Unit Sizes and other aspects of Aetius and the battle of Chalons.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I say at least 250000 Roman infantry were at chalons, with ~200000 in Barbarian Foederaeti Support. How 'bout you?

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

That is VERY high.

You could probably take the number of combatants on both sides, multiply it by two, and it would not be 450,000 men.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Most scholars say 50000, but I belive otherwise.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

Most scholars say 50000, but I belive otherwise.

Why?

It's a fact that Roman armies taking part in major battles got smaller as the sun began to set on the Western Empire.

[Aetius]

Under my command were many auxilla and an assortment of limitanei, and a few understrength legions.

Combined with my ally Theodoric, under our joint command we had a force roughly reaching a size of 50-60,000 men at arms. 450000 is impossible.



On a side note the Notitia Dignitatum (a administrative document of the 420s AS) lists 58 various regular units, and 33 limitanei serving either in the Gallic provinces or on the frontiers nearby; the total of these units, based on Jones analysis, is 34,000 for the regular units and 11,500 for the limitanei, or just under 46,000 all told. That should have surely decreased by 451.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Lol, thats true and in paper strength the armies were about twice to three times the size they actually were. And the sun was setting on the empire until Aetius in 425, and after he was assassinated in 454 the Empire declined so rapidly it was pathetic. Had Aetius lived he would have saved the empire and Rome wouldn't have collapsed. Also, there were 40 million people to call on in the 400s, and the barbarians could have supplied at least 200000 troops, and the Visigoths had an army of 100000 to begin with. Also, aetius led an army of 60000 huns into Italy in 425, and his constant victories boosted morale and encouraged people to join the military, so in my opinion Aetius could have supplied an army of 250000. Further Detail on this will be stated in my book, which Im still writing.

[motiv-8]

Had Aetius lived he would have saved the empire and Rome wouldn't have collapsed.

I'm sorry but that's absurd. The fate of the Western Empire didn't hinge upon the performance of one man.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

I'm sorry but that's absurd. The fate of the Western Empire didn't hinge upon the performance of one man.

I dunno, you could make an argument that it did in the 400's, with Aetius and Stilicho before him.

Stilicho was murdered, the Goths sack Rome less than two years later.

Aetius is assassinated in 454, by Valentinian, who is in turn murdered a year later. End of the Thedosian dynasty.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I meant for a while longer. I mean, it would have eventually collapsed in the end.

[motiv-8]

I meant for a while longer. I mean, it would have eventually collapsed in the end.

Okay, Okay, fair enough.

However, I can't in all honesty accept your numbers for Chalons, I find it very hard to believe that the Empire without North Africa could still afford to field 250,000 imperial soldiers in a battle. That figure sounds more like all the field and garrison troops of the entire Eastern Empire, which wasn't suffering from the same crisis, put together.

I dunno, you could make an argument that it did in the 400's, with Aetius and Stilicho before him.

Stilicho was murdered, the Goths sack Rome less than two years later.

Aetius is assassinated in 454, by Valentinian, who is in turn murdered a year later. End of the Thedosian dynasty.

Don't fall back on the Great Man theory too often, sometimes it won't catch you and that might hurt.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

Don't fall back on the Great Man theory too often, sometimes it won't catch you and that might hurt.

Not sure what you mean...?

I'm not working off of any universal theory here, I just think that Stilicho and Aetius kept the Empire afloat in the 400's pretty much on their will alone, as well as a little luck. They were both more powerful than the Emperors they served under. If neither of them had existed, I don't think the Western Empire would have lasted until 476. Or 454. Or whatever date you wish to use as the end of the Western Empire.

[motiv-8]

Not sure what you mean...?

I'm not working off of any universal theory here, I just think that Stilicho and Aetius kept the Empire afloat in the 400's pretty much on their will alone, as well as a little luck. They were both more powerful than the Emperors they served under. If neither of them had existed, I don't think the Western Empire would have lasted until 476. Or 454. Or whatever date you wish to use as the end of the Western Empire.

You might be right.

If neither of them had existed, the empire would have ended about 400. If Aetius had never existed, the Huns would have taken the empire in 451

No, no, much too deterministic, that won't do. This assumes that Aetius is the only person in the entire world who could do what he did. Who's to say that if Aetius didn't exist, some other man wouldn't have been there instead? That right there is why counter-factuals are silly.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

If neither of them had existed, the empire would have ended about 400. If Aetius had never existed, the Huns would have taken the empire in 451

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Aetius' Death and the dissipation of the army in 454 marked the end of the empire as a military superpower.

[motiv-8]

The empire's military power was doomed when it lost North Africa, Aetius's assassination was icing on a crappy cake.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

The empire's military power was doomed when it lost North Africa, Aetius's assassination was icing on a crappy cake.

A good point. Which is why it's hard to say that Aetius was the savior of the Empire, any gains he made were shortlived, and his rivalry with Count Boniface was the main reason why Africa was lost to the Vandals.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The empire still had massive military rescources to call upon, most of gaul and spain was still roman, all of Italy, illyria, and pannonia was roman. The Huns could have overpowered the roman force in manpower, but not in quality. Thats why the romans used the Visigoth and Frank Foederati. The West Roman Heavy Infantry was still the dominant in the 430s,440s, and 450s.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I'll post my scources ASAP

[Mythos]

Given the Empire's meager resources at the time but also the fact that Aetius have been anticipating a Hunnic attack since 443, we can assume that it can't have been more than 20-25000 Roman troops and about 10-15000 allied Goths. 30-40000 in total, an army that would have numerical superiority against Attila's ~30000. This makes sense since Roman numerical superiority would have forced Attila to break the siege of Orleans and retreat. It would also make sense that the Romans decided to pursue him and force a battle since they had numerical superiority.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Yes, Gibbon stated "Their Union might have supported a sinking empire, their discord was the immediate and fatal cause of the loss of africa." Also, rome still held on to africa, as the three Mauretanias and part of Tripolitania will still roman. The loss of the entire army and most of the empires territories (except illyria and mauretania) was caused by his assassination. Also, the Romans had 40,000,000 people to supply an army. And the barbarians had massive populations, over 200,000 in the larger tribes like the visigoths. That's a lot of manpower, and aetius raised martial spirit with what seemed to be endless victories.