High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army

[Marja]

Terms like "high" and "low," which I've encountered elsewhere, put a thumb on the scales compared to "early" and "late."

As for differences:

1. Once the Romans stopped fielding entire legions on the battlefield, and until they started forming mere instead, the Roman army doesn't seem to have had any 'divisional' organization.

2. Cavalry would account for about 20% of the Theodosian field armies, but the proportions seem unclear for earlier field armies. Archers would also become more numerous, especially by the time of the Strategikon.

3. There is little or no evidence for stirrups in Europe before the 6th century. It's possible that soft stirrups predated metal ones and haven't been preserved, but it's also been argued that Maurikios' references in the Strategikon imply they were a new technology to the Romans at the end of the 6th century. There is at least as much hard evidence for inswinger ballistae, but they remain controversial.

[Timianus]

I'll hop in here on this one.

When using such value-laden terms as superior vs inferior, we must ask "to what"? The Roman armies in both periods used the best equipment/tactics that were available to them. Comparing them to each other is silly because the armies in the two periods you compare served different purposes, faced different enemies, and existed in different economic/cultural climates.

As an example, while studies have shown that seg. offered more protection, there were issues with cost, maintenance, and comfort. What is "superior"--having a few soldiers equipped with custom-made, expensive top of the line armour or having 2/3 of your army equipped with adequate armour that is reusable and easy to repair after battle? Would you argue that the Germans in WWII had a "superior" army because their tanks and rifles were more advanced than those used by the allies?

Also, the issue of maneuverability must be considered. The army of the Principate was used as a show of force and to conquer. The army of the late empire had to contend with barbarian raids in every corner of the empire, reduced recruitment, and at least 1 usurpation at any given time. They had to be flexible, which meant lighter, more mobile equipment. And, they had to preserve their numbers. Commanders simply could not afford to launch a full frontal assault when they were short on manpower and facing better organized and better equipped enemies.

That said, and while I am sure others will disagree, I still hold to the belief that the discipline in the army was not what it once was. Having troops billeted in cities, dependency on semi-independent "federates", the need to appease the troops to avoid being murdered, and frequent non-payment, must have resulted in SOME loss of unit cohesion/effectiveness. You don't see Stilicho or Aetius "decimating" their armies as punishment do you? Also, I believe it is significant that the army at Andrianople was baited into attack before the line was fully formed and the whole army was deployed properly.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The Barbarians still weren't better organized or better equipped than the Romans, even in the mid-5th century, if I might add. It was all based on Leadership - Aetius was very aggressive, committing roman troops to surprise attacks and using its advanced organization and superior equipment to his advantage. It's recorded that the prefect Ferreolus were supplying the Barbarians with equipment and supplies before Chalons, so they'd be better off than Attila's army.

[Frank]

That said, and while I am sure others will disagree, I still hold to the belief that the discipline in the army was not what it once was. Having troops billeted in cities, dependency on semi-independent "federates", the need to appease the troops to avoid being murdered, and frequent non-payment, must have resulted in SOME loss of unit cohesion/effectiveness. You don't see Stilicho or Aetius "decimating" their armies as punishment do you? Also, I believe it is significant that the army at Andrianople was baited into attack before the line was fully formed and the whole army was deployed properly.

I trend to agree about the discipline. There are just too many hints, how the emperors were enforced to pamper the soldiers in order to secure their reign and survive at all. However, late roman armies usually have been still pretty successful in the 4th century.

I would distinguish between the late roman army before the heavy losses at Adrianopel/Frigidus around 378/394 AD and afterwards. The heavy use of federates afterwards changed things significantly. In the West, the roman part of the army diminished even more, as more as the taxbase diminished (Britannia, Gallia, Hispania, Africa). The east-roman empire, managed the turnaround in the 5th century, also for the army. This long process was perhaps not finished until Anastasius' reign. So, if we criticse the late roman army, we should always mention, which part of the empire and which time we refer to.

After the reign of Herakleios and the loss of Syria, Egypt and Africa, I would even not call the East a Roman Empire anymore. Now after the reorganisation based on Themata things became even more different anyways. A fuly new era started. But thats just my personal view.

[Timianus]

[

I would distinguish between the late roman army before the heavy losses at Adrianopel/Frigidus around 378/394 AD and afterwards.

I tend to agree with that, but I constantly encounter literature and texts that re-assure me that Adrianople was "no big deal" and that are virtually silent as to the losses of manpower during the Gothic War and the civil wars/battles at Save & Frigidus. Wasn't everything was hunky dory after Theo "reunited the Empire"? :lol:

[Sean Manning]

Bill, for a conclusive rebuttal of the idea that stirrups had a broad and great effect on early medieval societies, or enabled armoured cavalry with lances to use drastically new tactics, see Bernard Bachrach, "Charles Martel, Mounted Shock Combat, the Stirrup, and Feudalism," Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 7 (1970) pp. 49-75. A joyous piece of work ...

