Late Roman Army during the 5th century

[Nathan Ross]

Goldsworthy raised doubts about the supposedly larger size of the late army.

I'd be interested to know more about those doubts. Granted, army numbers in any ancient source need to be taken with considerable salt, but most sources I've come across seem to accept that the later army (at least in the 4th century) was larger.

Didn't seem to fare too well for all that. mile: ... The WRE became effete for some other reason(s).

Comparing the later army with that of the principiate is perhaps a little skewed - their military and political situations were very different. From the third century on, the empire faced massive and sustained pressure on all its frontiers, often simultaneously - coupled with periodic internal collapse, it's not surprising that the army didn't fare so well!

But this matter of reluctant recruits clearly goes back at least to Constantine, and the army of Constantine was one of the most effective in Rome's history. So either the reluctance is overplayed in the sources, or it was always a problem and the army had ways of coping with it.

But if comparison is allowed, it might be worth considering some of the failures of the army even its earlier and more glorious days. As an example - during the reign of Domitian there were successive military disasters on the Danube: in AD84 a governor (Oppius Sabinus) was killed in battle and his army routed by the Dacians. The following year a second commander (Praetorian Praefect Cornelius Fuscus) was also killed and his force annihiliated at Tapae. Six years after that a legion (possibly XXI Rapax) was completely destroyed by the Sarmatians. In the midst of all this, two legions mutinied on the Rhine in support of their commander Saturninus, who had made a deal with the Chatti.

All these reverses were absorbed and countered, but if the enemy had possessed the strength and motivation of their third and fourth century descendents, the results could have been catastrophic. In other words, the Roman army was never infallible, but while the adversaries of an earlier day were unable to capitalise on their successes, those of the later era could and did - the later army only had to fail once for disaster to ensue. Whether this makes them 'effete' or not is another question... :wink: