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

[Ecthelion]

Also, in regards to the economic situation, the crippling economic problems of the 3rd century had been resolved by the 4th, which experienced economic growth in Africa, Syria, and Egypt as the centers of agriculture and production shifted. Also debasement of currency wasn't a problem either as archaeological finds (and imperial law) show that the Solidus wasn't debased until the 10th century AD, and the Semissis, Tremissis, and Siliqua remained stable as well.

I'm glad someone mentioned this. It's a popular myth that needs debunking. There's fairly conclusive archaeological evidence that shows the 4th and early 5th centuries were quite economically productive ones for the Empire with new towns still being established, particularly in the East, thanks to the relative peace on the Persian front.

The Third Century, in overall economic terms, was a far more trying period in Roman history.

Mike Duncan said it best "The question isn't why the Roman Empire fell, but what didn't it fall earlier".

If the Empire could survive the Crisis years thanks to inspired leadership under the Illyrians, then it can survive anything. Unfortunately, there was no Aurelian or Diocletian in the 5th century to save the Empire. That man didn't come till Justinian I, by which time it was already too late, two entire generations had grown up since the fall of central Imperial authority.

[Cyclops]

So my contact with the economic research was in the late 80's, I'm not aware of the new data on the complete economic recovery of the West in the 4th and 5th centuries.

I do recall the East was less catastrophically affected as it had a more established network of cities and trade, and enjoyed trade with points east less interrupted by strife than the West.

I think the accepted position for Britain (for example) was that trade peaked in the first or second centuries AD: a quick wiki shows the grain trade may have recovered a little after the crisis of the 3rd century but confirms the island dwindled in importance long before the garrisons evacuated.

I have a vague memory that the olive oil trade in Hispania collapsed in the third century too, and never recovered. Happy to see sources that this has been overturned.

On the other hand there's a nice article about the Province of Africa experiencing fairly steady growth right up tot he Vandal invasion, and thats certainly in the Western sphere. I guess Rome had to be kept fed, and they may have stayed out of the civil wars.

[Ecthelion]

So my contact with the economic research was in the late 80's, I'm not aware of the new data on the complete economic recovery of the West in the 4th and 5th centuries.

I do recall the East was less catastrophically affected as it had a more established network of cities and trade, and enjoyed trade with points east less interrupted by strife than the West.

I think the accepted position for Britain (for example) was that trade peaked in the first or second centuries AD: a quick wiki shows the grain trade may have recovered a little after the crisis of the 3rd century but confirms the island dwindled in importance long before the garrisons evacuated.

I have a vague memory that the olive oil trade in Hispania collapsed in the third century too, and never recovered. Happy to see sources that this has been overturned.

On the other hand there's a nice article about the Province of Africa experiencing fairly steady growth right up tot he Vandal invasion, and thats certainly in the Western sphere. I guess Rome had to be kept fed, and they may have stayed out of the civil wars.

From what we understand, the peace on the Persian front was a huge boon for the East. From the disastrous year of 406 to the final abdication of Romulus, there was not a single great war with the Persians. That’s got to be a record.

With the greatest existential threat to the Eastern Empire placated, the ERE was able to focus its vast resources on development.

It also helped that since the ascension of Theodosius I, the ERE had seen relative political stability. For the first time in a long time, more Emperors were dying of natural causes than the rather unnatural cause of 4 inches of steel in the back.

Things were not as rosy in the Western half, but this was nothing new. Since the conquests of Pompey the Great, the East had always been the richer half of the Empire.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I'm glad someone mentioned this. It's a popular myth that needs debunking. There's fairly conclusive archaeological evidence that shows the 4th and early 5th centuries were quite economically productive ones for the Empire with new towns still being established, particularly in the East, thanks to the relative peace on the Persian front.

The Third Century, in overall economic terms, was a far more trying period in Roman history.

Mike Duncan said it best "The question isn't why the Roman Empire fell, but what didn't it fall earlier".

If the Empire could survive the Crisis years thanks to inspired leadership under the Illyrians, then it can survive anything. Unfortunately, there was no Aurelian or Diocletian in the 5th century to save the Empire. That man didn't come till Justinian I, by which time it was already too late, two entire generations had grown up since the fall of central Imperial authority.

There were. They were called Constantius III, Aetius, and Majorian. The difference was that they didn't have North Africa's revenue, or a united Empire to keep the army maintained.

I have a vague memory that the olive oil trade in Hispania collapsed in the third century too, and never recovered. Happy to see sources that this has been overturned.

It moved to Mauretania (Morrocco/Algeirs) mostly, where they grew grain on the coasts and Olive oil for about 100 miles inland. Heather talks about it in his Fall of the Roman Empire actually. That was back when North Africa was a mediterranean climate.

On the other hand there's a nice article about the Province of Africa experiencing fairly steady growth right up tot he Vandal invasion, and thats certainly in the Western sphere. I guess Rome had to be kept fed, and they may have stayed out of the civil wars.

Whomever controlled the grain supply controlled the fate of the Empire. North African Red Clay Pottery is usually the key indicator for what the economy was like in this period, it's studied quite heavily.

From what we understand, the peace on the Persian front was a huge boon for the East. From the disastrous year of 406 to the final abdication of Romulus, there was not a single great war with the Persians. That’s got to be a record.

Theodosius II declared war on the Persians twice in 421 and 442, but these amounted to little more than skirmishes and problems with the Chionite Huns, and later Hepthaltites, kept them busy. Eventually the Hepthaltites vassalized the Sassanid Empire under Peroz. There wasn't a real conflict until 502 AD.

[Diocle]

Rome in the Late Antiquity, and Adrianople is the perfect example, was able to field and deploy on the battlefield (not on the Notia's paper, but on the real battlefield) ONLY an army composed by 30.000 men, in a battle which would have changed its history, that is, something like only 6 old legions, and this is called shortage in manpower.

[Ludicus]

the 4th and early 5th centuries were quite economically productive ones for the Empire with new towns still being established, particularly in the East, thanks to the relative peace on the Persian front....The Third Century, in overall economic terms, was a far more trying period in Roman history.

The united empire in the later years of the 4th century was powerful, and possessed considerable resources,but was not so large/powerful /prosperous, as it had been in 300. And certainly, it was weaker than it had been in the 1th and 2th centuries. Internal instability continued to plague the empire throughout the 4th century, with a continual wearing effect on the army and bureaucracy- and the division of the empire in 395 did nothing to improve this situation.

Diocle

Adrianople is the perfect example, was able to field and deploy on the battlefield (not on the Notia's paper, but on the real battlefield) ONLY an army composed by 30.000 men

Or even less, my good friend. In fact some modern estimates put both the armies ( Roman and Gothic) around the 15,000 mark; but we don't know how big such regiments were, how many of the tribunes who died commanded units, or how many survived. The numbers are conjectural.We know that Valens was expecting to deal with with 10,000 Goths (Ammianus). So we don't know if this would mean numerical advantage or parity.

[Ecthelion]

There were. They were called Constantius III, Aetius, and Majorian. The difference was that they didn't have North Africa's revenue, or a united Empire to keep the army maintained.

I really can't put those three on the same level as Aurelian or Diocletian, especially not Aurelian, he was really the man who saved the Empire. The title of restitutor orbitus is befitting him as no other Emperor.
Majorian and Aetius both tried to retake North Africa from the Vandals and both failed. In Majorian's case, it was very much his bad. Aetius wasn't able to keep his Hunnic allies in line. Constantius III still had Africa. And he was far more bogged down with his desire for Imperial recognition.

[Anna_Gein]

lol at people who estimate the Late army manpower on Andrinople alone. I am particularly surprised to see you Diolce in the list as you proposed Ad Salices as an historical battle for IB : FD.

It is so sad to see people blathering the same stupid misconception and ignorant moral judgment 6 years after the thread opened and to see how of all the people who pretend to discuss this matter, few bothered to read the thread from the beginning or took a look at all the sources given.

Cavalry spatha used by infantry,massive barbarization of the army with the elite composed of foreigner only, limitanei as poor milice. 6 years after and all the misconceptions are still here

[Ludicus]

lol at people who estimate the Late army manpower... or took a look at all the sources given

Well, its not easy to reconcile your position ( the claim that the army was massive) with the course of events in the late 4th or 5th centuries - and with a realistic interpretation of the Notitia Dignitatis - because the army at times seems invisible.

