Defences of the western Roman empire in 5th century

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

Of course in the C5th many (a majority?) of those "barbarian invaders" were actually Roman armies anyway to one degree or another.

[Theodosius the Great]

Sonic / Ian,

More damaging than destroying individual towns and cities, IMO, is burning crops and farms, etc... The latter effects a whole province whereas the effects of the former are highly localized.

That's why I was careful to say 'land' and 'country side'.

As you say, Ian, barbarians would attack for food and they would damage farmland in pursuing that goal. But I slightly disagree when you say that it is not in barbarians' best interest to destroy what they want. Think of it - they could never take cities by force but they could starve them into submission - meaning they must burn farmland to deprive many towns at once of their food supplies.

Why waste time blockading one town when you can burn farmland and starve many towns at a single stroke ? Caesar pursued such a 'scorched earth' policy against the Gauls.

Didn't even Julius Caesar remind his men that the cities of Italy were 'friends' and not to be attacked, or is my memory playing up??

Not unless mine is too. I also remember Constantine the Great was careful with his men during his invasion of Italy.

Nicholas,

Of course in the C5th many (a majority?) of those "barbarian invaders" were actually Roman armies anyway to one degree or another.

Yes, but under Roman commanders. A small but crucial distinction.

~Theo

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Jaime,

to the people of the 5th c., nothing changed, it was the same as the other warring emperors of the 4th c., only now they were warring generals - big deal.

How can you say 'big deal' ? Some North African provinces suffered much more heavily than others. The country side was devastated. And you've said that North Africa never fully recovered from the Vandal conquest (on another thread)

You missed my point entirely. I did not comment on the devastation, but on the difference it made to the political situation and the common man. The former made no difference to ex-barbarians or Roman powerful men dominating the imperial rulers, and so-called ‘barbarians who strived to do the same. The main difference is a Victorian image that made the former defenders of civilization and the others fur-clad hooligans and robbers. In reality, they were very similar to one another.

For the population in the path of their armies, there sure was no difference between the armies of Constantine the Great or those of Gaiseric.

Again, how can a civil war compare to invading barbarians bent on conquest ? In civil war, Romans armies, afaik, did not scorch the country side. From the locals' point of view, being taken over by barbarians must have been a much more brutal business, I would think.
(Good point, btw, on Arians vs Catholics)

Well, that’s the point, there was no difference. The image of the vandals as ‘barbarians bent on conquest is largely a Victorian one. The citizens could see no difference between warlords like Stilicho, Aetius, or Alaric, Gaiseric. All were legitimate rulers, all were warring invaders as well as rivals. Roman armies of Stilicho and Aetius did no more or less ‘scorch the countryside’ on campaign than ‘Roman’ armies of Alaric or Gaiseric.

For the taxpayers, a general like Gaiseric could mean a tax relief.

The benefits of any tax relief would be more than balanced by the devastation to the land, though. The locals' fortunes were better off under direct Roman rule and higher taxes, IMO.

There are enough sources that challenge your view. But then I think your image of the ‘much more devastating barbarian’ is way off the mark to begin with.

And when Gaiseric stopped paying taxes to Rome or halting the shipping of food to Italy, he just acted like generals and usurpers before him.

Yes, but it must be said that he attained a level of unprecedented power and influence because of his unassailable position in North Africa. Gaiseric was the most successful warlord after only Attila, IMO.

In what way was his power more unprecedented? North Africa was hardly an unassailable position, as usurpers like Gildo, rebels like Boniface before him, or Vandal kings after him experienced.

I would rank Gaiseric as maybe the most successful warlord. Just above Ricimer and Aspar, Aetius and Stilicho. Alaric made a big impression but in the end died without achieving any of his goals. Attila may be seen as very dangerous, but his threat was very short-lived (just a few years) and all of his invasions came to naught.

More damaging than destroying individual towns and cities, IMO, is burning crops and farms, etc... The latter effects a whole province whereas the effects of the former are highly localized.

??? How come? Please explain that. Farms can be rebuilt quite easily, and a burnt crop is of course bad, but a) why would that affect a whole province and b) why would all the crops be burnt be a more wide-ranging effect than the burning of cities?

