Late Roman Army during the 5th century

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I too have theorized that letting the Visigoths take the brunt of the Battle at chalons was a play by Aetius - let the Battle-Hardened and Veteran Roman army sit up on the Hill, while the Huns destroy the Barbarians of Gaul on the Plain Below, when the line breaks come down on the huns and then their army is no longer a threat to Rome either. Sounds political to me.

[Robert Vermaat]

I also would theorize about great Britian - Germanus of Auxerre had gone in 429 and it's likely Aetius sent him back in 446 to secure their support for his power and against the Hunnic threat.

Germanus never went to Britain in 446. He died on may 26, 437, in Italy.

[starman2012]

I too have theorized that letting the Visigoths take the brunt of the Battle at chalons was a play by Aetius - let the Battle-Hardened and Veteran Roman army sit up on the Hill,

But the Roman regulars initially advanced to seize the hill, instead of sitting quietly in reserve somewhere.

[starman2012]

Very interesting. Maybe a fully Roman Gaul would have made it possible to free Spain after some time, and prevent the Vandals from going to Africa. I don't know how a Gothic Africa would have been different from a Vandal Africa (alliances, raiding, prosecution of catholics) and if the Romans would have been in better shape to retake it sooner.

Possible, because eastern help wouldn't have been diverted by a hunnic threat as it was in 440 or 441.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I also would theorize about great Britian - Germanus of Auxerre had gone in 429 and it's likely Aetius sent him back in 446 to secure their support for his power and against the Hunnic threat.

Germanus never went to Britain in 446. He died on may 26, 437, in Italy.

The date of his death maye been in 437, 446, or 448. That's all I know, that and he died in Ravenna. So it's debatable wether he did or not.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I too have theorized that letting the Visigoths take the brunt of the Battle at chalons was a play by Aetius - let the Battle-Hardened and Veteran Roman army sit up on the Hill,

But the Roman regulars initially advanced to seize the hill, instead of sitting quietly in reserve somewhere.

The Visigoths advanced first, followed by the Roman Army, and then followed by the huns and the Allies' motly center. The Romans set up a shieldwall/Fulcrum on top of the hill and let the Gepids charge the their formation, eventually fighting them off. No clue what the Barbarains did, besides the cavalry combat betweent he gothic groups (the Tervingi/Grethungi/Radagasian goths that became the Visigoths of Aquitaine and the Amailic and other gothic groups that become the ostrogoths in the 460s/70s.)

Theodoric dies, goths route and regroupe, in the meantime the Huns break the center. The regrouped goths attack the left hunnic flank while Aetius comes accross the ridge and attacks the right hunnic flank, the huns are trapped between and are forced to route back to attila's camp. The goths pursue but take cavalries while besieging the camp. Aetius is lost in the confusion but manages to make his way to the Visigothic camp where he spends the night (likely on purpose to convince thorismund to return to aquitaine.)

[Robert Vermaat]

I too have theorized that letting the Visigoths take the brunt of the Battle at chalons was a play by Aetius - let the Battle-Hardened and Veteran Roman army sit up on the Hill,

But the Roman regulars initially advanced to seize the hill, instead of sitting quietly in reserve somewhere.

Indeed. I don't see Chalons as a piece of that strategy. They needed each other, they all took part.

[starman2012]

Of course there was. Africa is so much larger than Gaul. The entire desert frontier had to be protected. Berbers were giving a lot of grief, Blemyans, a few more.. If you read later comments it was ever more difficult to protect the small towns, and the army finally retreated into the cities along the coast.

IIRC the blemmys were in 3rd century Egypt as was the worst of the berber trouble. I don't see how Africa could've remained productive and valuable to the 430s if they had lost everything but coastal cities.

Please share where you read that, because as far as I know we have no actual information about the composition or strength of any 5th century field army or border force after the Notitia Dignitatum.

From what I've read, the latter was updated.

I meant before that, when Alaric ran amok in Italy. We have no information about troop strengths in Africa post-400.

According to Heather page 271, "In the fourth century there had been no field army in Africa, only garrison troops. By 420, Africa had acquired ....a substantial field army.." Heather mentioned "31 regiments" of comitatenses but only four were "top grade." Goldsworthy indicated that 19 were cavalry and 12 infantry (theoretical or paper strength at least). Augustine btw, in 417 wrote how Bonafatius had done a good job with a small barbarian force in securing Africa "against the new threats."

I disagree with Heather. The event takes place in 428, when Sigisvult is sent against Boniface in Hippo. The Vandals as his allies would have been similarly effective as the Huns backing Aetius.

Heather noted that there is "no reference to such treachery on the part of Bonafatius in contemporary western sources" not even his enemies like Aetius. He also notes by 429 Bonafatius had "made peace with the imperial court" so didn't need Vandal help (he had already won in 428 anyway). It seems best to interpret the Vandal invasion of 429 as opportunism--they assumed the fighting of 428 had distracted and weakened Bonafatius's defenses.

In this case, a few laws are all he needs to see ‘increasing evidence’. No-one was actually counting thumbs, plus it’s not a movement that continues throughout the 5th century. So I respectfully disagree with mr G.

