The 1,000 man legion

[John M McDermott]

I'm of the opinion that Goldswothy was mistaken. So far I've not seen any proof of such a claim that the LR army was changed for political reasons instead of strategical ones. Nicasie makes a lot more sense than Goldsworthy!
_________________

I believe Goldsworthy's conclusions are logical given the facts he presents. The armies of the late empire were smaller than earlier periods. By practice, Roman Emperors of the period almost never entrusted larger formations to anyone but themselves, and, when they did, they inevitably created generals who then got "royal" aspirations. It is logical to suppose that no Roman emperor was intersted in doing this. After the history of the 1st and 2nd centuries where Roman generals regularly pretended to the throne, can we blame them? Even entrusting a member of one's own family was dangerous.

By denying this conclusion we ignore one of the political problems that is inherent in concentrating all power in one person. In the Republic, the armies were raised and were ultimately answerable to the Senate. The Senate appointed commanders and removed them. By the late Empire the Senate was almost extinct as it was known in the Republic. All political power to raise and command armies now reposed in one person: the Emperor. By sharing such important power with a "general", the Emperor was going against every principal he stood for, which was unlimited power in him and him alone.

Another point is ignored too, and that is that this ultimately weakened the flexibility of the Army and its ability to meet threats. This made the Empire vulnerable in the long run. By the time of the late Empire, the political entity of Rome, that was able to lose 50,000 men in one day and still come back swinging, was long gone.