11-18-2013, 07:33 PM
One of the largest civil war battles ever fought between two Roman armies was between those of Constantius II and Magnentius in 353AD at Mursa. Between 150,000-300,000 troops fought in that battle and the losses were catastrophic, anything up to 90,000 in Magnetius' army and 50,000 in Constantius'. It took years to rebuild the armies of the East and West, and because the western half of the Empire was so weakened by the depletion of its units the 'barbarian' tribes north of the Rhine were able to overrun most of Gaul.
Julian was despatched with an army that Constantius probably believed was too small to deal with the task of retaking Gaul, between 12,000 and 15,000 strong, although he did send another army of 25,000 to support Julian, whilst Constantius himself campaigned with an army of 25,000 across the Danube. I suspect Constantius, roundly condemned for the slaughter of most of his relations when he became Emperor, hoped Julian would fall in battle against the Alamanni, and could therefore claim it was Julian's fault he died and not his. Unfortunately Julian proved to be not so much a great general but a great inspirer of men and he managed to defeat an Alamannic army at least twice the size of his own.
Vegetius, writing sometime after 390AD and 420AD, probably saw mostly Gothic foedorate troops and that was why he railed against the 'barbarisation' of the Roman army of his day.
As others have said, before Alaric, Gainas, Attila etc came on the scene there were many high ranking Roman officers of 'barbarian' parentage in the Late Roman army from at least Diocletian onwards. Ones I can think of straight away were Richomere, Victor and Vadomarius.
I have no problem believing the Late Roman army up to 378AD being at least 600,000 strong. That figure probably takes into account infantry of all types, cavalry of all types and Sea and Riverine units.
Julian was despatched with an army that Constantius probably believed was too small to deal with the task of retaking Gaul, between 12,000 and 15,000 strong, although he did send another army of 25,000 to support Julian, whilst Constantius himself campaigned with an army of 25,000 across the Danube. I suspect Constantius, roundly condemned for the slaughter of most of his relations when he became Emperor, hoped Julian would fall in battle against the Alamanni, and could therefore claim it was Julian's fault he died and not his. Unfortunately Julian proved to be not so much a great general but a great inspirer of men and he managed to defeat an Alamannic army at least twice the size of his own.
Vegetius, writing sometime after 390AD and 420AD, probably saw mostly Gothic foedorate troops and that was why he railed against the 'barbarisation' of the Roman army of his day.
As others have said, before Alaric, Gainas, Attila etc came on the scene there were many high ranking Roman officers of 'barbarian' parentage in the Late Roman army from at least Diocletian onwards. Ones I can think of straight away were Richomere, Victor and Vadomarius.
I have no problem believing the Late Roman army up to 378AD being at least 600,000 strong. That figure probably takes into account infantry of all types, cavalry of all types and Sea and Riverine units.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
