The disintegration of the Western Roman Army in 5th Century

[Dragases]

My original reply to Juvenus became so lengthy that I decided to open up a new topic for this discussion.

did they catch them somewhere in the Mediterranean sea or they caught them on land after they disembarked from the ships?

At the start of Majorian's reign, a Vandal raiding party was ambushed in Campania. The Romans killed several of their members, including a brother-in-law of Gaiseric. Eventually, however, the remnants of the Vandals managed to reach their ships and fled (Sidonius Apollinaris, Carmina, V.385–440)

In 456, Ricimer scored a victory over the Vandals near Agrigentum in Sicily. He followed them to Corsica, were they were slaughtered. Many historians have seen this a s naval victory, but our source for this (Hydatius, don't have the exact reference with me now) describes this as circumventio (a trick). Just to remain clear on the issues, I do agree that the Western Romans (especially Marcellinus in Dalmatia) must have had transport ships at their disposal. Proper references to actual war galleys are nowhere to be found however.

very interesting information! so we can be confident in saying that WRE military power started decaying after 425, right? it implies that by the time of Aetius they hardly had any sort of mobile comitateses-like army.
is there any distinguished date or incident (like battle, usurpation, invasion, loss of territory, political decision) which brought an end to the western comitatenses? or it was simply a long decaying to the point where they simply faded away?

The main problem with Western Roman military history in the 5th century is that we can speak of very little with confidence... Our sources are just to scanty and problematic. I always have to think of this wonderful quote by J.B. Bury:

The fifth century was one of the most critical periods in the history of Europe. It was crammed with events of great moment, and the changes which it witnessed transformed Europe more radically than any set of political events that have happened since. At that time hundreds of people were writing abundantly on all kinds of subjects, and many of their writings have survived; but among these there is no history of contemporary events, and the story has had to be pieced together from fragments, jejune chronicles, incidental references in poets, rhetoricians, and theologians. Inscribed stones which supply so much information for the first four centuries of the Roman Empire are rare. Nowhere, since the time of Alexander the Great, do we feel so strongly that the meagreness of the sources flouts the magnitude of the events. Battles, for instance, were being fought continually, but no full account of a single battle is extant. We know much more of the Syrian campaigns of Thothmes III in the fifteenth century B.C. than we know of the campaigns of Stilicho or Aetius or Theoderic.

I can give you, however, one shocking statistic. When examining the mobile armies of the West in the Notitia Dignitatum, A.H.M. Jones concluded that between the death of Theodosius I and Honorius (395-423), the comitatenses lost about half of their numbers (Later Roman Empire, 1964, p. 198). Constantius III tried to make up for the losses by drafting in limitanei in the field armies. At that time the government in Ravenna still had control over the resources of Africa. After his death, the civil war between West and East (424/425), the infighting between Felix, Bonifatius and Aetius, and - most importantly - the loss of Africa, the comitatenses must have declined more and more.

The best we can say is that they indeed faded away at an indeterminable point. I'll continue about that in another point.

[juvenus]

Thanks a lot for this reply! +rep again

I always have to think of this wonderful quote by J.B. Bury:

The fifth century was one of the most critical periods in the history of Europe. It was crammed with events of great moment, and the changes which it witnessed transformed Europe more radically than any set of political events that have happened since. At that time hundreds of people were writing abundantly on all kinds of subjects, and many of their writings have survived; but among these there is no history of contemporary events, and the story has had to be pieced together from fragments, jejune chronicles, incidental references in poets, rhetoricians, and theologians. Inscribed stones which supply so much information for the first four centuries of the Roman Empire are rare. Nowhere, since the time of Alexander the Great, do we feel so strongly that the meagreness of the sources flouts the magnitude of the events. Battles, for instance, were being fought continually, but no full account of a single battle is extant. We know much more of the Syrian campaigns of Thothmes III in the fifteenth century B.C. than we know of the campaigns of Stilicho or Aetius or Theoderic.

