why was the roman army of the late emprie inferior to that in the early empire (1st century CE)

[Flavius Aetius]

I checked Elton again and the statement SigniferOne posted about the lack of archaeological evidence concerning armour is indeed true but he didn't posted Elton's conclusions about it and not doing it tends to offer a different picture then the one we can read in his book.

(P. 110.)
“In 350 most Roman infantry and cavalry wore armour, giving them a distinct advantage over their barbarians enemies." [...] Vegetius says that all regiments dispensed with armour and helmets, because of the weight of their equipment. This may refer to the abandonment of armour by some troops but it seems unlikely that the whole army did so, for several reasons.

First heavy armour was not new to this period. Secondly, it is difficult to think of any tactical reason by which all the infantry would benefit from its abandonment. Thirdly, Vegetius’ remark that unprotected soldiers suffered that unprotected soldiers suffered from Gothic archers reinforces the likelihood that this abandonment would not have been widespread. It seems likely that Vegetius misinterpreted a source such as that which Zosimus had (probably Eunapius) for the Gothic Wars of the 370s, recording that Modares “ordered his men, armed only with swords and shields and disdaining heavier armour, to abandon the usual fighting in close order”. But because of Vegetius’ explicit statement, a suggestion that most late Roman infantry wore armour needs some qualification. (p. 111) There are several reasons to suggest that armour was used by infantry throughout this period.

[Paragraph about types of armour]

Evidence for continued use of armour by infantry is widespread. First, the mid-sixht century Byzantine army is known to have had large numbers of armoured infantry. Illustrations of these men and literary descriptions are similar to fourth-century illustrations. It seems unlikely that identical equipment was reintroduced in the sixth century after falling out of use in the fourth. Secondly, armour continued to be produced. The Notitia Dignitatum records (p.112) numbers of fabricae producing scutaria et armorum, with armorum here probably meaning armour rather than weapons. Two factories are also recorded as producing loricaria. Though production of armour continued, this does not prove it was used by infantry. The illustrations, postdating Gratian’s reign (for Eastern and Western fabricae) in the Notitia show mail shirts, muscle cuirasses, and jointed-plate limb defences.

Lastly, artistic evidence shows many fifth-century soldiers wearing armour. The representations may be stylized, but the consistency of representation and the differences from illustrations of the early empire suggest little distortion occured.

[Detailed discussion of artistic evidence for about a page]

(p. 113) The argument for large numbers of armoured infantry is complicated by the lack of archaeological evidence. There is very little surviving armour dating from this period. According to Robinson, “actual Roman mail has survived in rare instances”. Since it is composed of intrinsically undatable iron rings, vulnerable to corrosion, this is not surprising. Archaeological evidence for lorica segmentata in the first and second centuries is much more common, but only because of the survival of the easily broken bronze hinges and fasteners, and there are only a few surviving iron plates in exceptional cases such as Corbridge. Before, lorica segmentata was introduced, from the second century BC to at least the mid first century AD, the entire Roman army wore mail. After this, though segmentata was used by most legionaries, auxiliaries, cavalry and some legionaries continued to wear mail. However, there is little archaeological evidence for (p. 114) mail armour throughout this period and the only surviving complete coats come from a collapsed mine at Dura Europos [which is from mid IIIrd century AD.]. This scarcity suggests that a lack of surviving late Roman armour is not conclusive.



Vegetius also claims that helmets were abandoned under Gratian, though this seems unlikely for reasons similar to those just adduced for the lack of abandonment of armour. Furthermore, a number have actually survived, dating to the fourth and early fifth centuries.”

And his conclusions (p. 265)

“Here I have argued that there was little perceptible decline in the effectiveness of the army during the period 350-425.”

(p. 268)

“Military failure may have been a major cause of the West’s collpase, but this failure was not caused by structural weaknesses in the army itself. [then follows what Signifer One has already posted in his last quote].

This was long, but I think it was necessary to have a bigger picture of his argument for everyone. I would also like to post quotes of Nicasie, Schmitt and Richardot on the matter but I’m a bit tired of typing and I would have to translate them as well, so later when I’ll have time.

[Flavius Nevitta]

Thank you for your post Aetius.

