11-21-2013, 06:05 PM
Andy:
I don't know your background and I don't mean to be condescending, but you seem to be making the same assumptions/errors as many of us when we first began studying the period based on sources that had no personal knowledge of what they were talking about and who had a distinct agenda.
Also, I think you are wrong in you assumption that the LRA inability to recover from defeats indicates troops were of lesser quality. Numbers does not equal quality and there were a lot of reasons for the LRA inability to keep and replenish sufficient numbers including: 1) near constant civil wars for 200 years; 2) plague; 3) privileges granted to the aristocracy, who by this time had really eliminated the "middle class" and turned most people who weren't slaves into indentured servants; 4) lack of incentive to serve, as there was no regular booty to be gained by offensive campaigns.
Also, there is no evidence that the equipment used by the LRA was, on the whole, "inferior" to that of the principate. It does appear that the equipment became lighter and offered somewhat less protection, but it was also cheaper and easier to maintain and thus more useful in the long run. Also, the equipment changed along with the tactics, as was required by the change in "mission" of the army from offense to defense.
I do agree with you that the fact that the troops at Adrianople broke ranks may be indicative of declining level of discipline, but you also have to consider that they just underwent a forced day-long march in excruciating heat, were being blinded by smoke from fires on the other side, and were likely goaded into attacking by a feigned retreat. IMHO, the army was not really in crisis until the time of Stilicho, when he was unable to cope with the manpower losses from Saint Theo's two massive civil wars.
IMHO, where the LRA went wrong was allowing barbarian troops to serve as federate troops under their own commander rather than breaking them up and incorporating them into existing units. I do agree that as the number of federates increased proportionally, it is likely that this had an adverse impact overall on the effectiveness of the army. But, on the other hand, most tribes that lived on the frontier were well acquainted with the "Roman way of war."
Basically, the situation was much more complex than the two extreme viewpoints often espoused (LRA sucked vs just as good as principate).
But, please do some more reading and read some of the other threads on this topic. There are a great many nuanced perspectives on this issue and, ultimately, we do not have any eye witness accounts other than Ammianus.
I don't know your background and I don't mean to be condescending, but you seem to be making the same assumptions/errors as many of us when we first began studying the period based on sources that had no personal knowledge of what they were talking about and who had a distinct agenda.
Also, I think you are wrong in you assumption that the LRA inability to recover from defeats indicates troops were of lesser quality. Numbers does not equal quality and there were a lot of reasons for the LRA inability to keep and replenish sufficient numbers including: 1) near constant civil wars for 200 years; 2) plague; 3) privileges granted to the aristocracy, who by this time had really eliminated the "middle class" and turned most people who weren't slaves into indentured servants; 4) lack of incentive to serve, as there was no regular booty to be gained by offensive campaigns.
Also, there is no evidence that the equipment used by the LRA was, on the whole, "inferior" to that of the principate. It does appear that the equipment became lighter and offered somewhat less protection, but it was also cheaper and easier to maintain and thus more useful in the long run. Also, the equipment changed along with the tactics, as was required by the change in "mission" of the army from offense to defense.
I do agree with you that the fact that the troops at Adrianople broke ranks may be indicative of declining level of discipline, but you also have to consider that they just underwent a forced day-long march in excruciating heat, were being blinded by smoke from fires on the other side, and were likely goaded into attacking by a feigned retreat. IMHO, the army was not really in crisis until the time of Stilicho, when he was unable to cope with the manpower losses from Saint Theo's two massive civil wars.
IMHO, where the LRA went wrong was allowing barbarian troops to serve as federate troops under their own commander rather than breaking them up and incorporating them into existing units. I do agree that as the number of federates increased proportionally, it is likely that this had an adverse impact overall on the effectiveness of the army. But, on the other hand, most tribes that lived on the frontier were well acquainted with the "Roman way of war."
Basically, the situation was much more complex than the two extreme viewpoints often espoused (LRA sucked vs just as good as principate).
But, please do some more reading and read some of the other threads on this topic. There are a great many nuanced perspectives on this issue and, ultimately, we do not have any eye witness accounts other than Ammianus.
There are some who call me ......... Tim?
