The Late Roman Army

[Aryaman2]

"The historical battles of the Muslim conquest and the Mongol conquests are very similar in pattern. There are standing armies, vast ones, but in general, its the horse raiders that are the principal force"
That is not true in the case of Muslim conquest, Muslim armies were in fact basically infantry, cavalry playing a very minor role, and no use of horse archers at all.
As for the Parthians themselves, there is an open discussion over if the kataphraktoi they fielded did use bow or just lance. Judging from historical examples, it is very difficult to maintain a force of armored horse archers, for instance both the Sassanian and the late Roman armies used mercenary horse archers from nomadic people, but when those were not available the use of horse archers decreased and even ceased completely, by the time of the muslim conquest the Byzantine Kataphraktos was again basically a lancer, and the Persian cavalryman reverted to the use of javelins rather than bow. The horse archer is a product of a way of life, to have them you either are nomadic people or have a full time training force, like that of the Mameluks in a later period.

[Goffredo]

Of course once inside the empire the goths made good use of roman roads too. Indeed I think mobility was important especially during civil wars moving roman troops against roman troops, and I am firm to think the romans never planned to have enemy barbarians enter the empire. Regards adrianople the goths were admitted peacefully but then rebelled.

In general I don't think the romans ever thought in terms of a systematic defense in depth, except as a momentary resort to a momentary breach of the limes. They were too practical a people to do such a foolish thing. The enemy was to be stopped before entering and indeed when things were healthy they actually did it the best way possible, by striking first in enemy territory.

[tlclark]

"The historical battles of the Muslim conquest and the Mongol conquests are very similar in pattern. There are standing armies, vast ones, but in general, its the horse raiders that are the principal force"

That is not true in the case of Muslim conquest, Muslim armies were in fact basically infantry, cavalry playing a very minor role, and no use of horse archers at all.

I think we are talking past each other. We are talking about different phases of conflict.

The long series of exchanges between Mekkah and Medina are essentially calvary exchanges until Mohammed conquers Mekkahh outright with a combination of calvary and more conventional sources. When they march against the Byzantines, the first exchanges are almost always calvary exchanges, but you are right, when the cities fall, it's to infantry.

I never argued that muslims had horse archers or that cities fell to horse calvary, that's seigecraft and a different matter altogether. Seige warfare is entirely different.

When I say "principal" force I am not talking numbers either, but significance in strategy and tactics. Just like we have relative few aircraft carriers, but they are still the heavy hitters.

As for the Parthians themselves, there is an open discussion over if the kataphraktoi they fielded did use bow or just lance. Judging from historical examples, it is very difficult to maintain a force of armored horse archers, for instance both the Sassanian and the late Roman armies used mercenary horse archers from nomadic people, but when those were not available the use of horse archers decreased and even ceased completely, by the time of the muslim conquest the Byzantine Kataphraktos was again basically a lancer, and the Persian cavalryman reverted to the use of javelins rather than bow. The horse archer is a product of a way of life, to have them you either are nomadic people or have a full time training force, like that of the Mameluks in a later period.

I agree that there is a decrease in horse archers, but I don't think that is due to a lack of nomadic lifestyle. I think that horse archers originate there it's true, but it's obvious that the Sassanians could have trained and maintained the tradition without them. IMO they decrease in number and significance exactly for the reasons I mentioned, that they were effectively countered by a heavy calvary on the part of the Late Roman army.

This started with the discussion that there is an increase in calvary, not just in number, but also in its role and importance in the Late Roman Army. Then the discussion moved, suggesting that the calvary could not have been very significant after all. I think that that's an inherently counter-intuitive response. Instead of trying to think of why the calvary couldn't work, we should think of ways how it could have worked, since its obvious that they made that change. I'm just offering speculation as to how that could have happened.

[Robert Vermaat]

This started with the discussion that there is an increase in calvary, not just in number, but also in its role and importance in the Late Roman Army. Then the discussion moved, suggesting that the calvary could not have been very significant after all. I think that that's an inherently counter-intuitive response. Instead of trying to think of why the calvary couldn't work, we should think of ways how it could have worked, since its obvious that they made that change. I'm just offering speculation as to how that could have happened.

Travis is right, we have moved from the original discussion. People, I love this thread but may i suggest that if we continue this cavalry discussion we open a new one?

calvary

I'm glad I'm not the only one with a 'blind spot' here on RAT. I keep writing 'helemt'...

[tlclark]

calvary

I'm glad I'm not the only one with a 'blind spot' here on RAT. I keep writing 'helemt'...

It's not a 'blind spot', it's an intentional piece of ...er... subliminal pro-Christian propaganda. Yeah...that's right.

[Aryaman2]

"The historical battles of the Muslim conquest and the Mongol conquests are very similar in pattern. There are standing armies, vast ones, but in general, its the horse raiders that are the principal force"

That is not true in the case of Muslim conquest, Muslim armies were in fact basically infantry, cavalry playing a very minor role, and no use of horse archers at all.

I think we are talking past each other. We are talking about different phases of conflict.