I'd like to add a very brief summary of the chapter on armour used by the army of the Dominate from Bishop&Coulston: Roman Military Equipment. 2nd Edition; Oxford 2006:

I'll make this very short as it basically just supports your quotes from Elton:

p.208ff:

Body armour:

In the beginning they talk about archaeological discoveries of scales from Trier, maille from Weiler-la-Tour and Independenta (late 4th early 5th century).

Then they state that "[M]onuments of the tetrarchy, Constantine and the House of Theodosius show mainly unarmoured soldiers, or men in scale". Then they note that depictions of muscled cuirasses follow the tradition of art.
Next part is about Vegetius and the interpretation of those depictions mentioned before. Their point is that sculptures can not safely be interpreted and Vegetius possibly wrote about Eastern forces right after Adrianopolis and that his statement can not be extended to the whole time of the Dominate nor to the Western half of the Empire.

After that they go on about other art depicting soldiers in armour (a relief in the Vatican, an egyptian sculpture depicting a battle, a painting in a catacomb in Rome, the Vergilius Vaticanus, the Notitia Dignitatum, and the De Rebus Bellicis).

This is followed by the statement that the "pictorial evidence is still unsatisfactorily sparse".

Next: "Vegetius advocated heavy armour, including greaves, for the front ranks of his legionary infantry formation, and this is consistent with Ammianus' references to infantry helmets and body armour, and with known 6th century and later practice".

I can add a summary about the chapter on helmets later as well if someone wants that.

[SigniferOne]

EDIT: I'll just put it in its own thread. Flavius Aetius, sorry for the long wait, let's continue our discussion there.

[Flavius Aetius]

You mean the discussion in the thread you made about eyewitnesses of the empire's end or you want to continue the discussion about the Late Roman army?

[Carpathian Wolf]

Late Roman as in western roman empire that was falling or late roman empire as in "byzantine"?

[SigniferOne]

You mean the discussion in the thread you made about eyewitnesses of the empire's end or you want to continue the discussion about the Late Roman army?

It's up to you where you'll want to continue the Hugh Elton discussion. I had a chance to go over his book yet again, and my impression was strengthened even further. I know he says that the effectiveness of the army didn't seem (to him) to weaken, but that's a more subjective judgment. The factual aspect, which he sums up, is that a very large proportion of the army charged with protecting Roman borders wasn't even Roman.

The significance I attach to this statistic doesn't even involve battle effectiveness. What I see in it is a lowering degree of patriotism on behalf of the Roman armies. Otho and Vitellius could attack each other and duke it out with their armies, but I'm certain without a doubt that if they knew the whole civilization was about to collapse and at stake, they'd put a pause on their hostility and take care of the hostile menace instead. Or if one of them invited a Germanic army for help, why the whole Roman nation would skin him alive I'm sure; it simply is inconceivable in that context. Now let's take a Roman army that would be filled with Germanics: why should they care about such strange and subjective things as civilization? Literature? What quaint topics, may they burn in the bonfire, surely. Germanics needed to get a loaf of food on the table, and somewhere to sleep at night, and if it meant irreparably destroying a precious city, then so be it. In fact, why not?

But even beyond that, an even further significance attached to this topic is what it tells us of the Romans themselves. They knew their world was coming to an end, their very way of life and all that they held sacred was slowly being eviscerated forever, by implacable opponents immune to a sensitive judgment or a delicate literary sensibility. What did they do in defense of their civilization? The word is pretty harrowing.... nothing.

[jon1]

It's up to you where you'll want to continue the Hugh Elton discussion. I had a chance to go over his book yet again, and my impression was strengthened even further. I know he says that the effectiveness of the army didn't seem (to him) to weaken, but that's a more subjective judgment. The factual aspect, which he sums up, is that a very large proportion of the army charged with protecting Roman borders wasn't even Roman.

The significance I attach to this statistic doesn't even involve battle effectiveness. What I see in it is a lowering degree of patriotism on behalf of the Roman armies.

