01-23-2014, 04:45 PM
Yeah, a lot of that work is also mentione dby other authors I have. Thanks for the info Michael.
It seems many of the New "Units" were Limitanei, but some were genuinely new. Furthermore we have no indication that the Limitanei were inferior to Comitatenses in quality, other than a probable neglect of supply and pay.
Using Jones' numbers for the Roman Field Armies (34000, 28500, 14500), and Heather's Numbers for the Loss of Africa alone puts a maximum number of 17,000 for Aetius' Roman Field Army between 439 and 454. Throwing in Lost Revenue from Italy and Gaul you may be looking at around 10000 men, provided the Limitanei were also cut.
It seems many of the New "Units" were Limitanei, but some were genuinely new. Furthermore we have no indication that the Limitanei were inferior to Comitatenses in quality, other than a probable neglect of supply and pay.
Using Jones' numbers for the Roman Field Armies (34000, 28500, 14500), and Heather's Numbers for the Loss of Africa alone puts a maximum number of 17,000 for Aetius' Roman Field Army between 439 and 454. Throwing in Lost Revenue from Italy and Gaul you may be looking at around 10000 men, provided the Limitanei were also cut.
Evan Schultheis | MODERATOR
Rhomaios Living History Society
Support us on Patreon
Rhomaios Living History Society
Support us on Patreon
