Late Roman Army during the 5th century

[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.