Sorry, but what are you actually talking about? Since when was 'patriotism' a requirement for military capability - if so, then Sassanian Persia would have fallen long before Rome. Just because the soldiers were recruited from outside of Italy in Gaul/Illyria etc. doesn't mean they had no stake in their romanitas, indeed, due to their signing-up to the 'colours', they probably felt more attached to the Empire (not necessarily the reigning emperor though!)

If you're attempting to adduce the fall of the western half of the Roman Empire to cultural factors, then you havn't read enough.

Now let's take a Roman army that would be filled with Germanics: why should they care about such strange and subjective things as civilization? Literature? What quaint topics, may they burn in the bonfire, surely. Germanics needed to get a loaf of food on the table, and somewhere to sleep at night, and if it meant irreparably destroying a precious city, then so be it. In fact, why not?

Because the Romans were just oh-so-civilized when sacking Carthage, Corinth, Syracuse, Seleukeia while they were building an empire? Soldiers from all nations in history have trampled underfoot some of civilization's finest achievements - and to a starving soldier what's more important, food or a book?

But even beyond that, an even further significance attached to this topic is what it tells us of the Romans themselves. They knew their world was coming to an end, their very way of life and all that they held sacred was slowly being eviscerated forever, by implacable opponents immune to a sensitive judgment or a delicate literary sensibility. What did they do in defense of their civilization? The word is pretty harrowing.... nothing.

So the British should have fought to the bitter end rather than lose the Empire? I know it's not an exact parallel, because of the distinction between forms of empire.

There are multiple reasons why the landowning classes cut deals with the barbarian successor kingdoms, mostly to do with the fact that their primary assets were immovable landed estates. Do you not also think that self-assured landowning social elites viewed themselves as very capable of manipulating 'inferior' barbaric monarchs into providing them with the same, or even greater, levels of independence from taxation/interference than under the empire? And, given the empire's longevity, do you not believe the landowners viewed the barbarians as a merely temporary phenomenon?

[Flavius Aetius]

Concerning Elton, I'll just repeat what both you and I said in the other thread: He said that bout a quarter of the soldiers were likely to have non-imperial origins (p.152).

Fair enough for patriotism, that is the opinion of S. Mazzarino, La fine del mondo antico (1959).

For Galba, Vitellius, Otho and even Vespasian, I don't really see their care for literature, arts and son on in the conflict. As in every Roman and Ancient war, cities are sacked, people raped, killed, buildings burned. The cruelty of a sack is in my opinion not related to the fact that the soldiers or the general love literature, but rather to the amount of control the general has over it army, and to what extent he wants to loot. The sack of Cremona by Vespasian's troops is not very pleasant (Tac. Hist. III, 33), nor the killing of the entire population of Avaricum by Caesar (BG, VII, 28). I'm not pointing at these to say that the Romans were murderers but to say that destruction of cities was common in war, whether fought by literate people or not.

Concerning this Roman army filled with Germans, what kind of Germans? Where were they living, what were their interaction with the Romans before?
What is a German? The definition of barbarian itself can be quite difficult to establish. If he has been living for a generation in the empire, will he be labeled as a barbarian? Moreover, many tribes have been in contact with the Romans for generations and Ammianus tells that the Alamanni living near the Rhine had built their houses "quite carefully after the Roman fashion" (XVII, 1,7) Whether they were Roman houses occupied by Alamanni or built by them, they did not destroy everything as cavemen. As I hope you can see, "barbarian" or "German" are adjectives that are to be treated with caution, because they can refer to many different situations.

Even if your proposed Roman army filled with Germans were illiterate cavemen bent on burning every single book, I don't see how a Roman army would care more about it. I mean, you can't say that every Roman soldier cared about books, nor could read. Like I said earlier, I think it is up to the general in command, each case being a separate one.

As for your last paragraph, in my opinion you reduce a huge phenomenon to a single cause which could be related to say, a flood, where people would fully understand what is going on and do nothing to work at the barricade. To say the Romans did nothing to defend themselves is in my opinion not true. There was plenty of fighting. For instance, what about the 468 expedition against the Vandals?

[SigniferOne]

Sorry, it's my fault for diffusing the topic among two threads. I moved my response to the thread which I started.

[ray243]

Seriously, to all those early Roman empire or LS armour supporters, stop treating the Roman empire as an ideal and pure empire, that got weak because of the Barbarian influence.