He saw frequent legislation against the practice a evidence it was becoming more of a problem.

[Robert Vermaat]

IIRC the blemmys were in 3rd century Egypt as was the worst of the berber trouble. I don't see how Africa could've remained productive and valuable to the 430s if they had lost everything but coastal cities.

Well, because raiders must eat too? No use destroying everything when you can return and rob again later. Retreating into the cities was apparently temporary. Btw, berbers did not operate in Egypt but in Northwest Africa.

From what I've read, the latter was updated.

Sure, one half of the Notitia Dignitatum was updated (the western half), but it still does not give us information about the strength of any unit (which it does not contain), nor anything of the sort AFTER the ND (updated or not).

According to Heather page 271, "In the fourth century there had been no field army in Africa, only garrison troops. By 420, Africa had acquired ....a substantial field army.." Heather mentioned "31 regiments" of comitatenses but only four were "top grade." Goldsworthy indicated that 19 were cavalry and 12 infantry (theoretical or paper strength at least). Augustine btw, in 417 wrote how Bonafatius had done a good job with a small barbarian force in securing Africa "against the new threats."

Wll goodie for heather and Goldsworthy, but my words were "we have no information about troop strengths post 400", remember? Mentioning the units in the ND is one thing, but only part of the ND was updated and past c. 420 evrything is guesswork again. And AGAIN, counting units is one, but being able to tell the number of soldiers involved is another - the ND does not gives us any numbers.

Heather noted that there is "no reference to such treachery on the part of Bonafatius in contemporary western sources" not even his enemies like Aetius. He also notes by 429 Bonafatius had "made peace with the imperial court" so didn't need Vandal help (he had already won in 428 anyway). It seems best to interpret the Vandal invasion of 429 as opportunism--they assumed the fighting of 428 had distracted and weakened Bonafatius's defenses.

Are you reading my replies? the enlisting of Vandal aid by 428 need not have been any treason (all factions had Germanics or Huns to aid them). A year late Boniface patched things up (maybe Ravenna realised they had nothing to tackle him with) and the deal may have turned sour between the Vandals and Boniface, who had his eyes on Italy by then. I seriously doubt that the vandal 'invasion' was one.

[starman2012]

No use destroying everything when you can return and rob again later.

According to a contemporary account the Vandals destroyed orchards to ensure that those who fled into mountain caves would have nothing to eat after they passed.

Btw, berbers did not operate in Egypt but in Northwest Africa.

Yes of course. I should've phrased it better. I meant the worst of the berber trouble, like the blemmys trouble in Egypt, occurred in the 3rd century.

the enlisting of Vandal aid by 428 need not have been any treason (all factions had Germanics or Huns to aid them).

If the aim was just to provide military support to Bonafatius, it's odd that the whole Vandal population came, instead of just warriors. I don't think Hun civilians came with the warriors who fought under Aetius. Bringing civilians with them indicates the Vandals were seeking new homes i.e. taking Roman territory--the difference between getting help and treason, IF Bonafatius did invite them.

A year late Boniface patched things up (maybe Ravenna realised they had nothing to tackle him with) and the deal may have turned sour between the Vandals and Boniface, who had his eyes on Italy by then.

I doubt Bonafatius had his eyes on Italy in 429-431, when he was faced with Vandal invaders.

[neutra]

sorry to re-open the subject, but this is a period and discussion I like a lot.

I fully agree with Robert here. The ND is a wonderful resource of information but it does not speak about figures. Therefore I guess these were not available or the author left the information behind to keep a positive view of his book.

If there was still a substaintial roman field army in the western where was it when the german tribes crossed the Rhine? I might be wrong but except some reports that cities were devastated by the tribes in 406 there is no mention of a major confrontation between the Vandals or Suebi and a roman army.

Some sources claim that Stilicho weakened the nother frontier by calling all mobile troops to Italy and that these flocked to Alaric after Stilicho's death. The combined Gallic-Italian army would have counted 30.000 men, most of German origin.

If the field army was in Italy where was the reamining static army? They could not prevent cities like Strasburg or Mainz to be sacked while, correct me if I am wrong, the "barbarians" lacked siege weapons and tactics?

According to other sources, Constantine III crossed the channel with the mobile roman troops from britain and was able to secure a large part of gaul and its frontier with maybe 5 or 10.000 men.

I am also convinced that talking about a "roman" army or unit does not mean it was made of roman-born soldiers.
I believe taht when various sources spak about visigoth or huns under the command of a roma general they mean a whole group hired with their own leaders. A "roman" army would be a group of various nationalities, possibly wearing roman clothing or weapons, under the command of a roman citizen or by a barbarian officialy appointed as general, dux or magister militium.
Stilicho was in command of the roman army but they where all or almost all germans while Alaric was in command of foederati which were also germanic people.

[Robert Vermaat]

According to a contemporary account the Vandals destroyed orchards to ensure that those who fled into mountain caves would have nothing to eat after they passed.

