04-23-2013, 08:01 PM
It's a really interesting question you posed and one I have often thought about. I'm a graduate of European Literature (B.A.) and my focus was on Republican Rome, but I always found the period of late antiquity fascinating.
To my thinking, one of the things that changed as much as the Roman Army were Rome's enemies. In the late period to which you refer, it is well established that the introduction of the stirrup amongst Rome's enemies created a shift that probably upset Roman military dominance. Rome ofcourse being an infantry based super power, was probably fairly quickly confronted by enemies who were able to deny it its tactical advantage. This was to some extent played out with Parthia earlier, in Crassus' case with devastating effect to Rome, but ofcourse the Parthian victory then had been won without the stirrup. All of sudden cavalry could really charge headlong into Roman formations, probably without the need to soften the formations up first, not to mention the complimentary effect the stirrup would have had for mounted archers. Perhaps the apparent deterioration in Roman infantry was due in part to the increasing importance of Roman Cavalry. A comparable shift in the art of war was later seen with the reemergence of pike warfare in the late medieval period, which had a terrible effect on any cavalry dominant armies that were brought to bear against it.
On top of all this there were calamities upon calamities for Rome and Constantinople in this period. Civil War followed Civil War, diseases which in some cases completely depopulated areas hit the Empire on a scale previously unseen. Add to this a resurgent Persia and what appears to be a comparatively overpopulated (non-Roman) Northern Europe. It was too much for Rome and Constantinople to resist, something had to give and it did.
Whereas in the past Rome had numerous advantages over her enemies like a better supply chain, better access to weapons, better training, vast manpower to draw upon and the ability to move it quickly; these advantages were diminished. Rome's enemies were now well acquainted with her methods, and in the case of Northern Europe were catching up in terms of military sophistication and organisation, either by direct contact as foederati or by observation through being on the losing end of many a battle.
Once Western Rome fell Constantinople found itself in the position of having few friends, and certainly no allies anywhere near approaching her strength, but of having hundreds of nation states who hated her and saw her as rich pickings. Remarkably Constantinople survived, and was resurgent.
This was not before the army underwent extensive change. I think that what you have intimated Andy to a certain extent was right, I do not think the Rome and Constantinople of late antiquity had the resources as its disposal, in particular money and manpower, that was available during Trajan's time. However I believe that a contributing factor was the fact that Rome's enemies had caught further up to her in terms of their way of war, although Persia, Rome's largest single threat (not counting German tribes as a single but rather multitudinous threat) had probably never fallen behind in relation to military sophistication.
What was consistent though, in my view, was Rome's military memory, which when resources permitted was able to reinvent itself and field armies the equal of any on earth. Constantinople continued this tradition right up until the fourth crusade, and possibly to some extent afterwards. In this sense I think the Roman Army of almost all periods of its history was the equal of the other epochs.
To my thinking, one of the things that changed as much as the Roman Army were Rome's enemies. In the late period to which you refer, it is well established that the introduction of the stirrup amongst Rome's enemies created a shift that probably upset Roman military dominance. Rome ofcourse being an infantry based super power, was probably fairly quickly confronted by enemies who were able to deny it its tactical advantage. This was to some extent played out with Parthia earlier, in Crassus' case with devastating effect to Rome, but ofcourse the Parthian victory then had been won without the stirrup. All of sudden cavalry could really charge headlong into Roman formations, probably without the need to soften the formations up first, not to mention the complimentary effect the stirrup would have had for mounted archers. Perhaps the apparent deterioration in Roman infantry was due in part to the increasing importance of Roman Cavalry. A comparable shift in the art of war was later seen with the reemergence of pike warfare in the late medieval period, which had a terrible effect on any cavalry dominant armies that were brought to bear against it.
On top of all this there were calamities upon calamities for Rome and Constantinople in this period. Civil War followed Civil War, diseases which in some cases completely depopulated areas hit the Empire on a scale previously unseen. Add to this a resurgent Persia and what appears to be a comparatively overpopulated (non-Roman) Northern Europe. It was too much for Rome and Constantinople to resist, something had to give and it did.
Whereas in the past Rome had numerous advantages over her enemies like a better supply chain, better access to weapons, better training, vast manpower to draw upon and the ability to move it quickly; these advantages were diminished. Rome's enemies were now well acquainted with her methods, and in the case of Northern Europe were catching up in terms of military sophistication and organisation, either by direct contact as foederati or by observation through being on the losing end of many a battle.
Once Western Rome fell Constantinople found itself in the position of having few friends, and certainly no allies anywhere near approaching her strength, but of having hundreds of nation states who hated her and saw her as rich pickings. Remarkably Constantinople survived, and was resurgent.
This was not before the army underwent extensive change. I think that what you have intimated Andy to a certain extent was right, I do not think the Rome and Constantinople of late antiquity had the resources as its disposal, in particular money and manpower, that was available during Trajan's time. However I believe that a contributing factor was the fact that Rome's enemies had caught further up to her in terms of their way of war, although Persia, Rome's largest single threat (not counting German tribes as a single but rather multitudinous threat) had probably never fallen behind in relation to military sophistication.
What was consistent though, in my view, was Rome's military memory, which when resources permitted was able to reinvent itself and field armies the equal of any on earth. Constantinople continued this tradition right up until the fourth crusade, and possibly to some extent afterwards. In this sense I think the Roman Army of almost all periods of its history was the equal of the other epochs.