[Frank]

I tend to agree with that, but I constantly encounter literature and texts that re-assure me that Adrianople was "no big deal" and that are virtually silent as to the losses of manpower during the Gothic War and the civil wars/battles at Save & Frigidus. Wasn't everything was hunky dory after Theo "reunited the Empire"? :lol:

I never understood Peter Heathers calculations about Adrianopel. He says, that just 20.000 romans died. I understood, that Valens made first peace with the Sassanids, in order to bring his 2 presental field armies, to the Balkan. Here he met the illyrian field army and the rest of the thracian field army, which was already greatly diminished after the ongoing battles against the Goths. This must have been an huge roman army at Adrianopel. Afterwards 4/5 of the overall east-roman field army had massive losses. The oriental field army (#5) did not participate. So Adrianopel and the battles before must have been a huge desaster for the east-roman army. Frigidus was more a desaster for the western army. Alarichs Goths had the most losses on the eastern side.

However, after these 2 battles both roman field armies were in serious trouble regarding manpower. Now they had to use federates massively. Therefore the army in the 5th century is not comparable to the 4th century, imho.

[AMELIANVS]

After the reign of Herakleios and the loss of Syria, Egypt and Africa, I would even not call the East a Roman Empire anymore. Now after the reorganisation based on Themata things became even more different anyways. A fuly new era started. But thats just my personal view.

And how would you call it then?The "Byzantine empire"?Personally I can't agree.
Romans in different eras always evolved significantly.But they don't stop to be roman state,just because they were different from the time of Emperor Trajan.Romans from the time of republic founding could probably also claim that imperial Rome have nothing to do with real romans.Not to mention how strange the Romans from the time of Trajan would have to look in the eyes of the romans from the time of the kings.

[Frank]

After the reign of Herakleios and the loss of Syria, Egypt and Africa, I would even not call the East a Roman Empire anymore. Now after the reorganisation based on Themata things became even more different anyways. A fuly new era started. But thats just my personal view.

And how would you call it then?The "Byzantine empire"?Personally I can't agree.
Romans in different eras always evolved significantly.But they don't stop to be roman state,just because they were different from the time of Emperor Trajan.

I do not disagree with you! I underlined the term Empire in my post above with a reason. I don't say, that the Rhomanoi were no romans anymore. I say, it was no Empire anymore! Let's call it Kingdom of Anatolia or whatever you want. Fact is, I don't care about "roman" history after Herakleios, because the Empire was gone and every theoretical chance to get the ancient mediterrenean culture back, too.

When I first read Pirennes book about the Fall of Rome 30 years ago, where he argues, that the Roman Empire did not fall in the 5th century but in the 7th century (if at all), I was first doubtfully astonished, too. In the meantime, I still do not agree with most parts of Pirennes theory, but the 7th century as a major break in european and roman history makes a lot of sense to me.

[AMELIANVS]

O.K.I acknowledge.I missed that underlining.7th century in my mind only means the end of ancient state and opening century for Medieval romans.
But still I can't agree completely.Byzantine empire was still a major player on international level,even after Heraclius.And especially during Macedonian dynasty it was again worthy of the name of an empire.Then it was again(although for relatively short time)mightiest state of europe and near east with only Fatimids of Egypt being their real competitor.Roman navy once again had dominant role in the mediterranean and even Muslim states from western north Africa felt the necessity to build new coastal defences.So strong was renewed fear of potential attacks by imperial fleet.
But even before this,remaining roman state forced Caliphate a new mighty empire so much bigger in controlled area to pay heavy tribut for peace to the romans.Hardly an act of insignificant state.Also other European courts sometimes sought almost desperately and alliance with Constantinople and "Byzantine"princess were viewed as the most prestigious brides possible.Even in the time after battle of Manzikert,During Komnenian dynasty,most of the cruseders still considered Byzantine emperor to be the mightiest ruler on earth.Which by then,was not truth,of course,But the fact that they thought so,is saying something.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The Chinese even sent letters of Chinese Succession to the Eastern Empire, there was one found that never made it appearantly. Can't remember the date though (900's I think), but read about it on wikipedia.

[Marja]

I never understood Peter Heathers calculations about Adrianopel.

What seems to be missing or hard to understand? There are at least three lines of argument.

First, Gothic numbers. Peter Heather has done a lot of work on the Goths, and his estimate of 20,000 soldiers and militia is consistent with Ammianus' report of 10,000 for one of the two main groups at the battle, and is consistent with the best estimates for other comparably-important groups, and is higher than would be expect with Victor of Vita's figure of 80,000 Vandals, young and old, slaves and free, given that the Vandals were at least as important.

Second, Roman numbers. Warren Treadgold estimates the two Praesental armies and the Scolae as 45,500 troops, and that's including the new units Theodosius raised. The Illyrian field army was under western control at the time, and we last see it fortifying Succi Pass at the end of the campaign of 377. The Thracian field army had been defeated at Ad Salices, and enough units were needed to garrison important cities that it's likely out of the action. The Saracen allies aren't particularly numerous, if they arrived in time.