The beleaguered population pulled back into the walled towns, destroying them would be far more effective than burning farms. Unless all the farms and all the crops in a province would be burnt, but since than would mean starvation for any invader no invader was so stupid to do that.
But the Vandals did not destroy all the towns either, so what are you saying here?

As you say, Ian, barbarians would attack for food and they would damage farmland in pursuing that goal. But I slightly disagree when you say that it is not in barbarians' best interest to destroy what they want. Think of it - they could never take cities by force but they could starve them into submission - meaning they must burn farmland to deprive many towns at once of their food supplies.

Twice a big no.
One, barbarians need not burn a farm or crops to get food – they steal the food. And if they want to occupy the land – and the Vandals, Franks and Goths were not mere raiders, who robbed the stuff and then pulled back home again – if would be extremely stupid to destroy it. So they didn’t. Of course the provinces suffered from their occupation, but not because they went about burning the place down.
Two, you don’t starve a city into submission by destroying the farmland – again, that would be suicide because you starve yourself in the process. Alaric did that went besieging Rome and the first time he had to break off the siege because he could not feed his army. No, you starve a city into submission by creating a solid ring around it – nothing in nor out.

Why waste time blockading one town when you can burn farmland and starve many towns at a single stroke ? Caesar pursued such a 'scorched earth' policy against the Gauls.

No he did not.

I also remember Constantine the Great was careful with his men during his invasion of Italy.

Eh? But then, Constantine had to win the people over to accept him instead of Maxentius, so like Caesar, political goals played a part there, too. Later warlords were past that.

Of course in the C5th many (a majority?) of those "barbarian invaders" were actually Roman armies anyway to one degree or another.

Yes, but under Roman commanders. A small but crucial distinction.

How so? Constantine also commanded a Roman army with tens of thousands of Germanic short-term volunteers. His armies, when needing food, commissioned it with the same force from the population as armies consisting of Roman troops only.

Btw, you’re wrong to state that. Alaric did command a Roman army as much as Gaiseric did, after both had been ‘legalised’. That was my ‘big deal’ point about - the Vandal s, from a certain point on, operated well within the Roman political system.

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Robert,

You missed my point entirely. I did not comment on the devastation, but on the difference it made to the political situation and the common man. The former made no difference to ex-barbarians or Roman powerful men dominating the imperial rulers, and so-called ‘barbarians who strived to do the same.

My mistake. Apologies ...

There are enough sources that challenge your view. But then I think your image of the ‘much more devastating barbarian’ is way off the mark to begin with.

I guess my 'image' comes from reading about Thrace - how the fields lay abandoned and fallow for years, maybe even decades due to constant raiding, burning, etc... So, I extrapolated from there.

In what way was his power more unprecedented?

Well, as you say, Gaiseric was the most successful warlord.

Specifically, the establishment of the Vandal Kingdom resulted in giving them unprecedented influence in the sense that Africa offered them greater protection. It was relatively difficult to invade (via the sea with its hazards), difficult to live off the land for invaders, and the Vandals always seemed to beat back with ease anyone from toppling their kingdom for over a hundred years. They also inherited a fleet which they used to strike where ever and whenever they pleased (including Rome).

Controlling the breadbasket of the Western Empire meant that they could hold Rome hostage and charge them for their grain (unless the Eastern Empire sent aid).

So, which other tribe could even begin to compare with the status that the Vandals achieved ? Or were you commenting on the political fiction of the time ? If so, sorry I didn't pick up on it.

I agree with you about Gaiseric's success if we discount Attila as a 'flash in the pan' - which, in a military sense, he was. But he impoverished Northern Italy further.

How come? Please explain that. Farms can be rebuilt quite easily, and a burnt crop is of course bad, but a) why would that affect a whole province and b) why would all the crops be burnt be a more wide-ranging effect than the burning of cities?

I'm no farmer but rebuilding and restoring farms to produce grain at full capacity would seem to take years. Doesn't the soil need time to recover ? Not to mention repopulating deserted farmland ? (Again, I'm thinking of Thrace)

Burning the country side is more visible and probably more psychologically effective than hearing about a distant city ?

The beleaguered population pulled back into the walled towns, destroying them would be far more effective than burning farms.

I'm sure that was usually the case, but the people of Africa were largely insulated from the large scale invasions of Germanic barbarians. Would they have behaved in such an organized, defensive manner ? I get the impression they were caught flatfooted against the Vandals.