The long series of exchanges between Mekkah and Medina are essentially calvary exchanges until Mohammed conquers Mekkahh outright with a combination of calvary and more conventional sources. When they march against the Byzantines, the first exchanges are almost always calvary exchanges, but you are right, when the cities fall, it's to infantry.

I never argued that muslims had horse archers or that cities fell to horse calvary, that's seigecraft and a different matter altogether. Seige warfare is entirely different.

When I say "principal" force I am not talking numbers either, but significance in strategy and tactics. Just like we have relative few aircraft carriers, but they are still the heavy hitters.

As for the Parthians themselves, there is an open discussion over if the kataphraktoi they fielded did use bow or just lance. Judging from historical examples, it is very difficult to maintain a force of armored horse archers, for instance both the Sassanian and the late Roman armies used mercenary horse archers from nomadic people, but when those were not available the use of horse archers decreased and even ceased completely, by the time of the muslim conquest the Byzantine Kataphraktos was again basically a lancer, and the Persian cavalryman reverted to the use of javelins rather than bow. The horse archer is a product of a way of life, to have them you either are nomadic people or have a full time training force, like that of the Mameluks in a later period.

I agree that there is a decrease in horse archers, but I don't think that is due to a lack of nomadic lifestyle. I think that horse archers originate there it's true, but it's obvious that the Sassanians could have trained and maintained the tradition without them. IMO they decrease in number and significance exactly for the reasons I mentioned, that they were effectively countered by a heavy calvary on the part of the Late Roman army.

This started with the discussion that there is an increase in calvary, not just in number, but also in its role and importance in the Late Roman Army. Then the discussion moved, suggesting that the calvary could not have been very significant after all. I think that that's an inherently counter-intuitive response. Instead of trying to think of why the calvary couldn't work, we should think of ways how it could have worked, since its obvious that they made that change. I'm just offering speculation as to how that could have happened.

I still think you picked the wrong example with Muslim conquest, not only in sieges, but also in field battles, like Yarmuk, infantry was the main force, cavalry was used basically to execute the routed enemy.

On the Late Roman Army, I think the reson for more cavalry was, as you suggested, to counter the Sassanians. The Roman heavy cavalry was fully armoured not so much as heavy cavalry as a protection against arrows. However, I don´t think that was the final solution against horse archers, and whenever they could the Byzantines hired horse archers and tried (unsuccesfully) to train their Kataphraktoi as Horse archers.. The solution was, as always, combined arms.
So, to sum up my position, yes the Romans increased their cavalry to fight Sassanians, because cavalry was very effective in battle, but not because it was strategically more mobile.

[Mithras]

Travis is right, we have moved from the original discussion. People, I love this thread but may i suggest that if we continue this cavalry discussion we open a new one?

I fear LC Cinna has been frightened off by this in-depth (and fascinating) discussion of LR Cavalry. Checking his initial post, he was after information on the different unit types.

There are a couple of infantry units (strength size unknown - 500, 1000 strong?) of archers in the Notitia Dignitatum, and one of slingers, scattered around the Eastern Empire. Other units seem to be 'all-arms'.

One unit called ballistarii appear in Ammianus as an escort. Are they crossbowmen? Or operators of ballistae siege engines?

There's also reference to the Herculani and Iovani being skilled in the plumbatae (throwing dart), so much that they incorporated the weapon-name into their legionary title.

We love the plumbatae - but there is much skill involved in their use ...

[L C Cinna]

I fear LC Cinna has been frightened off by this in-depth (and fascinating) discussion of LR Cavalry. Checking his initial post, he was after information on the different unit types

lol no not really, the discussion is very interesting. I spent the last week in Berlin so I didn't have time to check the forum and post.

back on topic: first of all I'd like to thank you all for your replies. I think I have to clarify this a bit....so I've read Ammianus and Procopius some time ago. I'm curious about the different use of weapons and equipment and the make up of a 4th century army.

When I said the army described by Procopius is a bit "late" for what I'd like to know I meant that many books and people always talk of THE late roman army in quite general terms. the cavalry issue for example, it is true that cavalry became more important but the setup of the army changed a lot imho...in the 4th century the most important arm of the army was the infantry by far and except for the Sasanids Rome's other opponents during the 4th century are infantry based as well...the Visigoths started to use more cav only after spending quite some time in the empire (the cav at Adrianople is Osthrogothic, Hunnic and other cav)...well on the other hand when we look at Iustinianus army the cavalry is much much more important. so the whole setup of the army is different imho.

that's why I'd like to focus on the 4th century from Constantinus to Adrianople. Especially the infantry (but cav is always welcome)

now back to my question:

I wondered if there is any kind of "standardized" equipment for different units. There are so many different weapons in use but it seems hard to figure out who used what. is there even a possibility to say, for example, the comitatenses were equipped with spatha and plumbatae, while let's say the palatine troops used spatha and spear? or maybe the centuries within a legion were equipped differently to be able to fulfill different duties?

about Iulianus troops: as I said I read Ammianus and he mentions some units but are there any other sources to get a more detailed description of which kinds of units and troops he took to persia?

thank you.

