An interesting article on the late roman army.

[The_Nord]

I found and read this interesting article on the late roman army that you guys might be interested in. The author is really skeptical about the reforms started by Diocletian and finished by Constantine. There are some interesting refrences to Julian the Apostate from Ammianus as well.
I'm not sure I fully agree with his conclusion as the empire did last (in the west) all the way until 476AD (some say 480).

What are your thoughts?

The Article itself of course:
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/content/view/158/113/

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Interesting indeed, albeit I will avoid any hard conclusions until our resident scholars arrive and start dissecting the article (and anyone making potentially stupid conclusions).

[Dragases]

Interesting indeed, albeit I will avoid any hard conclusions until our resident scholars arrive and start dissecting the article (and anyone making potentially stupid conclusions).

Learning fast you are, young Padawan

[The_Nord]

Agreed!

[wulfgar610]

http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/index2....o_pdf=1&id=158

The most dangerous thing to Roman security was other Romans. The dominate was forced to limit the power of its generals by keeping central supplies under the control of different officials. The army was divided between limitae, comitatus and palatina as a strategic division of power in command.

In theory, however, the same factors that should make rebellion more difficult can also be interpreted as a hindrance
when it came to facing raiders crossing the border into Roman territory. These incursions were likely to be based on
speed of movement, in order to both be able to penetrate the empire’s defensive borders and also allow a
successful retreat with a large amount of booty. Consequently, speed was also essential if the Romans were to mount
the appropriate response.

I feel vindicated. My argument was infantry metal body armor ceased being a personal possession and part of a strategic supply. When pursuing raiders the weight of infantry metal body armor was not cost effective so its supply wasn't activated.

The same factor is recorded with the 11th century Anglo-Saxon's when the English are told to discard their metal armor in favor of boiled leather to pursue lightly armed Welsh raiders. Whatever leather's detraction's as armor compared to maile, for one thing it was a fraction of the weight. The cuirass pictured on relief's would weigh 3 -4 kg, compared to 12 to 24 kg for the equivalent maile.

And this is the reason the segmenta had to be abandoned, it required individual fitting and was not suitable as a rapid general strategic supply. By comparison maile either wouldn't require adjustment or when it did was relatively simple to do so.

[The_Nord]

Ah, once again the mail vs leather armour discussion rises. This thread is mainly for discussing the validity of the arguments made in the article on the late roman army I posted in the OP, but of course if we are to have a discussion of that we would also have to discuss the general effectivness of the late roman army, in which armour becomes an important topic of discussion. I would still say that we keep that particular discussion (even if it is very interesting) to a secondary role in this topic, please gentlemen.

[wulfgar610]

Unfortunately the article employs the standard theme.

"Why did the Empire fall (Western)?"

"What were the errors?"

Against this I counter with lateral thinking.

"How did the Empire last so long, or take so long to fall?"

"What were the brilliant strategies that worked for so well so long?"

[Valentinian Victor]

I've known about this article for sometime now.
Its fairly basic in nature and the author does not reference either Nicasie or Elton.
For a complete novice its ok, those with more than basic knowledge will find little to keep their interest.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I agree with Valentinian Victor. The author attempts to use the separation of the Administration and the Military to argue that this somehow impeded effective responses to barbarian incursions. He cites some examples from Ammianus to develop and illustrate this thesis. I cannot say I am moved by this argument however. It overlooks the fact that these reforms (no matter the separate issue of who actually was responsible for them!) remained in place far longer than the earlier Imperial/Principate methods of military government especially when you consider that the eastern provinces existed long after those in the west were overrun. Even the barbarians who managed to take over the Roman provinces retained these separate functions.

The examples he uses are valuable but alas open to multiple interpretations and he does not range widely enough in space (no examples from Ammianus of eastern provinces) nor time (no examples from other Roman writers before or after Ammianus) to truly develop them.

It must be remembered that until the reforms the Empire was in a profound crisis and only once these reforms had been achieved did it emerge into a relatively stable period. If as the author claims these reforms actually hastened the demise of the Empire (in the West at least) then he does not go far enough to explain why they remained in place and also why the eastern provinces (under the same reforms) survived until re-organised into Thematic devisions much later.

[The_Nord]

I agree that the article is rather basic, and I do not quite agree with his conclusion that the "mobile field armies" and limitanei reforms by Diocletian and Constantine made the empire fall faster. The empire was comparatively more stable than the 3rd century empire and the late roman army was generally more successfull than unsuccessfull in battle. The comitatenses, palatine and limitanei all seem to have been rather effective for the tasks they were given, after all the empire did last until 476/80.