The beleaguered population pulled back into the walled towns, destroying them would be far more effective than burning farms.

In theory, yes, but the Vandals never had that option unless a town surrendered, right ? No siege equipment / techniques were available to them (unless they had Roman help?)

Unless all the farms and all the crops in a province would be burnt, but since than would mean starvation for any invader no invader was so stupid to do that.
But the Vandals did not destroy all the towns either, so what are you saying here?

No, not all, of course. But there must be a happy medium somewhere. Burn enough to make their point while avoiding a pyrrhic victory ?

No he [Caesar] did not.

Oops ! You're right - Vercingetorix tried it against Caesar.

Of course in the C5th many (a majority?) of those "barbarian invaders" were actually Roman armies anyway to one degree or another.

Yes, but under Roman commanders. A small but crucial distinction.

How so? Constantine also commanded a Roman army with tens of thousands of Germanic short-term volunteers. His armies, when needing food, commissioned it with the same force from the population as armies consisting of Roman troops only.

Yes, but under the command of 'true Romans' foederates are less likely to go on a rampage and sack Rome, IMO. Half-Romanized Gothic and Vandal commanders had no qualms about it. (Aetius was raised as a 'Roman' so I count him as such).

Btw, you’re wrong to state that. Alaric did command a Roman army as much as Gaiseric did, after both had been ‘legalized’. That was my ‘big deal’ point about - the Vandal s, from a certain point on, operated well within the Roman political system.

I see what you're saying but it was a political fiction at best. OK, from a legalistic point of view, sure, it looks good on paper. But the 'foederates' were de facto independent kingdoms and usually behaved accordingly, offering only lip service to express their loyalty to Rome.

~Theo

[sonic]

How come? Please explain that. Farms can be rebuilt quite easily, and a burnt crop is of course bad, but a) why would that affect a whole province and b) why would all the crops be burnt be a more wide-ranging effect than the burning of cities?

I'm no farmer but rebuilding and restoring farms to produce grain at full capacity would seem to take years. Doesn't the soil need time to recover ? Not to mention repopulating deserted farmland ? (Again, I'm thinking of Thrace)

Burning the country side is more visible and probably more psychologically effective than hearing about a distant city ?

I'd agree that burning the countryside would have a psychological impact on the natives, however I'm not sure about your comments on the burning of farms.

Taking Thrace as your example could be a mistake: the area was repeatedly attacked over a very long period of time, hence the alleged 'devastation'. (Don't forget that ancient writers are prone to exaggeration concerning barbarian attacks: it makes for a better read. :lol: ) Yet even with the desolation in Thrace, it is the loss of people - either fleeing from the repeated attacks or or being taken captive - that makes the difference. The loss of manpower was the problem.

Farms can be rebuilt; maybe not to the previous level of sophistication if stone-built, as this is harder to replace, but wooden buildings can be rebuilt within a matter of weeks. It is likely that many stone farms were burnt and the returning people built wooden buildings, either as a replacement or as temporary residences whilst rebuilding in stone.

As for the soil needing time to recover, it is only recently that farmers in Britain were legally obliged to stop burning stubble (the short stalks left in the ground after harvest) as the smoke was a danger to drivers. The burning would actually help the soil by breaking down the nutrients in the crop very quickly. In ancient times, wasn't ash used as a cheap form of fertiliser?

[Robert Vermaat]

Yes, I agree with Ian about burning of crops. Burning add nutrients, and leaving the soil for a year or two actually increases the fertility!
Indeed, Thrace might not be the best example, as propaganda seems to play a part there - Thrace was never depopulated like the German provinces, to make a comparison.

So the Vandals attacked the towns and did not destory the crops. Like I said, doing the latter would have ensured their own starvation. And maybe the African provinces had not had the pleasure of dealing with Germanic foes before the gates, but they had their share of hillfolk and desert raiders (to speak in RTW terms), especially the berbers were a pain in the neck from time to time. It seems that the African town were well-defended, but no town can outlast a determined siege.

Aetius was of course a Roman, and so was Stilicho, but even Roman commanders knew what to do when the troops wanted to have a good plunder. And Roman troops could be very comparable to non-Roman troops when it came to that. Remember good old Postumes, who was killed after attempting to withold his Roman troops from sacking Mogontiacum/Mainz?