Now, is this a joke or what? Don't get me wrong, your post is excellent but it's funny that I saw his (J.B.Bury-History of the later Roman Empire) book in a shop today and i also posted in the Library thread asking for advice on this book...what a funny coincidence...or it's a mysterious signal to me that i should buy that book

I can give you, however, one shocking statistic. When examining the mobile armies of the West in the Notitia Dignitatum, A.H.M. Jones concluded that between the death of Theodosius I and Honorius (395-423), the comitatenses lost about half of their numbers (Later Roman Empire, 1964, p. 198). Constantius III tried to make up for the losses by drafting in limitanei in the field armies. At that time the government in Ravenna still had control over the resources of Africa. After his death, the civil war between West and East (424/425), the infighting between Felix, Bonifatius and Aetius, and - most importantly - the loss of Africa, the comitatenses must have declined more and more.

The best we can say is that they indeed faded away at an indeterminable point. I'll continue about that in another point.

Ok i understand, however, i have a curse when it comes to history things since i study the Structural engineering and naturally i always tend to find an exact point which determines something (which, unlike in the math&physics, in history isn't often possible) so bear with me: can we assume then, relatively accurate, the loss of Africa (439ad) is the event which put the nail in the coffin of the western comitatenses? or you think they survived as a true mobile field force (like the one from the 4th century) up until the 450s?

thanks

[Dragases]

Thanks a lot for this reply! +rep again

Now, is this a joke or what? Don't get me wrong, your post is excellent but it's funny that I saw his (J.B.Bury-History of the later Roman Empire) book in a shop today and i also posted in the Library thread asking for advice on this book...what a funny coincidence...or it's a mysterious signal to me that i should buy that book

Cheers!

You can actually read it in its entirety for free here: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...ondary/BURLAT/

It is very old (first version of the book was written in 1889)! This update comes from 1928. You'll have to take his anti-German bias (or 'Teutonic' as he called it those days) into account, but it's a classic nevertheless. And despite brave efforts by Peter Heather, Guy Halsall, etc. it still remains the most complete narrative history in English of the 5th century Roman empire.

Ok i understand, however, i have a curse when it comes to history things since i study the Structural engineering and naturally i always tend to find an exact point which determines something (which, unlike in the math&physics, in history isn't often possible) so bear with me: can we assume then, relatively accurate, the loss of Africa (439ad) is the event which put the nail in the coffin of the western comitatenses? or you think they survived as a true mobile field force (like the one from the 4th century) up until the 450s?

thanks

History does rarely work like that I'm afraid What a lot people forget when talking about the Western Roman army in this century, is that it was constantly fighting a downhill battle. It had suffered severe casualties in the civil wars with Theodosius (under Magnus Maximus in 388 and - especially - under Eugenius in 394). Then Stilicho had to send back most of the Eastern units to Arcadius during his conflict with Rufinus. Then came the revolt of Gildo and the wars with Alaric and Radagaisus. This was a time when most of the Western provinces and its revenue (except the Balkans obviously) were still in Roman hands. Yet Stilicho had immense problems keeping his army up to strength. See the excellent: Burns, T.S. (1994), Barbarians within the Gates of Rome: A study of Roman military policy and the barbarians, ca 375-425 A.D., Indianapolis).

Stilicho already needed Germanic foederati from Raetia, Huns and Alans in his battles against Alaric to make up for the gaps in his ranks. Can you see then what a catastrophe the breach of the Rhine by Sueves, Vandals and Alans was in 405/406 and Constantine III's usurpation? It meant loss of provinces, revenue and access to Roman forces from those provinces. After Stilicho's execution in 408, Honorius' government even started pogroms against the families of its barbarian soldiers. Thousands and thousands of them joined Alaric's banner as a result!

More on this another time

[juvenus]

Cheers!

You can actually read it in its entirety for free here: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...ondary/BURLAT/

Oh, so that's why it's so cheap, for it's already available for free on the Web

It is very old (first version of the book was written in 1889)! This update comes from 1928. You'll have to take his anti-German bias (or 'Teutonic' as he called it those days) into account, but it's a classic nevertheless. And despite brave efforts by Peter Heather, Guy Halsall, etc. it still remains the most complete narrative history in English of the 5th century Roman empire.

Good, I'm gonna buy it today. Although it's on the Web too, it's very tiring to read so many pages on the pc....and it's really cheap, like 10 euro.