After they passed where? They were not nomads and the habitable zone in Africa is not that large - in order to remain anywhere themselves such actions would be suicide. Perhaps the source refers to the Vandals leaving Tingitania and Mauretania when they went for Carthage? But that would be different from how they raided a place, I think. Otherwise, exaggeration is also a legal part of any source in Late Antiquity. :wink:

[quote="Tim Donovan" post=318846]If the aim was just to provide military support to Bonafatius, it's odd that the whole Vandal population came, instead of just warriors. I don't think Hun civilians came with the warriors who fought under Aetius. Bringing civilians with them indicates the Vandals were seeking new homes i.e. taking Roman territory--the difference between getting help and treason, IF Bonafatius did invite them.[/quote} The difference between the Vandals and the Huns (of whom we don't know anything of their dependents btw) could be that a) Aetius needed a fast army (Iohannes was in trouble) and b) that the Vandals would never have left their dependents in Spain while crossing to Africa. Besides, we hear of Stilicho employing germanics whose dependents were also in Italy - not much of a difference.

[Robert Vermaat]

I fully agree with Robert here. The ND is a wonderful resource of information but it does not speak about figures. Therefore I guess these were not available or the author left the information behind to keep a positive view of his book.

it's not a document of that nature. The ND lists the organisational structure of the army as well as the rest of the government. It's not a document concerned with numbers or anything like that.

If there was still a substaintial roman field army in the western where was it when the german tribes crossed the Rhine? I might be wrong but except some reports that cities were devastated by the tribes in 406 there is no mention of a major confrontation between the Vandals or Suebi and a roman army.

Some sources claim that Stilicho weakened the nother frontier by calling all mobile troops to Italy and that these flocked to Alaric after Stilicho's death.

You mix up two things. a
a) the field army troops may indeed have been in Italy facing Alaric.
b) no one mentions these troops flocking to Alaric. Only a great number of germanics may have done so. The rest of the army no doubt remained in Italy to face Alaric (but don't forget they also fought Radagais), others will have been sent back to Gaul the next year.

The combined Gallic-Italian army would have counted 30.000 men, most of German origin.

I keep wondering where people get this osrt of information. The numbers, although conjectary, could be right, but did anyone secretly collect the ID cards of the non-Romans? :mrgreen:

If the field army was in Italy where was the reamining static army? They could not prevent cities like Strasburg or Mainz to be sacked while, correct me if I am wrong, the "barbarians" lacked siege weapons and tactics?

The limitanei were for a part also pulled off to Italy. About sieges, at that time walled could be breached by ladders 9and a lot of cities had walls that could not be defended for the whole length. Other cities were under siege for a great deal of time. We don't know the circumstances of most cities that fell.

According to other sources, Constantine III crossed the channel with the mobile roman troops from britain and was able to secure a large part of gaul and its frontier with maybe 5 or 10.000 men.

Sources do not tell us that but modern interpretaion. Sources tell us that he left with all the young men of the island.. :wink:

A "roman" army would be a group of various nationalities, possibly wearing roman clothing or weapons, under the command of a roman citizen or by a barbarian officialy appointed as general, dux or magister militium.
Stilicho was in command of the roman army but they where all or almost all germans while Alaric was in command of foederati which were also germanic people.

Indeed. A Roman army was an army that fought for a Roman cause, but in appearances it might have looked very much like the opposing force.

[neutra]

You mix up two things. a
a) the field army troops may indeed have been in Italy facing Alaric.
b) no one mentions these troops flocking to Alaric. Only a great number of germanics may have done so. The rest of the army no doubt remained in Italy to face Alaric (but don't forget they also fought Radagais), others will have been sent back to Gaul the next year.

The combined Gallic-Italian army would have counted 30.000 men, most of German origin.

I keep wondering where people get this osrt of information. The numbers, although conjectary, could be right, but did anyone secretly collect the ID cards of the non-Romans? :mrgreen:

I owe you an appology on this one, I checked and true, the numbers are not given or at least verified.
But I believe this could be true.

Altrough I found some interpretations of the ND reporting 150.000 troops in the western empire between 410 & 425AD, which is highly exagerated.

Sources do not tell us that but modern interpretaion. Sources tell us that he left with all the young men of the island.. :wink:

Then this would have been more than 10.000 :lol: ... however. Do we basically have approximate figures of the population of the western empire in the 4th-5th century? We couls estimate the potential army enrollment based on that.

Warfare in the 5th century and after needed probably far less manpower than half a millenium ago. Looking a century forward, Belisarius managed to reconquer Africa and Italy with no more than 10-15.000 men.

[Marja]

There is a lot of controversy over the population of the Roman Empire, and especially the western Roman Empire, and whether it grew or shrunk between the 1st and 4th centuries.

from Beloch, 1886, p. 507:

Italy - 6,000,000
Sicily - 600,000
Sardinia and Corsica - 500,000
Hispania - 6,000,000
Narbonenses - 1,500,000
Tres Galliae - 3,400,000
[Western Illyricum] - ½ of 2,000,000
[western North] Africa - 6,000,000
[Britain - not counted]

Rough total - 25,000,000

This is for the early 1st century, but not an unreasonable estimate for the 4th. The original table includes more info, and the book includes his arguments although I haven't been able to find an English edition.