Third, direct evidence of Roman losses. Ammianus states that the Romans lost 2/3 of their forces. So that's 30,000 tops, and less than 20,000 if we drop the new Theodosian units, and we take Ammianus' references to units of 300 as implying most units weren't much above 300 strong. Ammianus states that the Romans lost 35 tribunes. Now that's been taken to imply 35 commanders of 1,000 troops each, but most tribunes were commanders of 500 each and some were aides de camp and others without units. So an average of 500 each makes at least as much sense as 1,000 each. Hoffman argues from the eastern units he expects but doesn't find, but some are eastern units he simply shouldn't expect. For example, the Divitenses iuniores and Tungrecani iuniores, who, I think he suspects were destroyed at Hadrianopolis, had supported Procopius against Valens, and had probably been disbanded in consequence [with soldiers being re-enlisted in new legions to replace the old?].

He says, that just 20.000 romans died.

Just? He estimates that the Romans lost the emperor, and the equivalent of an entire field army in one battle and that's not to speak of the rest of the war.

[Mark Hygate]

Returning to the OP's question - I would offer.....

The army of the Early Imperium is often thought of as the 'best' - in the main simply because it was 'Imperial', it's associated with the nice shiny segmentata and under Trajan the empire reached, effectively, it's furthest extent.

Leaving the pro's and con's of segmentata vs hamata (and even squamata) aside, let alone a note that, in general, pila are much less useful that hasta at dealing with cavalry; then the army from the Early Republic to the 2nd/3rd century was essentially similar - simply because the threat hadn't changed. That army was an army of conquest, mainly infantry-based and dealing with enemies who were essentially similar; either the more 'professional' style of successor-hellenic; or the more 'barbaric'. The exceptions were those on the edges - the Parthians and Sarmatians.

For the Late Empire the situation and threat changed. The Army is now mainly a garrison-army in defence. The enemy is generally more mobile and the main threat is more from marauding cavalry and archery. Longer swords are better for reaching a man on a horse. Armour that covers more of the body (like hamata does over segmentata) is more useful. Archers are more prevalent to reach the enemy who stay further away.

In short, the Army evolved and changed. Yes, the empire was in decline for all sorts of reasons discussed here, there and everywhere. But, it was often still rather effective

The Later Roman Army could be considered more flexible, perhaps, it was certainly designed to be more mobile. But if the enemy stays still enough, then there's nothing to beat the 'combine harvester' of the classic legionary advance.

M2CW

[Frank]

... Warren Treadgold estimates the two Praesental armies and the Scolae as 45,500 troops, and that's including the new units Theodosius raised. The Illyrian field army was under western control at the time, and we last see it fortifying Succi Pass at the end of the campaign of 377. The Thracian field army had been defeated at Ad Salices, and enough units were needed to garrison important cities that it's likely out of the action. The Saracen allies aren't particularly numerous, if they arrived in time.

Thank you for these explanations. I was aware, that the thracian field army was already defeated, but not, that the illyrian field army was not on the battlefield. So obviously they were with Gratian on his campaign against the Alemanns?

What I don't understand is the conflict in Heathers book between the numbers he assumes about the roman army in total and at Adrianopel. Ancient and modern historians estimate 400.000-600.000 soldiers for the roman army pre-Adrianopel. I trend to believe in the smaller 400.000. But Heather claims 600.000. This means authorized (normal) strength not real strength. Authors also assume, that around half of them were limitanei and the army was divided almost equally between East and West.

Now take Heathers 600.000 men. That means 150.000 for the eastern field armies. Divided into 5 field armies (Thracia, Orient, Egypt and 2 presental, plus the smaller scholae) means 30.000 per army. We know that some armies like in Egypt were smaller, so others have to be bigger. So 2 presental armies should be more than 60.000 men in Heathers 600K-model. If we assume a total number of 400.000, 2 presental armies are more than 40.000 men. If just 20.000 men are available at Adrianopel, then these units had just half strength. Or more than the assumed 50% of all roman soldiers were limitanei. Or the west has significantly more soldiers than the East.

However, Heathers huge army of overall 600.000 men and his small field armies of 2 x 10.000 men at Adrianopel does not match. If Heather is right about his 20.000 men at Adrianopel, then something is wrong with the shiny and glorious empire without any major decay, he describes in the first chapter of his book. If an army of 300.000 men looses 20.000 men, so what? The numbers do not match!

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Those numbers are impossibly large. Accurate estimates of the Roman Army put it at around 90,000 in the west and 120,000 in the East based on the Notitia, not counting the fact that this was paper strength and units would have been understrength. So a more accurate estimate would be around 100,000 in the East and 70,000 in the west.

Aetius' army at Chalons was the largest assembled force in this era, numbering around 20000 Romans (Including the Armorican and Litician units in the Gallic Field Army) and 20000 Goths, along with another 20000 other (Franks, Frisians, Alans, Burgundians, etc). That was the combined might of the Gallic and Italian field Armies, after years of constant fighting. With all due respect, a number of 400,000 men at Adrionople is as absurd as 300,000 Romans at Chalons.