Foederate kingdoms became independent states, that's true, but now you're using your twenty-twenty hindsight. :wink: Foederati served the Roman very well for centuries, and many federates behaved very well for more than a century before (almost hesitant at times) the decided there was no more central government to serve. True, that behaviour, especially in the West where Goths and Vandals (and increasingly Burgundians) are concerned was surely chipping away at the Roman state. But my point is that you evidently cannot say that "federates were bent on become independent states". Their behavious is often directly comparable to warring Roman ussurpers, all within a Roman politicaal acceptable frame, but extremely violent nontheless. But it's the end result that makes us look differently at the federates in the West. In the East, similar federates never became independent, and they are judged differently.

[Syagrius_Rex_Romanorum]

Regarding the estimated strenght of the roman army in C5th, I would say that it is impossible to ascertain. First of all, written accounts are extremely scarce and biased. Secondly, differences between roman, foederati and barbarian troops are probably a mere question of definition, not so much of composition. One can argue if for instance Aetius ever commanded a "roman" force. For all we know, his forces may have consisted of any sorts of troops, depending on availability and allegiance (Huns, Alans, Franks?). Although it is tempting to assume the continuing existence of the legions of old, albeit reformed and redeployed, as can be derived from the notitia dignitatum, there is no way of telling.
The losses incurred by the roman forces since Adrianopel were huge, and it is hard to see how the monies and resources could have been found (at least in the west) to rebuild a regular standing army. As much as the roman emperor had become a figurehead, so too must have been the case with the western roman army.
All in all, opposing forces tended to decrease in size. Arguably the largest battle in C5th (Huns vs. Romans C451) involved 60k to 100k combatants at most. The battle between count Boniface and Aetius was not more than a clash between their personal followers/ guards.

Aetius may have been the last true Roman in that he was the last roman in the west to operate on an imperial scale, however to its demise: trading Spain and Africa for Gaul and Italy.

[Theodosius the Great]

Robert, Ian,

About burning farms : I accept your answers. So, would you go so far as to conclude that the effects of burning some farms would be negligible on the local economy ?

So the Vandals attacked the towns and did not destroy the crops.

The sources would have us believe otherwise but, as Ian said, they're not that helpful in describing the events - they are more interested in merely condemning and perhaps exaggerating the actions of the Vandals.

"Finding a province which was at peace and enjoying quiet, the whole land beautiful and flowering on all sides, they set to work on it with their wicked forces, laying waste by devastation and bringing everything to ruin with fire and murders. They did not even spare the fruit-bearing orchards, in case people who had hidden in the caves of the mountains...would be able to eat the foods produced by them after they had passed. So it was that no place remained safe from being contaminated by them, as they raged with great cruelty, unchanging and relentless." This is about the march of the Vandals through Africa.

Incidently, Peter Heather does not believe the Vandals came to Africa by the invitation of Boniface. He believes this is just supposition on the part of the 6th century historian, Procopius.

But my point is that you evidently cannot say that "federates were bent on become independent states". Their behavious is often directly comparable to warring Roman ussurpers, all within a Roman politicaal acceptable frame

In the context of the 5th century, this would mean that their kings were simply jockeying for the position of magister militum and that was the goal of the civil wars of the time ? Of course, they knew they could not aspire to become Emperor but they wanted the next best thing - i.e. "the power behind the throne" ?

to its demise: trading Spain and Africa for Gaul and Italy.

Indeed, even after the outer African territories were ceded to the Vandals, the Romans didn't send many reinforcements to Carthage due to the distractions in Gaul. They merely hoped that the Vandals would honor the treaty.

~Theo

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi 'Rex',

(did you read my PM?)

I think I agree with your analysis of the forces available to Aetius.

The losses incurred by the roman forces since Adrianopel were huge, and it is hard to see how the monies and resources could have been found (at least in the west) to rebuild a regular standing army. As much as the roman emperor had become a figurehead, so too must have been the case with the western roman army.

Why would the West have had trouble rebuilding its forces when it was the Eastern army that was for 70% destroyed?

[Robert Vermaat]

The sources would have us believe otherwise but, as Ian said, they're not that helpful in describing the events - they are more interested in merely condemning and perhaps exaggerating the actions of the Vandals.