There is one late roman author (was it zosimus?) who greatly criticized Constantine for ruining Diocletian's reforms arguing Constantine made the limes weaker by drawing troops from them in order to expand his comitatus, yet some modern historians can't really say if it was Constantine who made these changes or if he was just finishing the work started by Diocletian. What do you think? Did Constantine wreck Diocletian's efforts?

[Dragases]

I agree that the article is rather basic, and I do not quite agree with his conclusion that the "mobile field armies" and limitanei reforms by Diocletian and Constantine made the empire fall faster. The empire was comparatively more stable than the 3rd century empire and the late roman army was generally more successfull than unsuccessfull in battle. The comitatenses, palatine and limitanei all seem to have been rather effective for the tasks they were given, after all the empire did last until 476/80.

Strictly speaking the _office_ of Western Emperor remained until 480, but the Empire itself remained until the mid 15th century. More importantly, the system of limitanei and mobile field armies remained - more or less - the same from Constantine's successors until Mauricius (337-580). The army that some scholars denounce as having failed to defend the Western provinces, was the same army that reconquered those provinces in the 6th century!

There is one late roman author (was it zosimus?) who greatly criticized Constantine for ruining Diocletian's reforms arguing Constantine made the limes weaker by drawing troops from them in order to expand his comitatus, yet some modern historians can't really say if it was Constantine who made these changes or if he was just finishing the work started by Diocletian. What do you think? Did Constantine wreck Diocletian's efforts?

Zosimus is indeed the author who makes that claim. You have to take a couple of things into account though. Zosimus was writing between 498-518 AD, long after the events he described. He's a poor historian at times, since he just literally copies his sources (mainly Eunapius and Olympiodorus for 4th/5th century events). As a result his judgement on Stilicho is downright contradictory: when he's relying on Eunapius he outright condemns him, but when suddenly he has to use Olympiodorus' history (for the events between 404-410) he becomes positive about him!

Last but not least, Zosimus was pagan militant who had a serious axe to grind with the emperors who had contributed most towards the Christianization of the empire (the prime targets being Constantine and Theodosius). As a result, he deliberately postpones Constantine's so-called "conversion" to Christianity (while in reality he was most probably just a syncretist) until after 326, so he can blame Constantine's "bad management" of the empire on that and has not to denounce that emperor earlier stunning victories.

I know there's at least one scholar (Arther Ferril) who took up Zosimus thesis and turned it into a complete monograph (Fall of the Roman Empire: the military explanation, late 1980s I believe). It's actually a decent enough book, but the thesis is unfounded and you cannot explain the military detoriation of the Western provinces in the 5t century on that ground.

More importantly, you should _always_ avoid any kind of monolithic explanation of historical events.

[wulfgar610]

The early efforts of the Dominate were aimed at correcting the fiscal imbalance as well. Constantine probably discovered he couldn't afford all the manpower he would have liked on the limes or the field level.

The most basic soldier is going to cost a minimum 10 to 12 solidi p.a. in wages, food and clothing. The most spartan armor and weapons is going to cost another 1 solidi p.a.

Then within a unit you have immunes, NCO equivelents, officers and veterans on better rations and pay.

Multiply unit cost 30%.

300 man numerus x 11s= 3300s x 30% unit cost = 4,290s p.a. (these were the guys you had to lock up at night)

A comitatus legionarie is going to cost around 18s p.a. per man at least in wages, food and clothing. At least 3s p.a. in arms and armor.

300 man numerus x 21s = 6,300s x 30% unit cost = 8,190s p.a.

For cavalry toss in 2 horses per man, almost double the wages and more personal servants and stable boys.

And this is just getting started.

[Constantius]

Diocletian reformed what had been started by Gallienus, he added to frontier legions, and increased the importance of cavalry vexillationes. If anything the field army of Gallienus, was neglected under Diocletian. Constantine on the other hand greatly increased this 'mobile reserve' and of course some historians accuse Constantine of barbarising the frontier legions, but that was well underway throughout third century. So no, I do not think Constantine ruined Diocletian's reforms, on the contrary he took the reforming to its logical conclusions. The Limes had been breached far to often, catching the Romans off guard, once the legions were taken off one frontier for campaign, often that was then breached also. Having a a mobile force to defend in depth was the obvious answer. You will, I hope ignore my lack of evidence for now, I'm trying to put kids to bed