was the son of a Germanic officer and Roman mother. His father would have been awarded citizenship during or on completion of his service. Aetius was another offspring of a mixed Roman/foreginer marriage.

 

There are no confirmed indicators that Roman soldiers wore less armor or were less well trained than their earlier counter-parts. Vegetius is a poor source as he was ignorant of the military. His book was written to curry favor with the emperor and he was a civil servant with no military experience. His popularity is due in part to the fact that his book survived while others did not.

 

In fact there are some indications that armor was used more extensively than in earlier times. The addition of heavily armored cavalry is one example and the use of arm and leg armor among infantry is plausible. One fact to consider is that very little Roman armor survives from any period, less than 5%. What is available may be limited to one or two examples in reality. Speculation has been employed to fill in many of the blanks despite the lack of physical evidence.

 

For anyone interested in this subject, be careful about the sources. A limited number of contemporary sources such as Vegetius form the basis of modern knowledge. There are many good modern books, although most use the same information, which is not always obvious because the bibliography may seem impressive. Most of the information can be traced back to a few contemporary sources, which are often cited. Saying the same thing a thousand times does not make it more true just more commonly stated.

[metforce]

Some experts feel that the late Roman army really wasnt` Roman at all but mostly German or German blends. So the legions at their decline and even when they stopped the Huns there were few Roman left. I have read that Romans did every thing they can to not fight for Rome and even prefered the German tribes! Some say the population decrease and just the intense assimilation that occured that the 'Romans' just ceased to be. The Germans being the greatest in numbers became the Roman legions. Any truth?

 

 

The "Germanization" of the Roman army is probably slightly exaggerated. Many of these "barbarians' had served in the Roman legions well before the dissolution of the western empire. Franks served in Julian

[Virgil61]

...

There are no confirmed indicators that Roman soldiers wore less armor or were less well trained than their earlier counter-parts. Vegetius is a poor source as he was ignorant of the military. His book was written to curry favor with the emperor and he was a civil servant with no military experience. His popularity is due in part to the fact that his book survived while others did not.

...

 

There may be not confirmed indicators but there is substantial circumstantial evidence that lends credence to the theory that Roman infantry wasn't at the high standards it was under the Principate. Rather than repost them here you can read an earlier post by me on the subject. While Vegetius shouldn't be a sole source because of his background and intent one can suppose he certainly would have been acquainted on whether the older training and tactics he wrote about where still in effect. While I would take his writings with some caution, whatever his background, he was a contemporary and wasn't writing in a vacuum.

[Jimbow]

Vegetius is a poor source as he was ignorant of the military.

One of the more cited reasons for doubting Vegetius is his account of the distance a Roman legion could march in a day, which many have deemed highly unlikely. However, a bunch of re-enactors had a lively discussion on that very subject and one had a "Eureka!" moment when he realised the Roman day was split between sunrise and sundown, unlike in modern times. Assuming Vegetius was thinking of campaign season (summer having the longest days) he was bang on with his estimate, after a whole bunch, including me, had been pacing up and down measuring how far we had marched in a given time and had done a lot of maths. Vegetius may not be as unreliable as many think, imho.

 

Cheers,

Jim.

[Neos Dionysos]

Many of the so-called German officers were possibly citizens like Stilicho, who was the son of a Germanic officer and Roman mother.

 

You know I've always wondered about this. I mean, I know it to be a true statement just, how was he viewed since afterall, marriage b/w Romans and Germanic peoples were illegal and forbidden under Roman law.

 

Vegetius is a poor source as he was ignorant of the military. His book was written to curry favor with the emperor and he was a civil servant with no military experience. His popularity is due in part to the fact that his book survived while others did not.

 

If he was a such a poor source then I would say it is quite odd so many modern historians use him. Understandlbly they may doubt or contradict some things here or there... but if he was so unreiable they would not use him to the extent of which they do.

Edited February 1, 2006 by Neos Dionysos

[Kosmo]

The legions dissapered sometime in the late third century. In late empire the romans had a garrison force, largely infantry, on the limes and a strike force of cavalry in key positions behind them.

Roman army always had a lot of mercenaries like the gauls used by Caesar and Crassus or the numids used by Traian in Dacia. In the late emire had less to choose from as germans were on most borders. They were not barbarians and knew the empire well.

[Primus Pilus]

The legions dissapered sometime in the late third century. In late empire the romans had a garrison force, largely infantry, on the limes and a strike force of cavalry in key positions behind them.

Roman army always had a lot of mercenaries like the gauls used by Caesar and Crassus or the numids used by Traian in Dacia. In the late emire had less to choose from as germans were on most borders. They were not barbarians and knew the empire well.

 

The legions did not disappear in the 3rd century. The nature of the army had changed but it had certainly not disappeared. If not the legions, then who marched with Constantine in the 4th century? Romans also never used mercenaries in the way we associate the term in a modern sense. While we can find comparisons with auxilia and mercenaries, auxilia was a part of the main army and was integrated within it. They were not simply armed groups of men or tribes for hire to the highest bidder.

 

The degradation of the army in overall effectiveness is well attested in the late imperial period, but the descriptions provided are also not quite right.

[Kosmo]

It is true the legions did not disappear in the third century, but were small (about 1000 men) units relegated to garrison duty. The backbone will be from now on the elite cavalry units. There is no mention of legions after the middle of the 5 century.

[Neos Dionysos]

It is true the legions did not disappear in the third century, but were small (about 1000 men) units relegated to garrison duty. The backbone will be from now on the elite cavalry units. There is no mention of legions after the middle of the 5 century.

 

Well of course that's because in the middle 5th Century Rome, (as many historians believe), fell in the West and this is our normal date for the fall of Rome overral.

 

The backbone of the army was not an elite cavalry base, the backbone was the comestitaes units, perhaps you can then rightly argue that the true backbone of this force was the axilia palatinae which served as the Roman Emperor's field army in replace of the Praetorian Guard.

 

Legions were reduced to around 1000-2000 troops in strength due to the changes in structure and makeup of how the army would function as more of a reactionary force. The Froniters were guarded by border forces and troops of garrison quality, while the main field armies were in the back of the fronts and stationed and billeted in cities, not large cavalry vexelations, only one large cavalry force is attested and this was from the reign of Galienus but it was broke up soon after.