History does rarely work like that I'm afraid What a lot people forget when talking about the Western Roman army in this century, is that it was constantly fighting a downhill battle. It had suffered severe casualties in the civil wars with Theodosius (under Magnus Maximus in 388 and - especially - under Eugenius in 394). Then Stilicho had to send back most of the Eastern units to Arcadius during his conflict with Rufinus. Then came the revolt of Gildo and the wars with Alaric and Radagaisus. This was a time when most of the Western provinces and its revenue (except the Balkans obviously) were still in Roman hands. Yet Stilicho had immense problems keeping his army up to strength. See the excellent: Burns, T.S. (1994), Barbarians within the Gates of Rome: A study of Roman military policy and the barbarians, ca 375-425 A.D., Indianapolis).

Ok. I saw an other book: "Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West 376-568" by Guy Halsall. The title looks promising and i've planned to get it for some time. Did you read it?

Stilicho already needed Germanic foederati from Raetia, Huns and Alans in his battles against Alaric to make up for the gaps in his ranks. Can you see then what a catastrophe the breach of the Rhine by Sueves, Vandals and Alans was in 405/406 and Constantine III's usurpation? It meant loss of provinces, revenue and access to Roman forces from those provinces. After Stilicho's execution in 408, Honorius' government even started pogroms against the families of its barbarian soldiers. Thousands and thousands of them joined Alaric's banner as a result!
More on this another time

But wasn't Raetia under Roman control? Or it has something to do with Gratian's campaign in the Balkans in the aftermath of Adrianople when he (supposedly) defeated some Gothic splinter groups that were heading west and then settled them somewhere, perhaps in Raetia?
This particular idea came from:
Simon Mcdowall - "Adrianople 378AD, The Goths crush Rome's Legions" page 84. I'll quote the relevant sentence:
"Alatheus and Saprax apparently struck north into Pannonia but were checked by Gratian, while Fritigern successfully attacked Theodosius' army in Macedonia, driving the East Romans back to Constantinople".

Also, there's another, very interesting and detailed article i read:
Theodosius and the Goths: Limits of Roman Power (i was provided the link from Renatus)
You may wish to check that article, available for download.
The page 20 reads, quote:

"It is unclear what occurred to the Greuthungi under Alatheus and Saprax. In the past, many scholars have believed that Gratian defeated them and settled the survivors in Pannonia. If so, the treaty may have served as a precursor for the final peace treaty in 382. However, this supposition is based on the confused accounts of Zosimus and Jordanes, and circumstantial evidence in later sources that may (or may not) refer to a settlement in Pannonia. All that can be stated definitely is that the Goths attacked Pannonia and were defeated there".

So, is there a chance that those Goths somehow ended up in Raetia?

[Dragases]

Oh, so that's why it's so cheap, for it's already available for free on the Web


Good, I'm gonna buy it today. Although it's on the Web too, it's very tiring to read so many pages on the pc....and it's really cheap, like 10 euro.

Definitely a bargain then!

Ok. I saw an other book: "Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West 376-568" by Guy Halsall. The title looks promising and i've planned to get it for some time. Did you read it?

It's definitely interesting. Some of his chapters are strong in archaeology though, which makes it at times a bit heavy going to read (but that might just be me). I do not always agree on particular interpretations of 5th century events, but that's just the nature of these things. Together with Peter Heather, Bryan-Ward Perkins and James O' Donnell, I'd say it's one of the better new accounts on this era. You're better off avoiding Goldsworthy though, he's too much a Principate fan to treat the later Roman empire on its own terms to properly explain its demise.

But wasn't Raetia under Roman control? Or it has something to do with Gratian's campaign in the Balkans in the aftermath of Adrianople when he (supposedly) defeated some Gothic splinter groups that were heading west and then settled them somewhere, perhaps in Raetia?
This particular idea came from:
Simon Mcdowall - "Adrianople 378AD, The Goths crush Rome's Legions" page 84. I'll quote the relevant sentence:
"Alatheus and Saprax apparently struck north into Pannonia but were checked by Gratian, while Fritigern successfully attacked Theodosius' army in Macedonia, driving the East Romans back to Constantinople".

