Late Roman Army during the 5th century

[starman2012]

I’m sure he does, but then I don’t recall that he has sufficient evidence to prove his case for that doubt.

He made an interesting point: barbarians were able to take over areas, apparently with minimal if any resistance, which in theory were guarded by Roman units (which suggests the units didn't actually exist). North Africa was supposed to be protected by "31 regiments" totalling about 15,000 men, plus 10,000 or more limitanei. These should've been able to deal with a Vandal/Alan force of 20,000 or fewer. But Geiseric doesn't seem to have encountered resistance until he got almost as far as Hippo. Apparently unsure of his strength, Bonafatius must have hoped a long trudge would wear out the Vandals, so he made his stand far to the east. But it still didn't work; they had to send an SOS to the east which sent Aspar. The evidence suggests much of Bonafatius's strength was just on paper.

It can be doubted that Rome was that large by Ad 410, but even so – what use would it be to put spears in the hands of completely untrained citizens, even if the numbers were available?

During various emergencies of the republic, the Romans recruited all kinds of untrained people--even slaves after Cannae. And the slaves won a victory too. mile:

The post-Adrianople period has learned us it took years to rebuild the Roman army, and even that may never have been achieved.

Because by then most people seem no longer willing to serve. Rome had big armies again only a few years after Trasemine and Cannae and revived militarily after the catastrophes of 252-260; Gallienus slaughtered the barbarians at Naissus in 268.

An unfair comparison – Republican armies also depended for a lot of manpower on non-citizens.

Sure, Caesar hired Germans, there were balearic slingers etc. But the difference is that non-citizens then supplemented a strong central core of legions. Whereas in the late empire barbarians became a substitute for regulars.

Also, the enemies had profited from centuries of contact with the Romans and the formation of political conglomerates – the supertribes. No longer was it enough to send in a legion and a similar number of auxiliaries.

I think the republic had it just as tough, with Hannibal, the Teutones, Cimbri, Parthians.

Btw, where did you find that the Empire faced a ‘near-total reliance on people from beyond the frontiers’? During which period? The later 5th century in the West?

By about 400, but exaggerated somewhat. mile:

You can mock it and look upon it with disdain, but then you are obviously forgetting that that same army managed to defend the East for another 1000 years, supported by an age-old military tradition that formed the basis of military treatises for another 5 centuries.

Attila is said to have considered the Roman army of 451 "beneath contempt." As for the east, starting in the late fifth century, it was no longer the same, since reforms are said to have reduced its dependence on mercenaries and barbarians.