Login

03-23-2001, 07:47 PM

I am looking for any information on the make up of the army during Valentinian I reign. I would appreciate the groups help. Thank you. DBeeson

03-24-2001, 08:25 PM

Salve, 
 
The most detailed description is undoubtedly found in: 
 
D. Hoffmann, Das spaetroemische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia Dignitatum (Duesseldorf 1970). 
 
In this book the raising and transferring of units mentioned in the ND is painstakingly reconstructed. It is not the easiest read around though. It is advisable to read Elton's book (see below) to put the theories about Germanisierung found in Hoffmann into perspective. 
 
The following book also deals with the army under Valentinian: 
 
Burns, T.S., Barbarians within the gates of Rome. A study of Roman military policy and the barbarians, ca 375-425 AD (Bloomington and Indianapolis 1994) 417p. 
 
For the late Roman army in general read: 
 
Dixon, K.R. and P. Southern, The late Roman army (London 1996) 206p. 
 
Elton, H., Warfare in Roman Europe AD 350-425 (Oxford 1996) 312p. 
 
Nicasie, M.J., The twilight of empire. The Roman army from the reign of Diocletian until the battle of Adrianople (Amsterdam 1998) 321p. 
 
The traditional view of the late Roman army has been rectified in the last years. Nevertheless the old ideas about barbarisation and general decline can still be found in books like the following, which are in my opinion not as useful as those listed above. 
 
Cromwell, R.S., The rise and decline of the late Roman field army (Shippensburg 1998) 79p. 
 
Ferrill, A., The fall of the Roman Empire: the military explanation (London 1986) 192p. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 3/24/01 9:26:22 pm

04-17-2003, 10:28 AM

I have picked up Hoffman's book from the local University library hoping that there would be lots of charts and diagrams (my German is not that good although I can struggle through at about 2 pages per hour) 
 
Are there any translations around?

04-17-2003, 11:01 PM

Further question (I am putting together a hypothetical OB for the Roman army at Adrianople): 
 
I have several good references on the units of the Notitia Dignitatum. All seem to concur that the two Praesental armies relate to the eastern army and represent a split of the praesental on either side of the Bosphorus. 
 
However, given that this part of the record dates to the few years just after Theodosius temporarily reunited the empire, could it be that the split was between his Western and Eastern forces - i.e. the armies of Stilicho and Gainas respectively? 
 
Further specific question - the Legiones Palatinae: Fortenses, Nervii, Daci, Scythae, Primani and Undecimani - any knowledge of the dating of the formation of these units? 
 
(I am considering that possibly 2 of these units may well have been at Adrianople, along with Lanciarii, Mattiari, Herculiani and Iovianii Iuniores units)

04-28-2003, 11:46 AM

The references will agree that there are 2 praesental armies in the east as the information comes from the eastern section of the Notitia, the western section shows the western armies :-) 
 
Although the 2 parts are dated at different times it seems reasonable to say that the western and eastern army dispositions are a reasonable reflection of how they might have stood after Theodosius' death. 
 
As for trying to work out the order of battle for Adrianople the Notitia can only be of limited use as it is likely that there were quite major changes during the reign of Theodosius and just after. For example I have read that it seems likely that until after Theodosius' return from the west after his first civil war after Gratian's murder there was only 1 eastern praesental army, but that the second was created after this war partly from units brought back from the west. 
 
If you read Ammianus and try and work out the distribution of the major armies at about the time of Adrianople I think you will come up with 4/5 major troop groupings: an army on the eastern frontier, and army in Illyricum a praesental army with Valens, an army in Gaul and perhaps another praesental army with Gratian/based in Italy unless this is more or less one with the Gallic army. From this it would appear to me that Theodosius changes the structure of the eastern army quite dramatically and this was complicated by the dispute over Illyricum after his death.

04-28-2003, 09:30 PM

Thanks for your response. 
 
I have come to a somewhat similar conclusion. I guess my proposition is that in 395AD the two praesental armies would have been Theodosius' but that this was a time when he was effectively responsible for the whole empire. 
 
I agree though that with obvious regular and comprehensive reorganisations and cross postings, new units, split units etc... it is virtually impossible to determine OB for Adrianople from the list. 
 
The two Praesental armies do give a good indication of the makeup of an imperial field force in Theodosius' time so I am using that as a basis for a more generic OB (not naming particular units). 
 
