Login

08-16-2003, 05:37 AM

Sorry to bring this forward again. 
But I would like to have some more responses to my question which is of great importance to me ? 
 
In short, according to people like Zosimus and the Notitia Dignitatum there were at least a quarter of a million soldiers in the eastern part of the empire. 
 
Yet Valens went to fight the Goths near Adrianople with (some say) only 20,000 soldiers. 
Now I'm quite aware that half of the troops were limitanei, and that you would need troops for logistics, defense of Egypt and Oriens. But the mobile army and the comitatus were exactly intended for major invasions like that of 376. So why would he leave behind 9/10 or at least 3/4 of his mobile army behind ? And it was also a custom to take the thousands of limitanei of the region (so those that defended the Donau) into your army ... 
 
Anyone ??

08-16-2003, 07:39 AM

Civettone, 
 
As for as ancient military history is concerned the most difficult question is number of troops (soldiers). There were slaves, servants, non-combatants, merchants (traders), wives, prostitutes and the like and the like. 
I used to try go deep in this question and the only thing I got cleared for me is - any number of troops (soldiers) mentioned in the sources is VERY, VERY, VERY approximate. I mean - it could differ from reality two times or maybe ten. 
I remember a Roman historian (was it Livius?) who was absolutely confused and distressed with the same problem - number of troops. And the events he described were only some hundred years before! 
 
Regards, 
 
warrior11 
<img src="http://www.chathome.com.ua/smile/182.gif" style="border:0;"/>

08-16-2003, 05:58 PM

Thank you, Warrior. 
 
Could you tell me what your opinion is about the size of the late Roman Army ? I know you don't know for sure. But I'm convinced that you have an opinion about it. 
For the 4th century, A.H.M. Jones gives a figure of 600,000 mainly based on the Notitia Dignitatum. Lactantius also talks about a huge army. 
MacMullen and John Lydus give a figure around 400,000. All figures are given for a unified army. 
 
Personally I think that the units at the end of the 4th century only had half or two thirds of their original strength. Even the units of the victorious American Army were only up to 45% of their strength (Germans 10 %, Russians 20%). I know that WW2 is quite different, but it's safe to say that the Roman army was in a constant state of war from 378 till 394 ! (Adrianople, against Magnentius, against Eugenius, and many others)

08-16-2003, 07:24 PM

Salve, 
 
The Notitia Dignitatum just provides an overview of units and does not provide any indications about their strength. The guesstimates on late Roman unit strength are based on various passages in Ammianus, Zosimus and other authors, as well as some other sources whose interpretation poses some difficulties (see the different interpretations by Jones and Duncan-Jones of the same pay - and ration figures). Johannes Lydus gives the strength of the army during the reign of Diocletianus, but it is uncertain at which point in his reign which would be very significant, given the increase in military units and likely numerical strength as well. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

08-17-2003, 12:26 AM

Dag Sander, 
 
I wouldn't exactly say that the Notitia does not give any information about strength. For instance it does mention 4 alae milliariae while the rest were alae quingenariae. There are also 4 cohortes and 1 auxilium that gets the name milliariae. 
 
It is true that there are no real sources that tell us how big the different units were. However, there does seem to be some consensus between scholars that legions (or perhaps other units) were between 1000 and 1200, or at least between 800 and 1500. 
I would also like to add Procopius to the names you mentionned. 
 
So, indeed there is no direct evidence to the size of the units, but nevertheless I'm sure you have a temporary opinion about the actual strength of the Roman Army in the 4th century and at the time of the final version of the Notitia.

08-17-2003, 06:25 AM

Salve, 
 
But it does not specify the number of troops in those units or their internal organisation. Unit strength in the Roman army could vary significantly between below nominal strength and over nominal strength. While some units are attested as being quite understrength, there is also some evidence to suggest that formations could have a lot more soldiers than expected by what modern students consider standard sizes (themselves not above discussion). 
 
For late (and early) unit sizes see: 
 
Coello, T., Unit sizes in the late Roman army (Oxford 1996) 71p. 
 