[Mithras]

The way I understand it (not neccesarily the correct way!) is that each legion became multi-purpose, using most weapons within the same unit. Perhaps archers and slingers to rear or skirmishing, legionnaries throwing plumbatae (they are noted as being sometimes carried in shields by infantry).

I don't understand the use of spears versus spiculum (the Late version of the pilum). I like the idea of spears being used by front rankers in heavy armour, with less-well armoured troops carry spicula, with which they can therow over the first couple of ranks - or skirmish in open order. I wouldn't like people throwing spicula over my head though!

[Robert Vermaat]

We love the plumbatae - but there is much skill involved in their use ...

Duh.. Like what? Plumbatae, it seems, were a weapons without too much skill needed. Easy to make, easy to throw, you don´t need to target it as long as you hurl it far enough to reach the massed enemy in front of you. Or in front of your comrades arranged in anks before you.

The way I understand it (not neccesarily the correct way!) is that each legion became multi-purpose, using most weapons within the same unit. Perhaps archers and slingers to rear or skirmishing, legionnaries throwing plumbatae (they are noted as being sometimes carried in shields by infantry).

I agree. Although I seem to agrre with Everett Wheeler in thinking that even manipular legions could form a single front line (dare I call it as phalanx hock: ), it seems clear that Late Roman forces became less specialist, the heavy infantry could also be engaged in missile fire.

I don't understand the use of spears versus spiculum (the Late version of the pilum). I like the idea of spears being used by front rankers in heavy armour, with less-well armoured troops carry spicula, with which they can therow over the first couple of ranks - or skirmish in open order. I wouldn't like people throwing spicula over my head though!

Yes, lances were the primary weapons of the front rankers, but it seems that, contrary to the exchange of pilae, Late Roman forces kept up the missile exchange all through the battle, the back 4 ranks throwing over the front 4 ranks. Sure, why not throwing spicualae/verutae over the front ranks?

[Theodosius the Great]

Whatever reasons the army might have had for making the comitatenses cavalry-heavy (and there are good ones, not least that it is much easier to get off a horse you have than to get on one you don't have), I don't see improved strategic mobility featuring majorly.

Avete,

Last night, I was re-reading "The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire" (written 30 yrs. ago), and came across this statement :

The cavalry doubled the strategic mobility of Roman expeditionary forces moving overland (ca. 50 miles per day against ca. 25)

This is in the context of the 3rd century, when Gallenius constititutes (apparently for the first time) a "wholly mobile cavalry corps."

I wonder what the author is basing his statistics on since most here on this thread are only prepared to say that cavalry forces could be deployed faster on the stategic level. But the author speaks so definitively about this as if it were dogma. Maybe it was at the time he wrote it ?

[Robert Vermaat]

I suggest you read (or get a translation) of what Marcus Junkelmann writes about this. He discusses the tactical speed of horses against strategic speed where road marches are concerned.
Junkelmann mentions references to distances of horses in the postal service (remounts, very hight speed), but also discusses examples from the American Civil War and World War I. Very good reading.

[Theodosius the Great]

Thanks, Vortigern.

Hmm...don't see any translations on Amazon.com, but I won't give up.

[perrygray]

There are a number of good books available about the army of the 3rd and 4th Centuries. Two well known titles are: Elton, H.W., Warfare in the Roman World (Oxford, 1996) and Southern, P. and Dixon, K.R., The Late Roman Army, (London, 1996). Both discuss units, tactics and equipment. They are good references in addition to Martijn Nicassie's book mentioned by someone else in this thread. For equipment, I recommend two more books: Bishop, M.C. and Coulston, J.C. N., Roman Military Equipment (London, 1993) that is being published again this year as a second edition. Mike Bishop has shared his knowledge with RAT many times. The other book is Feugere, Michel Weapons of the Romans.

I also recommend the Osprey books by Simon MacDowall, and not just because he is a friend. Simon has spent many years researching the Roman military and has visited many diffierent sites in Europe in support of his research.

I have read Luttwak's book many times and I suggest that it be studied in conjunction with other books. Luttwak is an expert on modern strategy with limited knowledge of the Roman military. I recommend reading The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East by Isaac, Benjamin

The Notitia Dignitatum gives a general idea of the various types of units as well as where they were loctaed. Much of the cavalry was part of the limitanei, which suggest that mounted patrolling and scouting were important operations. Most of the field armies maintained a ratio of infantry to cavalry that was similar to earlier Roman armies.

Despite the confusion, the army was indeed split into two forces: the limitanei that was stationed in the frontier provinces or limes, and the comitatensis or field armies. Within the latter, there were three distinct levels of units based on their pay rates: palatina, comitatensis and pseudocomitatensis. The field armies of the eastern half were fairly rigid in their structure in that there were five separate regional armies with a sixth added in the 6th Century. In the west, field armies seem to have been more ad hoc at least based on the Notitia. Western regional forces were usually commanded by comes rather than magistri. Even the well known magister Aetius had greater influence in the military and government than simply being the commander of the army in Gaul.

Roman units were more like their modern equivalents in that they often had special roles or included specialists. Artillery, scouts, engineers and combat troops were some of the most important types.

I hope that this provides some insight into a very complex subject.