Also, there's another, very interesting and detailed article i read:
Theodosius and the Goths: Limits of Roman Power (i was provided the link from Renatus)
You may wish to check that article, available for download.
The page 20 reads, quote:

"It is unclear what occurred to the Greuthungi under Alatheus and Saprax. In the past, many scholars have believed that Gratian defeated them and settled the survivors in Pannonia. If so, the treaty may have served as a precursor for the final peace treaty in 382. However, this supposition is based on the confused accounts of Zosimus and Jordanes, and circumstantial evidence in later sources that may (or may not) refer to a settlement in Pannonia. All that can be stated definitely is that the Goths attacked Pannonia and were defeated there".

So, is there a chance that those Goths somehow ended up in Raetia?

I rushed that part on Raetia a bit Stilicho was actually campaigning there against Vandal raids and other tribes in 401/402 when Alaric invaded Italy. After he had mopped them up, he drafted many of them in his army as foederati. The same happened in 405/406 when Radagaisus invaded Italy:

"Of the Goths who followed Radagaisus the foremost, amounting to 12.000, were called "optimates"; Stilicho made allies of these when he had overwhelmed Radagaisus" (Olympiodorus, fr. 9) [Translation: Gordon - Age of Attila, p. 30).

We always have to be careful when ancient authors mention numbers. They were never concerned with exact data. For instance, they had a fondness of the number 3 and all its variations (that's why you'll often come across '300' or '6000' etc). Olympiodorus is one of those rare historiographers, however, with an interest in "quantified" history. He was a contemporary and very well informed. It's an absolute tragedy that we don't possess the entire version of his History, but merely scraps.

[juvenus]

I rushed that part on Raetia a bit Stilicho was actually campaigning there against Vandal raids and other tribes in 401/402 when Alaric invaded Italy. After he had mopped them up, he drafted many of them in his army as foederati. The same happened in 405/406 when Radagaisus invaded Italy:

"Of the Goths who followed Radagaisus the foremost, amounting to 12.000, were called "optimates"; Stilicho made allies of these when he had overwhelmed Radagaisus" (Olympiodorus, fr. 9) [Translation: Gordon - Age of Attila, p. 30).

We always have to be careful when ancient authors mention numbers. They were never concerned with exact data. For instance, they had a fondness of the number 3 and all its variations (that's why you'll often come across '300' or '6000' etc). Olympiodorus is one of those rare historiographers, however, with an interest in "quantified" history. He was a contemporary and very well informed. It's an absolute tragedy that we don't possess the entire version of his History, but merely scraps.

i get it now, those foederati were Vandals and Huns.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Although we can say based on Sidonius' Appollinaris record prior to chalons that Aetius did have some sort of Core Army, he particularly mentions Auxiliarum Exquisiti (which is very likely referring to Auxilia Palatina).

So we can't say that Aetius didn't have any hardcore troops. Also They still had some of Africa (Mauretania and Tripolitania) to produce revenue, along with coastal spain and Illyria. Southern Gaul (Narbonne and Arleate) was embattled but there were extensive silver and lead deposits there to make a profit. Also it's stated that in 435 (according to Merobaudes) Amorica was reconquered and deforested for Agricultural purposes (specifically grain).
So there was still an economy.

And Hydatius mentions Aetius was able to send quite a substantial force under the Comes Vitus in 446. Remember at this time the primary sources of Foederati were the Visigoths, Franks, and Burgundians, which Aetius was at constant war with the first two and the third was annihalated in 436 and wouldn't resurge until after Aetius' death.

[juvenus]

Although we can say based on Sidonius' Appollinaris record prior to chalons that Aetius did have some sort of Core Army, he particularly mentions Auxiliarum Exquisiti (which is very likely referring to Auxilia Palatina).

So we can't say that Aetius didn't have any hardcore troops. Also They still had some of Africa (Mauretania and Tripolitania) to produce revenue, along with coastal spain and Illyria. Southern Gaul (Narbonne and Arleate) was embattled but there were extensive silver and lead deposits there to make a profit. Also it's stated that in 435 (according to Merobaudes) Amorica was reconquered and deforested for Agricultural purposes (specifically grain).
So there was still an economy.