There are many variables that affect the currently available evidence used to determine unit strengths that preclude hard conclusions on what was the standard size of late Roman units. The calculations of unit strength based on ration and pay records suffer from uncertainty about rates, while size of unit fortifications do not constitute reliable proof since units tended to be broken up over several stations rather than being assigned a single base. 
 
It can be argued that the notion of a standard size might be wrong. It seems that detachments of existing legions for instance were termed legions in their own right instead of vexillatio or numerus as they had been before. Such detachments could have widely varying strengths from at most some four hundred (according to interpretation of the tetrarchic rations papyrus Duncan-Jones) to several thousand. Nor were such detachments organised in a similar manner according to the material available, with some composed on the basis of the regular subdivisions of the legion, some on entirely different principles and some on a mix of both. 
 
Duncan-Jones, R.P., 'Pay and numbers in Diocletian's army' in: Chiron 8 (197, 541-560. 
 
Units in the camapigningarmies could have men elsewhere,eg convalescents, men on detached duty, so it may not have been their full strength, whatever that may have been, that reached the battlefield. Part of the troops in the units at Adrianople were left with the baggage. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

08-22-2003, 06:07 PM

In the ND, several units are listed as "armigeri". I've seen pictures of the ND and the lettering for armigeri is unclear. It looks like a "G" but it could also be a medieval "F". 
Could it be that those units were in fact "armiFeri" with the classic construction (signifer, aquilifer..), meaning armour bearers? 
Or is it just one of my crazy ideas? 
But honestly I don't really see what "armigeri" mean.. It seems to be generally accepted, though. 
Maybe it's the same root as "geriatrics". In which case it would mean "the old persons with weapons". 
Never mind.. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://localhost:1094/Homesteads/_1750094854/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 8/22/03 8:13 pm

08-22-2003, 06:27 PM

Salve, 
 
Armiger (plural armigeri) is derived from arma (weapons) and the verb gerere (to carry). It means weapons bearer. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sandervandorst@romanarmytalk>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 8/22/03 8:28 pm

08-22-2003, 06:50 PM

I don't like the late Roman army. Funny clothes and silly armor. Not to mention the egg shaped helmets. Bah! Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" Coh I 
 
"I know I was born, and I know that I'll die. But the in between is mine." 
 
- Number of posts: current +1248

**Robert Vermaat** · 08-22-2003, 11:05 PM

You come and say that to my face! 
 
<img src="http://www.fectio.org.uk/groep/2003pos5.jpg" style="border:0;"/>Oh, and..you forgot to mention our funny hats! 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

08-23-2003, 07:20 AM

Found this in Procopius, Bellum Gothicum. V, 12, 16-18 
 
"The Roman soldiers were formerly stationed at the frontiers of Gaul to stand guard. 
And these soldiers, who did not any longer have the means to go back to Rome and did not want to make alliance with their enemies who were arians (the Wisigoths) gave themselves up, with their standards and the territories they had kept for the Romans to the Armoricans (Brittany/Bretagne) and the Germans (the Franks). 
"Even today they are clearly identified as belonging to the legions to which they were formerly assigned, they still carry their own standards into battle and still follow their ancestral customs. 
"They still wear roman costume in every detail, including the shoes". 
 
I wonder what Procopius, who lived in the first half of the 6th century AD and died in 560 considered "roman costume" at that time.. 
And they must have been pretty good shoes.. 
And who were these "Romans"? Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://localhost:1094/Homesteads/_1750094854/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 8/23/03 9:41 am

**Robert Vermaat** · 08-23-2003, 02:51 PM

I think Procopius is writing about us! 
 
OK, serious now, the difference between who was a 'Roman' and who was a 'Frank' or a 'Goth' by that time came down to allegiance, not of ethnicity. So these soldiers, having served on the frontier or the interior as did their ancestors, were probably gauls, or Laeti Germans. 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert

08-23-2003, 02:51 PM

Runaway! Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" Coh I 
 
"I know I was born, and I know that I'll die. But the in between is mine." 
 