Indeed! Late Antique source are very good at exaggerating as I've written a few years ago when comparing Gildas to continental sources when it came to the 'destruction' of Roman society.

Incidently, Peter Heather does not believe the Vandals came to Africa by the invitation of Boniface. He believes this is just supposition on the part of the 6th century historian, Procopius.

Which is his good right of course, but I think he can't prove Procopius wrong. And on the parallel of Vortigern inviting Saxons into Britain (in almost the same year) I am inclined to give Procopius the benefit of the doubt.

In the context of the 5th century, this would mean that their kings were simply jockeying for the position of magister militum and that was the goal of the civil wars of the time ? Of course, they knew they could not aspire to become Emperor but they wanted the next best thing - i.e. "the power behind the throne" ?

Exactly! That's the point I was trying to make. From the late 4th c. onwards everyone had noticed that the 'man behind the throne' could be more powerful than the guy on the throne himself. And, that anyone could get the position regardless of birth.

Only in the late 5th c. we see that even that position is not tempting enough when Gundobad the Burgundian rather takes the job of king at home rather than first man in Rome. For me that's the real Fall of Rome embodied.

[Theodosius the Great]

Indeed! Late Antique source are very good at exaggerating as I've written a few years ago when comparing Gildas to continental sources when it came to the 'destruction' of Roman society.

Thanks for the link, Robert, I will read up on it

Incidentally, Peter Heather does not believe the Vandals came to Africa by the invitation of Boniface. He believes this is just supposition on the part of the 6th century historian, Procopius.

Which is his good right of course, but I think he can't prove Procopius wrong.

I haven't formed an opinion yet but just to elaborate a bit : Heather thinks the timing of such a supposed invitation from Boniface is suspicious. He says it makes no sense to invite the Vandals because by 429, Boniface had already reconciled himself with the Emperor - so, there's no apparent motivation for the treachery in his view. Anyway, it's a side issue.

Exactly! That's the point I was trying to make. From the late 4th c. onwards everyone had noticed that the 'man behind the throne' could be more powerful than the guy on the throne himself. And, that anyone could get the position regardless of birth.

Only in the late 5th c. we see that even that position is not tempting enough when Gundobad the Burgundian rather takes the job of king at home rather than first man in Rome. For me that's the real Fall of Rome embodied.

Interesting, thanks for making it crystal clear I'd like to read up on Gundobad the Burgundian.

Fabiano,

Indeed, an invasion fleet (lot's of transporting ships) is a very different thing than a patrol fleet. But in the years after the invasion of africa, the vandals lauched several naval expeditions of pillage, without being disturb. Maybe the roman fleet (if it stil existed?), wasn't big enouth to do much more than defend against a couple of pirates ships.

I've found a modern estimate of the situation. According to Peter Heather : in the 460s the whole of the Western Empire could raise no more than 300 ships and that it took the combined resources of both empires to assemble 1,000 ships. This is relevant to the thread so I thought I should post it.

~Theo

[sonic]

Incidentally, Peter Heather does not believe the Vandals came to Africa by the invitation of Boniface. He believes this is just supposition on the part of the 6th century historian, Procopius.

Which is his good right of course, but I think he can't prove Procopius wrong.

I haven't formed an opinion yet but just to elaborate a bit : Heather thinks the timing of such a supposed invitation from Boniface is suspicious. He says it makes no sense to invite the Vandals because by 429, Boniface had already reconciled himself with the Emperor - so, there's no apparent motivation for the treachery in his view. Anyway, it's a side issue.

I too am struggling with this idea. How long would it take for a message from Boniface to reach the Vandals and for them to decide to act? Let's assume that an agreement was reached with the Vandals and that afterwards Boniface reached an agreement with Ravenna. If a further messenger was sent to Gaiseric to cancel the agreement when the Vandals had already begun praparations, would they then say, "fair enough: pack up and let's all go home"? Or would they say, "Too late: coming ready or not!!"? I'm just not happy with this ...

Indeed, an invasion fleet (lot's of transporting ships) is a very different thing than a patrol fleet. But in the years after the invasion of africa, the vandals lauched several naval expeditions of pillage, without being disturb. Maybe the roman fleet (if it stil existed?), wasn't big enouth to do much more than defend against a couple of pirates ships.