The empire is strong because they adapt to their enemies, and learn from them. The Romans continued to change over the years, from the early armies in the Roman Republic to the late Roman empire armies.

The Roman empire is not a static empire.

[Emperor Caesar]

I'm glad I come upon threads like this and keep myself read up on Roman history. Only a few years ago I was watching television that was still giving me the "barbarisation" spiel. I am particularly interested in the later Empire, mainly the 3rd century crisis. I will admit that I am a "fanboy" of the gladius and segmentata legionaries, but I'm no amateur to real Roman history. I would definitely agree that the late army was just as effective as the earlier imperial and republican armies. The tactics (classic legions to limitenai and comitatenses) and organization adapted to the changing barbarians. To my knowledge, the Germanic tribes were becoming better armed and more organized as the centuries went on and they had continued contact with Rome. You could only consider the army a tad bit more barbarized because the use of foederati increased, but it had always been used in some form or another.

It's not to say the late Roman army was inferior, but that her enemies became more effective.

[Cyclops]

...
It's not to say the late Roman army was inferior, but that her enemies became more effective.

This is interesting and I have to agree.

I'd observe the late Western army did suffer in terms of some degree of bararisation, in that less citizens were in it, and the corollary of that is non-Romans with Roman military experience.

The Republic suffered a terrible crisis in the late 2nd century BCE when two tribal groups, I guess hordes, shook theiur way out of Germany and into Gaul and Iberia. The state massively overhauled the military and within a decade had smashed the Cimbri and Teutones. The political aftershocks of those reforms went on for decades afterwards.

The late Western Empire experienced almost a century of that kind of horde activity. In the end one could argue the Western Empire was extinguished by the military reforms as much as the invsasions themselves, as a Barbarian general sent the regalia to Constantinople. Hordes might not be pretty but they put effective pressure on the Roman military.

I'd just like to mention the role of Iranian and Iranian-influenced tribes in horde formation (through conquest or indeirect pressure): all those dudes riding in off the steppe made a big dent across the Empire, and I think they played a critical role as catalysts and agents of change.

[BroskiDerpman]

The stuff you'll read below is just an opinion.

Like many things that happen in life they can be traced back to series of events, or you might as well say your own life is simply a bunch of series of events.

What caused the decline of the military is through a long period of times with many events that eventually to the collapse of Rome. The military branch adapted to the times inch by inch but there isn't really any long term foresight that's like; In one hundred and fifty years Rome will collapse, we need to do this, that, and that, they simply have no clue and just try to counter their opponents. Many adaptations are like short term investments or just things people won't really notice changing radically. Like equipment changes are a long chain of events which the average civilian probably didn't really notice, etc.

In the end the empire collapsed on itself like a sports car trying to carry a gigantic boulder, it just got over bloated especially with many short sighted decisions which lead to powerful Feodorati bands, or ravaged lands from raids, depleting recruit numbers,etc the empire simply couldn't sustain what weight it has put itself into from numerous small mistakes.

Then indirectly due to Feodorati or other foreign units and frequent clashes with other people you see cultural exchange and the slow molding of Roman society to something different. As the empire crumbles Feodorati bands, powerful aristocrats and other powerful figures start vying more for individual power, etc. Each event after the other, the Romans introduce new things one at a time to adapt and eventually they're a whole different being but due to all the pressure they were taking and how other peoples were essentially molding Roman society, Rome essentially is like the host of all the future kingdoms. The Roman military may look good on paper during late antiquity as it's a adaptation but the society itself is so corrupted the military becomes extremely corrupt with the society. Its slow exchange with other peoples is adapting but in a way those other people are molding the new face of Rome and when Rome did collapse they fitted in, the other peoples adapted to Rome and influenced Rome; They adapted and won in the end.


The slow decline of Rome itself affects everything, even it's military as the military is shaped by the people.

[Count Raviolli]

You asked why the Late Roman Army was inferior to it's earlier counterpart...

Answer:It wasn't.

Sure, there were manpower problems. Sure coinage was rather debased and coming up with salaries for all those hordes of new soldiers mustered to fight the Persians was a bit iffy but...