In doing so, I am presuming that in 378AD, there may have been a slightly smaller percentage of cavalry than shown. 
 
My current OB has 19,000 Romans and 23,000 Goths/Allies.

07-05-2003, 01:11 AM

Quote:<hr>My current OB has 19,000 Romans and 23,000 Goths/Allies. <hr> 
Well, even though I believe those figures may be right, I still cannot understand how they can be so low !! 
 
Even though there is no consensus about the size of the Roman army in any period. I think it's safe to say that the entire Roman army was between 300,000 and 500,000 men strong. More than half can be limitanei. And west and east have half. So 70,000 to 100,000 'mobile forces' meaning palatines and comitatenses. Perhaps adding bucellarii. 
 
And I'm sure you can pinch off many thousands of troops for other activities and a range of reasons. But still ? 
 
Plus, it is well known that limitanei do their share of fighting if a battle occurs in their region. So that should augment the numbers. But 19,000 ?? That would be 1/4 of the men available. Or was it so important to keep comitatenses behind to deter the Persians ??

Thiudareiks Flavius · 07-05-2003, 08:52 AM

I've discussed the Roman numbers at Adrianople with many people, including many whose opinions I respect. The conclusion of all those latter discussions is that Valens led a Praesental Army of around 20,000 troops. Simon MacDowell comes to the same conclusion in his [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1841761478/qid=1057398883/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-1146752-6529761?v=glance&s=books&n=507846" target="top]Adrianople AD 378: The Goths Crush Rome's Legions[/url] which breaks down the units likely to have fought at Adrianople on pages 26-29. 
 
The total Roman army isn't really relevant - it was the troops available to Valens when he arrived from the East which is significant. Given that Fritigern was doing everything he could to avoid battle of find a way to peace, it's likely he had similar numbers or was slightly outnumbered. Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius 
 
Visit 'Clades Variana' - Home of the Varus Film Project 
 
Help create the film of Publius Quinctilius Varus' lost legions

07-05-2003, 03:12 PM

TF, I agree with you on the numbers in Adrianople. That is not what my question is about ... 
 
My question is that what you dismissed as irrelevant. If Valens had only 20,000 men with him, what does that say about the entire Eastern Roman Army ??

Caius Fabius · 07-05-2003, 08:13 PM

I would have to suggest that "it says" that everyone else was on other assignments/duties, in other places, or still moving to the scene of the event, or maybe even lost and trying to find out where they were supposed to be! Valens could not bring all the troops in the theatre to the vicinity of the Adrianopolis conflict, there were too many other little problems going on at the time. Troops on other parts of frontier, guarding passes, watching other areas, securing supplies and dozens of other duties. 
We also must remember that they didn't have radio, GPS or other modern ways to get all the other "available" detachments to the right place at the right time and they didn't know there was going to be a huge battle on a certain day, unless they were there (and even then, who knew?) 
You could write an OB where more units were available to either side or something, and still be quasi-historical, if you want to do alternative possibilities. "Just before class started, I looked in the big book where all the world's history is written, and it said...." Neil J. Hackett, PhD ancient history, professor OSU, 1987

07-12-2003, 12:21 AM

Thank you for replying Caius. 
Quote:<hr>or still moving to the scene of the event, or maybe even lost and trying to find out where they were supposed to be! Valens could not bring all the troops in the theatre to the vicinity of the Adrianopolis conflict, there were too many other little problems going on at the time. Troops on other parts of frontier, guarding passes, watching other areas, securing supplies and dozens of other duties.<hr> I have never read about units left behind on the march without them catching up. Nor that they lost their way while in Roman territory. It is true that certain troops were dealing with other Goths in the vicinity, and achieving some small victories ! But they were troops already present, so a mixture of limitanei and local comitatenses. And of course troops on other borders were kept there. But all of this would have no effect on the mobile army. How come it is only 20,000 strong ? And what good is a mobile field army if it has to fight without comitatenses. So, what about the legions elsewhere in Great-Illyricum ? Isn't it a well known fact that in case of a major battle, all troops available in the vicinity (hundreds of miles away) are being brought together. 
So, in short : what's the point of having an Eastern Roman army of 200,000 men if you can only use 20,000 soldiers in one of the greatest invasions into the Roman Empire ever ?? Even Gratianus had to come to the rescue !! 
 