- Number of posts: current +1248

08-24-2003, 09:58 AM

Indeed, they were most probably local boys, Gauls and Rhineland Germans (and maybe some Alano-Sarmatians). 
What struck me is that, contrary to a popular belief, they still were clearly recognizable not only by their standards (draco?) but by their clothing, down to the shoes (the typical IV/Vth century sandals?) 
The weaponry at that time was pretty much the same for everyone and the different available styles (German, Central Asian, Persian and so on) were more a question of personal taste than of ethnicity. A "hunnic" sword doen not mean a hunnic warrior, for instance. It may have been made in Constantinople in the "hunnic" style, and sold to a roman soldiers of gothic origin (born in Northern Greece..) or an Isaurian, or anybody else wealthy enough to purchase it.. 
So I wonder what exactly those differences were. 
What kind of shoes did the Wisigoths wear, for instance? 
Did these former roman soldiers still wore the late roman tunic with the clavii and the roundels? 
Did they still decorated their shields with the designs found in the ND. 
Or maybe with the Chi-Rho since the matter aprears to have been a religious one (catholics vs arians)? 
Besides, Procopius does not specifify whether these soldiers were horse or foot. 
As for wildly varying styles of armament: an example is the famous ivory panel of Stilicho. The man is shown carrying a sword that looks definitely central asian, if not more eastern than that. 
Some swords of that period show very definite asiatic (chinese) influences like stone pommels, handguards and scabbard slides. 
His belt also does not look like a "germanic" belt --whatever that mean-- but again like a central asian double belt system. 
I read somewhere (here?) someone asking why the belt supporting Stilicho's sword did not look like it was pulled down by the weight of the sword. 
I think the explanation could be that Stilicho is shown as a cavalryman and he wears a cavalry sword belt that makes the sword hang low behind the left thigh when in the saddle, like the later napoleonic era arrangement. 
In the panel, it could be that the sword tip is resting on the ground. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antoninuslucretius@romanarmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://localhost:1094/Homesteads/_1750094854/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 8/25/03 2:14 pm

**Robert Vermaat** · 08-26-2003, 05:14 AM

If Procopius is right on this, and he may be telling a fantasy story (he did not know anythinbg about Britain either, writing about it if it was in fact two islands, and the island of the dead as well), it's a fascinating tale. 
 
The Late Roman military may have evolved into something like a separate caste, not surprising if the laws of hereditary membership were enforced and continued to be enforced locally. That Roman citizens could continue to identify themselves as 'Romans' may not be loyalty to Rome, after all Procopius wrote in the mid-6th century. However, we see at many places groups of poeple being referred to as 'Romans', e.g the 'Rumi' of the balkans or the 'Welsh' of Britain, the latter originating in the word 'wal-', which was used at that time for 'Roman', or 'a person living across the Roman border'. On the Danube, Odoacer evacuted the 'Romans', meaning the were an identifyable class. 
 
So, I think on the one hand we have something of a new tribal identity. On the other hand we have a group that sticks to it's given task of local defense. Whatever you want to call the group, this is pure continuity, from local government point of view. If there had been no organisation behind them, there would not have been any defence necessary, or these men would have set up around any warlord. 
 
About dress and equipment, that's hard to say because we have no idea if there was a 'Merovingian dress' code as far as standards or even shoes are concerned. Contemporary images show no big differences between the provicial Gauls and the Germanic newcomers, who took over what was there anyway culturally and politically (Clovis' father was commander of the field army in Gaul). 
 
Shield design may be more like that of the Notitia Dignitatum compared to a Chi-Rho, because that could have been carried by any Christian soldier. 
 
Of course, the whole story may be just a fairy-tale. 
 
I'll comment on Stilicho in another thread. 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert 
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]FECTIO[/url]

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	17,649	01-11-2024, 04:34 PM Last Post: Magister_Officiorum13241
	Late Roman Army Ranks - Numeri/Limitanei	jmsilvacross	14	1,898	11-17-2021, 01:42 PM Last Post: Steven James
	Late Roman Army - seniores and iuniores	Robert Vermaat	46	21,015	10-15-2020, 10:16 PM Last Post: Steven James