Late Roman Army during the 5th century

[Robert Vermaat]

Again, you must remember that the army does not offcially belong to "the west." It is most likely the army was serving under the payrolls of the Possesores, not the Government. In that case they are called "Bucellarii" (private retainers). The army served on Aetius' payroll and out of loyalty to him. There was still a professional army - it just couldn't be paid by the government anymore.

I think you are right about the regular army, but I doubt that the buccellarii of Aetius et al were complete private armies. The boast about conquering Italy may have been right, but it tells us more about the size of the regular army than the possibility – if he had done so, he would have been a usurper of course. So the sate still had some level of control – or rather the guy in power. But I agree, it was already slipping.

And what was taking so long was restoring the field armies. Look how long it took after Adrianople - 2/3 of the Army of the East was destroyed (about 80,000-100,000 men if you believe Heather and Goldsworthy's estimates)

constant attrition, civil wars and maybe just political unwillingness. By the time of the 430s building an army could also mean that your political opponent could use it as a weapon. Hence Aetius’Huns, Galla Placidia’s Visigoths, and the steady rise of private forces. Maybe the system broke down as a result of the combination? From Aetius onwards, there were only rich and powerful patricians with their own powerbase who controlled the West, in constant competition with each other. If we can believe Procopius, regular army units even existed during the early 6th century. But I doubt whether the regular army as an organistaion made in past the 470s.

@Robert - correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Notitia incomplete?

That’s what’s assumed, yes.
And?