If anything, I'd say that the army Post-Constantine was actually SUPERIOR to that of Caesar. Think about it: Romans now had access to horse archers, cataphracts (vs. the Republican cavalry who's lances bounced so much they couldn't hit the side of a barn, let alone a moving target), CROSSBOWS, and all those wonderful siege weapons (the Scorpion, for one thing) that had yet to be invented in Caesar's day...

OK: not sure about the Scorpion but I definitely recall that the profusion of light artillery among the Legions DEFINITELY increased in later centuries.

Also: the Late army, despite it's shortages (paper strength was definitely NOT field strength) was potentially TWICE AS LARGE as the original. Sure the shield became an oval, the old Lorica Segmentata virtually disappeared, and the sword grew a bit , but in my mind the Legions of Constantine would handily defeat those of Caesar, particularly because Caesar was not that good of general, and moral-wise Constantine was about his equal.

In all: the army had evolved to face all those enemies that had roundly defeated the Romans in the earlier centuries. There was MUCH more diversity, and (well, depending on your century) discipline really wasn't compromised, even in integrated "Roman" and "Barbarian" units.

Just don't put Flavius Ricimer in charge and you'll be OK.

And NO: the Limintaei (spelled wrong, sorry) were NOT part-time militia! They only replaced valuable legionaries guarding the border so the "real" soldiers could act as a mobile reserve...

Oh: and please refer to Julian's defeat of the lovely Alamenni for some evidence of how the Roman army could still crack skulls in the mid 350's. And yes, I spelled that wrong. Apologies. Why couldn't temporary Germanic tribal confederations have easier names, like "Anti-Rome" or "Walmart" or "Kill Bill?"

Guess it's too much to ask to expect them to speak modern English...
Sigh...

[hellheaven1987]

Nice necro-post.

[ArmoredCore]

Constant warfare will wear anyone out at some point, especially when fighting on all sides. Rome held its own against Persia and the Asian hordes, but then their 'allies' from the West turned on them and sacked Constantinople. That was about the beginning of the end in my book. Afterwards their fate was sealed by the rise of the Ottomans.

[hellheaven1987]

but then their 'allies' from the West turned on them and sacked Constantinople.

That is what happened when people tried to terminate a legal contract illegally.

[Ecthelion]

The Late Imperial army was technologically superior to any of its contemporaries, and to the early Imperial legions that preceded it.

The problem was poor morale, a defensive mentality and political instability at the top.

Though I would argue that any Imperial Army is inferior to the citizen militias of the Republic in terms of morale and political cohesion.
A professional army is a double edge sword, it owes its allegiance to its Imperator, not to the Res Publica. Even if it is more efficient in the field, it is not an army of the people, but rather one of the elite.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The Late Roman army's main issue was usually manpower and/or funding considering it was considerably larger than the Principate army. Competent leadership made it nearly invincible though; men like Aetius and Majorian for example.

[Mausolos of Caria]

I can only agree with you guys, the Late West Roman army just suffered from structural problems. The emperors did not lead the armies themselves anymore and had to save cash, which led to an increasing recruitment of foreign mercenaries, foederati and bucelarii. This led to a situation where the magister militi rivalled each other for fame and influence on the empire and the emperor and their non-citizen troops were only loyal to them and not to the emperor. On the other hand, this led to a constant mistrust by the emperors and their court of the magister militi, many of them of ''Barbarian'' descent themselves.
Due to the manpower problems and the rivalries between different generals, they often spared the lives of the Barbarian invaders to recruit them for their own armies. To illustrate this with an example, when Stilicho faced the Goths of Radagaisus, he did manage to win a crushing and decisive victory at Faesulae in 406 AD. But instead of purging the surviving Goths, Stilicho added them to his own army. Even though he held no (most likely) intention to become emperor himself, Honorius and his advisors were suspicious of him and arranged his assassination. Following the death of their leader, the newly recruited Goths and other foederati troops and mercenaries joined the ranks of Alarich, who suddenly found himself equipped with a force superior to anything the Western Empire could mobilize anymore. This led to the sack of Rome in 410 AD, without any decisive defeat of the West Roman army.