04-24-2013, 11:14 PM
Quote:there was no longer an unlimited resource of soldiers, meaning large battles could no longer be risked as much.
Are you sure about this Robert? Let's remember that during times of Diocletian and Constantine (late 3rd and early 4th centuries AD) the Roman army was bigger than ever before this period. But it is true that they also divided the army for limitanei (border troops) and comitatenses (field army) for better protection of borders and halting enemy invasions already in the borderland, rather than allowing the enemy to penetrate deeply into own territory and plunder the countryside and towns. Perhaps more than half of the entire army were limitanei, the main task of which was defending borderland regions.
Quote:Different armies for different times. What changed was that due to a changing society, demographics and politics,
One very important reason for Roman military reforms during the timeframe between Diocletian and Constantine was also because the Roman army had to adjust itself to the Persian army after the takeover of power by the Sassanids and the military reforms of the Persian army carried out by Shapurs I and II. The Sassanid army - especially after those reforms - was significantly different than the Parthian army. Not only had Shapurs I and II greatly increased the numerical strength of heavy cavalry as compared to Parthians, but they also improved both melee and missile infantry and increased their numbers:
http://romanarmytalk.com/rat/7-off-topic...=60#336122
========================================
Regarding the size of the Roman army in late 3rd / early 4th centuries:
The Roman Empire had ca. 435,266 soldiers (including 45,262 in the Navy) in the beginning (most probably) of Diocletian's reign (according to Joannes Lydus Laurentius - his numbers are so precise that they are probably from some official document) and around 645,000 in the early 5th century CE (according to Agathias Myrinae), probably after tetrarchy and reforms of Constantine. However, these are most likely numbers "on paper" rather than in reality according to the book "Amida 359" by Tomasz Szeląg (and also according to A.H.M. Jones) and Szeląg estimates the real number as 450,000 including around 200,000 in the field army and the rest as garrison troops, Navy, etc. ("Amida 359", page 79). Other estimations say 500,000 (C. Zuckermann), 400,000 (A. Cameron).
========================================
Quote: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.
Remember, that field army was less than 50% of all forces. And 600.000 men was surely not the actual size of the Roman army, but could be its size "on paper" only. Real strength could never be 100% of "paper strength", for various reasons - both "natural" (such as casualties, diseases, leaves / passes, deaths, desertions, etc.) and other reasons - such as cheating regarding the number of soldiers in order to receive more supplies, more money as soldier's pay for a particular unit, etc., etc.
And of course not entire field army could be gathered for a single campaign at one given point in time. But Adrianople is not the best example. For his invasion of Persia in 363 AD, Emperor Julian gathered over 80,000 soldiers and further 20,000 sailors in the fleet (the Roman fleet - 1000 ships - in this invasion sailed along the Euphrates). When Julian destroyed his fleet, they reinforced the army.
Garrison of just one of Roman border fortresses - Amida - had 10,000 troops during the siege in 359 AD.