Ok, although I'd say that what was left from Africa and Spain didn't play a role in the "unified" empire anymore but rather fend for themselves. So i think they kept their profits for themselves.

And Hydatius mentions Aetius was able to send quite a substantial force under the Comes Vitus in 446.

Where did he send them? Against whom?

[Dragases]

You jumble up a lot of things. And frankly it's tiring that you always come up with unsupported claims. "According to author X apparently Y happened". Unless you give us proper references, we'll have to discard this as fan boy fantasy.

There might have been something that was left of/resembled a Roman Field Army at the battle of Chalons. The term you refer to comes actually from Jordanes though, when he's giving a whole list of Germanic tribes and other allies who fought at that battle.

"...Sarmatae, Armoriciani, Liticiani, Burgundiones, Saxones, Riparii, Olibriones, quondam milites Romani, tunc vero iam in numero auxiliarum exquisiti,... (Jordanes, Getica, XXXVI)
"Sarmatians, Armoricians, Liticians, Burgundians, Saxons, Ripuarians, Olibriones (once Roman soldiers and now the flower of the allied forces). (Translation: Mierow - The origin and the deeds of the Goths, 1915)

As the fifth century progresses it's becoming harder and harder to find actual descriptions of Roman forces in battle. In fact, the last contemporary one I could find was when Constantius III defeated Constantine III in 411 (Olympiodorus, fr. 16). After Zosimus' history ends (in 410), we have to rely almost exclusively on fragments and chronicle entrees. Most of the time these read like the headline of a sports event ("Vandals score two-nil versus Romans with some dirty play!"). The next proper description of a battle where Western Roman forces participated, comes from the aforementioned Jordanes (who wrote in 550!).

Your economic explanation does not make any sense. Throughout most of the 430s the government in Ravenna could still to a certain degree count on revenue from Africa Proconsularis and the other richer parts of the Maghreb. It is no surprise that almost all of Aetius campaigns were fought in this decade. After the fall of Carthage in 439 that revenue completely disappeared. It is no surprise then that Western Roman campaign in the 440s become much rarer. Mauretania and the other African provinces were barely producing revenue and had been severely wrecked by the Vandal invasion (hence the government had to reduce their taxes with 7/8!). It is exactly at this point that Valentinian III had to confess in what a sorry state the military budget was (as mentioned earlier in Nov. Val. 15).

There was hardly any control over Spain. The only province that more or less was in hands of the Roman government was Tarraconensis. That one was constantly plagued by Bacaudae and Sueves. After the departure of the Vandals, Baetica might've returned in Roman hands but the Sueves defeated the last regional Roman army commanded by a comes Hispaniarum there in 438 (Hydatius, 200). A very thorough account of Roman Spain in these decades can be found in:
Thompson, E.A. (1982), Romans and Barbarians: The Decline of the Western Empire, Wisconsin.
Kulikowski, M. (2004), Late Roman Spain and its cities, Baltimore

That Armorica was reconquered is nonsense. That province had already separated during the usurpation of Constantine III. Sometimes punitive expeditions into Brittany were launched by Western Roman commanders (such as Exuperantius or Aetius), but they never restored order. If you're so adamant on a reconquest you'll have to give us an exact reference in Merobaudes.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I know dragases, and SBH listed it as Sidonius appollinaris that mentioned Milites Romani and Auxilia. But I've spent 6 years or more specifically on this topic, you can't just say that there was NO field army left in the 430s-450s. As we do know from Theodoric II in 453 that Aegidius had most of the Gallic Field army (12000 men he states). I know about the Laws of 440-445 and the specific numbers of lost revenue, which implies a reduction of aproximately 37000 infantry or 22000 cavalry, but that still leaves plenty of room for 60000 troops. Add the fact most other provinces were embattled and your looking at about 40000 max,

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Some of the debate re the Roman forces which participated under Aetius against Attila which MA refers to can be found here.

Pompieus Magnus' later post is especially interesting.

[Flavius Vegetius Renatus]

I like your topic very much gentlemen and would like to ask you what you think about roman abandonment of Britain and how it impacted the western roman army and economy. I know with all the historian talking about loss of Spain, Africa parts of Gaul and what a demise that caused to empire. we all know that Britain was first province to go since Dacia was abandoned 150 years earlier, was it that unprofitable to maintain?? And what about recruiting grounds there; these Britons were one hardy people and i would assume that their warlike nature would definitely benefit roman army.

