11-18-2013, 02:27 AM
I am currently reading Vegetius and Ammianus about the Late Roman army of Dioclecian and Constantine.
The Legions orignally in the 2nd century were meant to be independent regiments stationed on the borders backed up by the Auxilary regiments. Now they were formed into border troops and a standing army in the heartland. Their quality varied a lot by commander.
What was the typical miltary spending and how much quality spent of the 2nd century, 3rd century, and the 4th century? And did it really effect army quality? The 4th century army I believe was only 1/3 the quality of military spending of the 2nd century I believe.
The Limitanei quality was reported to be "poorer" due to their farmer soldier status and being militia units. However I believe any bordering of soldiers far away on the frontier can hinder the quality even in the Principate army.
So by long unfamiliarity with fighting the Roman soldier was reduced to a cowardly condition. For as to all the arts of life, so especially to the business of war, is sloth fatal. It is of the greatest importance for soldiers to experience the ups and downs of fortune, and to take strenuous exercise in the open. The most demoralised of all, however, were the Syrian soldiers, mutinous, disobedient,seldom with their units, straying in front of their prescribed posts, roving about like scouts, tipsy from one noon to the next, unused to carrying even their arms.
Letter to Lucius Verus (Fronto)(this is in the 2nd century)
Also the disaster of the 3rd century Crisis, was the army strong or weak at the very start of the Crisis? By the end of the Crisis under Dioclecian the army was more experienced than ever before. Did Dioclecians reforms strengthed or weaken the army? What about Constantine's? Was Vegetius comment on the Legions "lost their substance" in the 4th century really due to economics and culture rather than the actual weakening of the army politically?
Also I question about the deployablity of Limitanei troops. During the Persian Wars in the 4th century, Ammianus points out how bravely they defended the Eastern Provinces, but in Gaul they got mauled by the Alamannii until the Comiatus showed up. In Julian's Strasbourg campaign, Constantius only sent 15,000 Comiatus and only 15,000 Comiatus was at the battle. What happened to the Limitanei troops? Isn't the army suppose to be 420,000 strong so I suppose maybe 50,000 at the single battle? Were the Limitanei that incapable of deploying out their fortressess as pseudoComiatus?
Also the Battle of Adrianople only 15,000 troops showed up. Were they Comiatus or Limatei PseudoComiatense? Valens' Comiatus was in Persia I beleive and he had to race back and get new troops. Why 15,000?(a small number) After Adrianople, the Romans simply say back in their frotresses and used Fabian tactics on the Goths, at the Battle of Constannople, a bunch of Arab Foderetii defeated Fritigern and described the battle as "the Romans outnumbered the Goths vastly". The Romans outnumbered the Goths even after Adrianople and decided not to engage....were Limatae troops that incapable of deploying?
Also what was the quality of Barbarian troops(troops outside borders) compared to Roman citizens?(Both regular Army and Foderetii)
Finally was the Cavalry of the post-Constantine army any better than the Principate? Aurelian, Gallienus and Constantine used them very well, but mostly used for skirmishing and to draw them into infantry. Elite Comiatus cavalry was routed at Strasbourg and Elite Schoe charged without permission at Adrianople. Did the Romans regard their cavalry more in this timeframe or not? The Byzantine Strakegikon describes the Cavalry mainly to skirmish I believe. What was Vegetius and Ammianus take on cavalry tactics?
The Legions orignally in the 2nd century were meant to be independent regiments stationed on the borders backed up by the Auxilary regiments. Now they were formed into border troops and a standing army in the heartland. Their quality varied a lot by commander.
What was the typical miltary spending and how much quality spent of the 2nd century, 3rd century, and the 4th century? And did it really effect army quality? The 4th century army I believe was only 1/3 the quality of military spending of the 2nd century I believe.
The Limitanei quality was reported to be "poorer" due to their farmer soldier status and being militia units. However I believe any bordering of soldiers far away on the frontier can hinder the quality even in the Principate army.
So by long unfamiliarity with fighting the Roman soldier was reduced to a cowardly condition. For as to all the arts of life, so especially to the business of war, is sloth fatal. It is of the greatest importance for soldiers to experience the ups and downs of fortune, and to take strenuous exercise in the open. The most demoralised of all, however, were the Syrian soldiers, mutinous, disobedient,seldom with their units, straying in front of their prescribed posts, roving about like scouts, tipsy from one noon to the next, unused to carrying even their arms.
Letter to Lucius Verus (Fronto)(this is in the 2nd century)
Also the disaster of the 3rd century Crisis, was the army strong or weak at the very start of the Crisis? By the end of the Crisis under Dioclecian the army was more experienced than ever before. Did Dioclecians reforms strengthed or weaken the army? What about Constantine's? Was Vegetius comment on the Legions "lost their substance" in the 4th century really due to economics and culture rather than the actual weakening of the army politically?
Also I question about the deployablity of Limitanei troops. During the Persian Wars in the 4th century, Ammianus points out how bravely they defended the Eastern Provinces, but in Gaul they got mauled by the Alamannii until the Comiatus showed up. In Julian's Strasbourg campaign, Constantius only sent 15,000 Comiatus and only 15,000 Comiatus was at the battle. What happened to the Limitanei troops? Isn't the army suppose to be 420,000 strong so I suppose maybe 50,000 at the single battle? Were the Limitanei that incapable of deploying out their fortressess as pseudoComiatus?
Also the Battle of Adrianople only 15,000 troops showed up. Were they Comiatus or Limatei PseudoComiatense? Valens' Comiatus was in Persia I beleive and he had to race back and get new troops. Why 15,000?(a small number) After Adrianople, the Romans simply say back in their frotresses and used Fabian tactics on the Goths, at the Battle of Constannople, a bunch of Arab Foderetii defeated Fritigern and described the battle as "the Romans outnumbered the Goths vastly". The Romans outnumbered the Goths even after Adrianople and decided not to engage....were Limatae troops that incapable of deploying?
Also what was the quality of Barbarian troops(troops outside borders) compared to Roman citizens?(Both regular Army and Foderetii)
Finally was the Cavalry of the post-Constantine army any better than the Principate? Aurelian, Gallienus and Constantine used them very well, but mostly used for skirmishing and to draw them into infantry. Elite Comiatus cavalry was routed at Strasbourg and Elite Schoe charged without permission at Adrianople. Did the Romans regard their cavalry more in this timeframe or not? The Byzantine Strakegikon describes the Cavalry mainly to skirmish I believe. What was Vegetius and Ammianus take on cavalry tactics?