I've found a modern estimate of the situation. According to Peter Heather : in the 460s the whole of the Western Empire could raise no more than 300 ships and that it took the combined resources of both empires to assemble 1,000 ships. This is relevant to the thread so I thought I should post it.

~Theo

Just for a little additional information, it might be worthwhile to compare Belisarius’ expedition for the number of ships needed to transport an army. According to Procopius (who sailed with the fleet) Belisarius’ main force was composed of (only) 5,000 cavalry and 10,000 infantry. To carry the expedition 500 ships were gathered, being crewed by an additional 30,000 sailors (averaging 60 men per ship), with a further 92 dromones to defend the transports. And they were hoping to take the Vandals by surprise!

To mount a serious attack upon Africa was a major logistical feat. Although success would bring fame and glory - plus taxes, grain and additional manpower - to mount such an expedition would seriously weaken the 'European' front at a time when it was under extreme pressure. Furthermore, would the West have had the manpower available to then garrison the province?? As they were hard pressed to even survive, it is more likely that, without Eastern support, there was no real chance of such a venture.

I'd love to know what sources Heather used to reach the total of 'only' 300 ships.


Anyway -
To get back to the original question in this thread, I agree with VS that there are several 'theories' about what happened to the army in the West. I believe that it depended upon where the army was stationed. For example, the 'Vandal Confederation' seems to have little difficulty with overrunning Spain and annexing territory. It seems that the troops failed to fight, if in reality they still existed. In contrast, Syagrius ruled a fragment of the Empire in the north of Gaul after the 'official' Western Empire had ceased to rule - or at least rule effectively. It would seem that at least some troops in Gaul were still operational and able to give a good account of themselves. Maybe the reality was more a mixture of the different theories dependant upon local circumstances?

It's very complicated ...

[Agraes]

In the middle of the VIth century, Procopius speaks about roman soldiers in Gaul still keeping the banners and the customs of their ancestors, even the shoes, and states that those soldiers were allied to the Germans (ie the Franks) and to the Arborychi (very likely the Armoricans), at war with the Aryans (ie the Wisigoths).

In the Life of St Dalmas of roughly the same period, there is a quote about a 'Legio Britannica' near Orleans.
Something that is often disregard is that the last Roman rulers in the West, Aegidus, Paulus and Syagrius had strong allies in the Britons, which were theorically free of the roman rule since the late IVth/early Vth century but nonetheless retained a very romano-christian culture, and probably military organisation. They had lot of implantations in Northern Gaul since the late IVth century, especially in Western Armorica which will became Brittany but also elsewhere, as attested by texts (on the Loire) and toponyms in "Bret-" such as "Bretteville" which are quite common in Normandy.

At least for me that statement of Procopius does involve those Britons (or should I say 'Bretons') still organised in "Legions" after the fall of the West. That's the background we have chosen (even if not backuped by firm evidence!) for our group Letavia.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Ben,

In the middle of the VIth century, Procopius speaks about roman soldiers in Gaul still keeping the banners and the customs of their ancestors, even the shoes, and states that those soldiers were allied to the Germans (ie the Franks) and to the Arborychi (very likely the Armoricans), at war with the Aryans (ie the Wisigoths).

Yes, even though Procopius must have received this information from a secondary source (at least) I have little reason to discard this information. We have similar reports of for instance Noricum that confirm that the 'Romani' became a culturally identifyable group next to the new groups. Although social mobility was possible everyone knew where they belonged to, and similar to the 19th-c. development of local ('traditional')fashion in Europe, such a group may have become traditional about their outward signs.

Btw, i suspect that if the 'Arborychi' are really the Armorici, then the 'Aryans' may be the Alans rather than the Goths, who had in fact been defeated by the Franks at Vouillé in 507, they weren't a player in Breton affairs by the mid-6th century anymore.

In the Life of St Dalmas of roughly the same period, there is a quote about a 'Legio Britannica' near Orleans. [..]
At least for me that statement of Procopius does involve those Britons (or should I say 'Bretons') still organised in "Legions" after the fall of the West. That's the background we have chosen (even if not backuped by firm evidence!) for our group Letavia.