Don't understand it...

Thiudareiks Flavius · 07-12-2003, 06:25 AM

Civettone wrote: 
 
Quote:<hr>My question is that what you dismissed as irrelevant. If Valens had only 20,000 men with him, what does that say about the entire Eastern Roman Army ??<hr> 
 
Hmmm, a slightly irritable-seeming reply that I'm not sure I deserved. I didn't "dismiss" what you said. I wrote: 
 
The total Roman army isn't really relevant - it was the troops available to Valens when he arrived from the East which is significant. 
 
And Caius replied in much the same way. Valens couldn't have left the other provinces ungarrisoned or left the Persian front without a mobile army reserve. And there were other frontiers which needed both limitanei and comitatenses. The 20,000 or so was what Valens was (i) able to spare from other fronts and theatres and (ii) what he was able to gather to him in time to meet the increasing threat posed by the Goths. Which is what both Caius and I have said. Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius 
 
Visit 'Clades Variana' - Home of the Varus Film Project 
 
Help create the film of Publius Quinctilius Varus' lost legions

07-12-2003, 11:50 AM

And donÃ‚Â´t forget logistics, to keep an army over 15.000 together in one place supplied was a very difficult task in those times, and until the late XVII century.

07-13-2003, 02:51 AM

I'm sorry if I seemed irritated. I definitely was not. I was even glad someone took the trouble of replying 
 
I thought there was only one eastern mobile field army ... 
 
My critical view is partially based on the fact that the late Roman way of distributing the legions was supposed to be a step forward. In the early empire all the legions were placed on the borders. 
About half of the (bigger) army of the 4th century was still placed at the borders as limitanei. So fair to say that they were pretty much fixed, and only the ones at the Lower Danube could be used. 
But that still leaves half of the eastern army, let's say 100,000 men that were DESTINED to be used in case of an emergency. Right ? What is the point of having your comitatenses fixed ?? I mean what else were they comitatenses for, and not limitanei ? 
So sure you would need to leave troops behind. But 80,000 out of 100,000 ?? Or even 90,000 since you would probably use the comitatenses in Moesia, Macedonia, etc. 
 
So my point is : what is the step forward here ? Comparing it to the early empire where you could at least use all of your troops along the border, put them together, and attack with greater numbers. And if you want to guard the borders you would leave some there. But in this later system already half of all troops were fixed at the borders (or not far behind it). 
 
I hope I'm making sense here. And I'm not looking to be right. I just want some arguments that can explain why only a tenth of the Eastern Roman Army was send against the Goths.

07-13-2003, 08:33 AM

I think that there has been a general mistake understanding the resons for the changes that took place in the IV century in the deployment of the imperial army. 
First of all has to be said that ancient sourcess were very critical of that innovations. Salvianus stated plainly that it was designed simply to agravate the burden of the people having to hostage the comitatenses forces. Modern scholars have struggled to make an strategic sense of this redeployment, and they have mainly focused on the idea of deep defence, however that is IMO completely baseless. 
1) It is supposed the comitatenses forces would be a sort of fast response force, composed basically of cavalry. The true is that they had at least as much infantry forces, if no more than cavalry. 
2) Ancient sourcess doesnÃ‚Â´t say a word about it, they imply instead 2 different resons for the redeployment 
a) To ease the supply of larger forces, keep in mind that at this satge the annona was the main payment system, and it was easier to collect and deliver to the units if those units were near the main cities in the empire and not near the rather underpopulated limes. 
b) IMO the more important reson for the creation of a comitatense force was to have an important and selected part of the army under the direct supÃƒÂ¨rvision of the emperor, so that the familiar pattern in the III century of provincial armies rebelling and procaliming new emperors could be somehow averted by this selected force. 
To sum up, operative criteria in the defence of the empire lime were secondary, so not surprisingly the system was less than efective

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Late Roman Army during the 5th century	Robert Vermaat	89	17,643	01-11-2024, 04:34 PM Last Post: Magister_Officiorum13241
	Late Roman Army Ranks - Numeri/Limitanei	jmsilvacross	14	1,897	11-17-2021, 01:42 PM Last Post: Steven James
	Late Roman Army - seniores and iuniores	Robert Vermaat	46	21,009	10-15-2020, 10:16 PM Last Post: Steven James