---

It is so sad to see people blathering the same stupid misconception and ignorant ...

Or is it the opposite?
Someone wrote..."At times, when reading descriptions by modern historians of the warfare in this period, its difficult to avoid the image of Hitler in his lasts days, planning grand offensives on a map with divisions that had long ceased to exist"

[Anna_Gein]

Well, its not easy to reconcile your position ( the claim that the army was massive) with the course of events in the late 4th or 5th centuries - and with a realistic interpretation of the Notitia Dignitatis - because the army at times seems invisible.

Actually it is extremely simple. Either the army had far more success than its supposed horrifying state should have allowed it or it had quite some resources including manpower. The Gothic War is a perfect example of it. And it was during a difficult moment for the period.

I find it dishonest to present this conflict as if the Eastern Half could only opposed 30 000 men against the Goths.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The Eastern Half had several field armies: the Thracian Field Army alone was 27,000 men (I know this one specifically because I did the math for one of my EU4 campaings, lol), the Illyrian Field Army about as large. There was the Praesentalis I field army on the Chersonesus (Gallipoli) which numbered between 15-20,000 men, the Praesentalis II army on the other side of the Bosporus from Gallipoli which numbered another 15-20,000 men, and of course the Oriental Field army in Syria, which was the largest at around 40,000-50,000 men.

My estimates for the Notitia Dignitatum I used to have online, but I took them down to do proper source citation. They are based on figures in literary sources between the 4th-6th centuries, and are based on a 600 man Numerus, 1000 man Legion, and other reasonable amounts like that. It'll be back up on Academia.edu eventually, but it provides realistic paper-strength estimates for the Western Roman army in 419, and accounts for recorded military losses prior to that period (such as the destruction of the 5 Dalmatian legions by Alaric in 409).

[Ludicus]

Either the army had far more success than its supposed horrifying state should have allowed it or it had quite some resources including manpower. The Gothic War is a perfect example of it

The Gothic War is a perfect example of a disaster; more properly, it was a road to disaster. From the beginning until the end. It took six long years to force the surrender of a very a small number of Goths (no more than 10,000 warriors crossed the Danube) after the Roman disasters of Marcianolopis, Dibaltum, Deultum, and finally Adrianople. In fact the Goths were not fully defeated, they got what they wanted -they settled on land in Thrace. Keep in mind that the same Goths that killed Valens-those who settled in 382, contributed substantially to Theodosius's army - and later, we should keep in mind that the Goths were an enemy that came from within the empire, as a consequence of the earlier failure to defeat them fully in 382.
-----
Btw, the numbers in Notitia Dignitatis are flawed for several reasons.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

There are no numbers in the Notitia Dignitatum, they have to be extrapolated using other sources and corresponding them to unit types (e.g. Legion, Cuneus, Cohort, etc)

[Ludicus]

There are no numbers in the Notitia Dignitatum...they have to be extrapolated

Precisely.What I mean -it is the list of army units that is the basis for some claims that the army was massive.As you said, "paper strength".
N.Dignitatis lists the officially recognized positions, and the listing of a regiment (along with its shield device) meant that it existed as far as officialdom was concerned. The unit could be under-strength or not, or even inexistent, or the regiments may have existed only in paper. In some cases there were several commanders granted the same commission. It means that the actual number of troops was likely to be lower. A fact remains- during the war of 376/382 the army found it very difficult to deal with a small number of enemies.

[Anna_Gein]

10 000 for the whole conflict ? Meh most estimations account more at Adrianople alone.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Precisely.What I mean -it is the list of army units that is the basis for some claims that the army was massive.As you said, "paper strength".
N.Dignitatis lists the officially recognized positions, and the listing of a regiment (along with its shield device) meant that it existed as far as officialdom was concerned. The unit could be under-strength or not, or even inexistent, or the regiments may have existed only in paper. In some cases there were several commanders granted the same commission. It means that the actual number of troops was likely to be lower. A fact remains- during the war of 376/382 the army found it very difficult to deal with a small number of enemies.

This is why as I mentioned above, I gave both Paper Strength estimates (220,000 men), and operational strength estimates (154,000-176,000 men). Of course, there were units in Roman history that were very close to paper strength, and some were even overstrength!