I don't know about that. See Gildas, and the way how 'legion' had already by the end of the 4th c. (Notitia Dignitatum) become a generic word for 'unit'.
I don't remember the period of origin of the Life of St Dalmas, but it's likely that the use of the word there is archaic, too. It's unlikely to see the word by itself as enough proof for a survival of a Roman military structure. Of course I can't deny it either. :wink:

Something that is often disregard is that the last Roman rulers in the West, Aegidus, Paulus and Syagrius had strong allies in the Britons, which were theorically free of the roman rule since the late IVth/early Vth century but nonetheless retained a very romano-christian culture, and probably military organisation.

Well, we are told that the Roman army was incorporated into the Frankish army. That may tell us something about the Frankish army after that, but not of the Breton army, unfortunately.

[taira1180]

Incidentally, Peter Heather does not believe the Vandals came to Africa by the invitation of Boniface. He believes this is just supposition on the part of the 6th century historian, Procopius.

Which is his good right of course, but I think he can't prove Procopius wrong.

I haven't formed an opinion yet but just to elaborate a bit : Heather thinks the timing of such a supposed invitation from Boniface is suspicious. He says it makes no sense to invite the Vandals because by 429, Boniface had already reconciled himself with the Emperor - so, there's no apparent motivation for the treachery in his view. Anyway, it's a side issue.

I too am struggling with this idea. How long would it take for a message from Boniface to reach the Vandals and for them to decide to act? Let's assume that an agreement was reached with the Vandals and that afterwards Boniface reached an agreement with Ravenna. If a further messenger was sent to Gaiseric to cancel the agreement when the Vandals had already begun praparations, would they then say, "fair enough: pack up and let's all go home"? Or would they say, "Too late: coming ready or not!!"? I'm just not happy with this ...

Indeed, an invasion fleet (lot's of transporting ships) is a very different thing than a patrol fleet. But in the years after the invasion of africa, the vandals lauched several naval expeditions of pillage, without being disturb. Maybe the roman fleet (if it stil existed?), wasn't big enouth to do much more than defend against a couple of pirates ships.

I've found a modern estimate of the situation. According to Peter Heather : in the 460s the whole of the Western Empire could raise no more than 300 ships and that it took the combined resources of both empires to assemble 1,000 ships. This is relevant to the thread so I thought I should post it.

~Theo

Just for a little additional information, it might be worthwhile to compare Belisarius’ expedition for the number of ships needed to transport an army. According to Procopius (who sailed with the fleet) Belisarius’ main force was composed of (only) 5,000 cavalry and 10,000 infantry. To carry the expedition 500 ships were gathered, being crewed by an additional 30,000 sailors (averaging 60 men per ship), with a further 92 dromones to defend the transports. And they were hoping to take the Vandals by surprise!

To mount a serious attack upon Africa was a major logistical feat. Although success would bring fame and glory - plus taxes, grain and additional manpower - to mount such an expedition would seriously weaken the 'European' front at a time when it was under extreme pressure. Furthermore, would the West have had the manpower available to then garrison the province?? As they were hard pressed to even survive, it is more likely that, without Eastern support, there was no real chance of such a venture.

I'd love to know what sources Heather used to reach the total of 'only' 300 ships.


Anyway -
To get back to the original question in this thread, I agree with VS that there are several 'theories' about what happened to the army in the West. I believe that it depended upon where the army was stationed. For example, the 'Vandal Confederation' seems to have little difficulty with overrunning Spain and annexing territory. It seems that the troops failed to fight, if in reality they still existed. In contrast, Syagrius ruled a fragment of the Empire in the north of Gaul after the 'official' Western Empire had ceased to rule - or at least rule effectively. It would seem that at least some troops in Gaul were still operational and able to give a good account of themselves. Maybe the reality was more a mixture of the different theories dependant upon local circumstances?

It's very complicated ...

Spain was involved in the same civil war between Gerontius and Constantinus, so i doubt that any troops would care for the barbarians, since they were too occupied to fight against other romans. But if some parts would be lost forever (like the galecia, and even then, the suevi had to fight against the locals who revolted periodically), the rest of the peninsula still was for some decades in roman control (paying taxes and receiving officials). Some times it was the emperors who would appeared (like Majoranus), sometimes it was the Visigoths by the roman authority.