[Dragases]

I like your topic very much gentlemen and would like to ask you what you think about roman abandonment of Britain and how it impacted the western roman army and economy. I know with all the historian talking about loss of Spain, Africa parts of Gaul and what a demise that caused to empire. we all know that Britain was first province to go since Dacia was abandoned 150 years earlier, was it that unprofitable to maintain?? And what about recruiting grounds there; these Britons were one hardy people and i would assume that their warlike nature would definitely benefit roman army.

That's a very hard question to answer. Britain certainly contributed to the economy and army. For instance, when Julian had to restore order in Gaul - during his stint as caesar in the late 350s - he ordered grain from Britain to supply his troops (Ammianus, 18.2.3). The problem with Britain, more than any other Western province at this time (possibly excluding Raetia) is that we have almost no sources. Between 400 and 600 we have only one (!) source coming from the island (Gildas). Other contemporary writers (Prosper Tiro, Orosius, Olympiodorus) have very little to say after the usurpation of Constantine III. We can really say we enter the dark ages of Britain from that point on.

It is interesting to note that the British were not the primary source of recruits however. In the Notitia Dignitatum we find references to Irish soldiers from Munster (the so-called Attacotti) serving in the auxilia palatina stationed in Gaul, Italy and Illyricum. These had originally been raiding Britain in the second half of the 4th century, but were later settled in Wales on Roman terms (around the time of Magnus Maximus).

Fore more information: Rance, Ph. (2001), "Attacotti, Déisi and Magnus Maximus: the Case for Irish Federates in Late Roman Britain", Britannia 32: 243–270

One thing should not be forgotten though. The comitatenses might have left Britain, but the limitanei stayed behind. These formed the core of the Romano-British resistance against the Saxon invaders later on.

P.S.: Technically, Britain wasn't the first province to go after Dacia. The five provinces in Mesopotamia conquered by Galerius in 298 were ceded back to the Persians after Julian's failed campaign. That might not sound important for the discussion here, but this is the only time in this period that Rome legally gave up former imperial territory. Hence the huge controversy it caused back then.

[Flavius Vegetius Renatus]

Very interesting indeed and i would have never guessed the Irish would outfit the Britons in the military. wonder what was the cause of that and how did other regions of the empire fared relative to recruitment. We know for sure Illiricorum was one main base of manpower for both sides and area of contest.

[Flavius Vegetius Renatus]

And yes you are correct Dragases, the five provinces of Mesopotamia went before Britain, my mistake.

[juvenus]

@Dragases: It's not that I question your knowledge in any way, just wondering whether there's any official document from the period or any solid evidence (like writing or archeology) that confirms limitanei stayed on in Britain after the rest of the troops left? Cause i thought the Romans left Britain altogether. thanks

[Dragases]

@Dragases: It's not that I question your knowledge in any way, just wondering whether there's any official document from the period or any solid evidence (like writing or archeology) that confirms limitanei stayed on in Britain after the rest of the troops left? Cause i thought the Romans left Britain altogether. thanks

I actually got that from prof. Ian Wood (University of Leeds) in a private conversation at the Imbas conference in Galway (2009).

First of all, what is generally understood as the Roman "abandonment" of Britain is the departure of the field armies. The same was impossible however for the limitanei since these had become solidly entrenched in their provinces. The vast majority of them had settled down and started families; these could not just be moved over to the continent. It is true that there are no written sources to confirm this exactly, though we can glance from Gildas that there were still some Roman officials and soldiers left. There are better accounts of this phenomenon in the continent though.

The most famous example is Noricum. In the life of St. Severinus (c. 453-482) we see that the Roman administration had long departed the province, but that there were still local units left who tried their best to defend their towns. They even made one attempt (probably somewhere around 460) to gather their pay from Italy, but the party they sent out was ambushed by barbarians and never made it back (St. Sev, XX)

For more information on Severinus and Noricum you can check out the aforementioned Thompson (1982)

[juvenus]

thanks a lot mate, very convincing arguments. and it makes sense too.