[Ludicus]

most estimations account more at Adrianople alone.

How many crossed the Danube in the beginning of the conflict? the numbers are conjectural, but a modern estimate suggests some 10, 000 warriors, along with 4 or even 5x as many women, elderly and children. At some point, Fritigern's band was joined by the Greuthungi and other warbands that crossed the Danube without permission-why? because the Roman troops on the frontier were incapable of preventing this.

The Roman army was not able to launch a decisive attack, the army operated in small detachments using an harassing strategy. Only once they concentrated to launch an attack (Ad Salices), the Goths were outnumbered, but in the end the Romans withdrew some days later, and they returned to the harassing strategy.Valens made peace with Persia in 377,gathered an army and the rest is history. At Adrianople the numbers are conjectural, but Valen's patrols reported that the enemy numbered about 10,000. Ammianus fails to tell how large the Gothic army was.

In fact, of the major battles of these campaigns, the Romans were beaten three times. It took six years to force the surrender of the Goths, and it was not a complete victory. What we have here is an army that operated in small scale, using ambush, harassing the enemy, and this clear shows (for whatever reason) a shortage of manpower. In summary this is not an impressive record for an allegedly large and efficient roman army, because in practice it seems to have struggled to find enough men to deal with the tribes. In the end the empire "won" because it had huge resources, not because the army was efficient.

[Anna_Gein]

So we moved from the Goth had 10 000 warriors for the whole conflict to they had 10 000 warriors at the begining + an indetermined number ...
Sorry but I have not the motivation to engage in a long argument if you will just change your statements this way.

Outnumbered at Ad Salices ? It looks like you always chose the lowest estimation of Gothic forces and the higher estimation of Roman forces.

What we have here is an army that operated in small scale, using ambush, harassing the enemy, and this clear shows (for whatever reason) a shortage of manpower.

You know I think this is the defining difference between people who see the late army as a rotten corpse that misteriously survived so long and people who actually see its merits. The first category may notice real problem but don't even bother to examinate it and chose simplistic and moralistic judgement. I don't know why you guys do this. Maybe you find it too trivial to study the problems faced by an institutions. Or you find it pathetic as if faced difficulties and prefer to stick to a supposely perfect model (the Principate Army). And because of this you guys say things extremely ignorant like the infantry adopt cavalry swords or most prestigious units like auxillary palatini were composed of foreigner for the whole period.


Edit : Actually the single source we have on Ad Salices disagree. Ammianus Marcellinus. Book XXXI , chapter 7 , section 16

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Finally, some of the dead, who were men of distinction, were buried in such manner as the present circumstances allowed; the bodies of the rest of the slain were devoured by the foul birds that are wont at such a time to feed upon corpses, as is shown by the plains even now white with bones. However, while it is a fact that the Romans, who, far fewer in number, struggled with that vast multitude, suffered great losses, yet lamentable was the distress with which they afflicted the barbarian horde.

[Mangalore]

Rome in the Late Antiquity, and Adrianople is the perfect example, was able to field and deploy on the battlefield (not on the Notia's paper, but on the real battlefield) ONLY an army composed by 30.000 men, in a battle which would have changed its history, that is, something like only 6 old legions, and this is called shortage in manpower.

This kind of represents the normal size of a field army and it seems to some extent these dimensions were apparently a good number for a mobile army for a very long while in history. A Roman consular army was smaller and also build around logistical consideration.

I would say it is a stretch of an assumption that the Roman empire saw this battle as some deceisive do or die affair. There were also other Roman forces fresh with victories over other Gothic or barbarian forces in the area but Valens didn't wait for them to join with him probably because he assumed the Gothic force before him to be severly outnumbered and he wanted to be seen a victor as well.
The defeat was so crushing probably because it came so unexpected.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The reason the defeat was crushing was because the Romans made a ton of tactical blunders because Adrianople was not supposed to be a battle. The Roman army was lined up in a show of force, but the talks failed when the Gothic cavalry came back (and when I say Gothic cavalry I mean a small force of primarily Alans and Huns) that absolutely smashed the Roman cavalry, that had spent hours without adequate food, water, and in the scorching summer heat.