A theory on the late roman army

[Steakslim]

Okay here it is please poke holes in it

1 Many people assume that simce the romans switched to the spatha that displine (i.e, the formation) suffered since it was a long slashing blade it required a looser formation to use according to livy however it was used to thrust as much as it was to cut and since it was so long it could give longer reach if you were thrusting between the sheilds

2 The romans army during the reign of julian was (according to the sources) very disiplined and cohesive

3 Because the army relied heavily on barbarians it is also assummed that displine suffered however the goths were perfectly capable of assuming good quality foramtionsas were the celts in the time of Julius Caesar

4 The romans used large sheilds, a thrusting spear and employed a foramtion called the falum a more mobile version of the testudo and all of the above would again require displine to utilize effectivley

Conclusion: The late roman army was just as disiplined as the army of the principate

So what do you think guys and girls?

[markusaurelius]

I would agree except for the following point.

1.) By the 5th Century (to the fall of the West) I think the army would not have looked the way you described. Before say 415 I agree.

2.) The army also grew in a huge way (numbers wise). I think any time you have a larger army the quality will decrease. It becomes harder to manage and train such a huge force imo....even with todays communication and technology.

[Steakslim]

You have an excellent point thanks

[Arminius Primus]

Ave,

This post sort of jogged my curiosity about the trends and feelings in the later period of the Western Roman Period. Was there a universal sense that things were not going well, sort of a heroic last stand sort of thing. Or was it more of a ' that's finished , lets get on with something else' attitude.

I know I have over simplified here, but if the , people, troops, leadership ( pick one ) felt that they were at the end of things, that might explain the perception about lack of quality or discipline in the late roman forces....or is that all just our modern perception of things?



Regards from the Balkans, Arminius Primus aka Al

[Lupianus]

Al, if you're aiming at the contemporary talk of crisis in Late Antiquity - that's a literary topos, which had been used as early as the Republic. As an example, Sallust moans about the end of all time when writing about the the Gracchi and especially Marius & Sulla (e.g. Bell. Iug. 41). Blaming it to the state, the army, the political or military elites is not a modern concept.

Another cause was the rise of Christianity. Christian authors tend to talk of the ultimate doom of the Empire - as it would be the fulfilment of their belief in and wish for the apocalypse.
For example, when Jerome wrote about the fall of the Rhine frontier and a massive barbarian invasion in 406/407 (besides, it's the only account on this matter!), he was in Palestine. So he hoped for the final blow. In fact, there's archaeological evidence for a continuation of Roman life (trade ware from the Mediterranean etc.) in the Rhine area at least until the late 5th century. They survived even the Frankish occupation!

I think, Roman politicians and people in general were quite pragmatic. They adapted to new situations and tried their best to continue with normal life. Many people might not even have recognised that there was a change - doesn't really matter whose army is devastating or eating your crops, who exercises jurisdiction, sets taxes, forces you into conscription, eh?

[Arminius Primus]

Lupianus et al , Ave

Understand, seems the Christians had sort of a Schadenfreude thing going on. Bad things happen to the empire hastens the second coming etc. ....but that brings up the issue of of whether or not by omission things were allowed to get out of hand.

I think your example of continued "normal" economic activity after the Frankish invasion really points to the pragmatism of the average citizen. Things have changed, lets get on with life..... I see a lot of that in the Balkans, especially in the villages. Sort of a keep your head down and this too will pass.

Probably no change in attitude since the Roman occupation.

Thanks for helping me get this into perspective.

Regards from the Balkans, Arminius Primus aka Al

[fasta]

Okay here it is please poke holes in it

1 Many people assume that simce the romans switched to the spatha that displine (i.e, the formation) suffered since it was a long slashing blade it required a looser formation to use according to livy however it was used to thrust as much as it was to cut and since it was so long it could give longer reach if you were thrusting between the sheilds

2 The romans army during the reign of julian was (according to the sources) very disiplined and cohesive

3 Because the army relied heavily on barbarians it is also assummed that displine suffered however the goths were perfectly capable of assuming good quality foramtionsas were the celts in the time of Julius Caesar

4 The romans used large sheilds, a thrusting spear and employed a foramtion called the falum a more mobile version of the testudo and all of the above would again require displine to utilize effectivley

Conclusion: The late roman army was just as disiplined as the army of the principate

So what do you think guys and girls?

When you say many people in your first statement where do you find this?

There is a strange snob :wink: factor that some fresh to Roman re-enactment have about the later period as opposed earlier periods but this tends to change in my experience when they learn the real history not Hollywood History :twisted:

Point 2 is valid, based on what we know of battle tatics.
But don't forget some of those brought in to the army from outside the Empire had a long contact with Rome and were influenced by it.It wasn't like they were coming from the stone age into the modern era.

Human beings can be trained given time and a good system.

[Lupianus]

Al,
No, I wouldn't see the Christians becoming the gravediggers of the Empire - although some historians in the past have blatandly blamed them (think of Edward Gibbon). Actually, as things started getting worse, at least in the 3rd century, Christians weren't in positions of influence to take measures. All they could do was going to kingdom come as martyrs. :oops:

And even as Christians became potent enough, on the one hand there were still some sturdy pagans to stop them (if needed), on the other hand they accustomed to the demands of politics (remember the bishop of Alexandria (?) visiting the public bath regularly to participate in political life). However, there wasn't room for nasty behaviour in favour of some religious irrationalities.

But that's a bit offtopic, me thinks.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Thomas,

1 Many people assume that since the Romans switched to the spatha that discpline (i.e, the formation) suffered since it was a long slashing blade it required a looser formation to use according to livy however it was used to thrust as much as it was to cut and since it was so long it could give longer reach if you were thrusting between the shields

Who assumes that? Not me. I see no particularly loose formations in order to swing the spatha. I see the spatha as a secondary weapon (after the spear) to be used as a stabbing weapon in the front line. Swinging with swords was done in irregular fights, no doubt. But in the tightly-packed (rare) formation battles I don't see this happen.

No discipline problem, either. :wink:

2 The Roman army during the reign of Julian was (according to the sources) very disiplined and cohesive

No more or less than during the 2nd or 5th c.
Don't look at 'the Roman army' as a singular entity. There would have been many variations in discipline, material and morale. After all this was a pre-industrial society and it would have been impossible to get one single standard quality for the whole military.

3 Because the army relied heavily on barbarians it is also assummed that displine suffered; however the Goths were perfectly capable of assuming good quality formations as were the Celts in the time of Julius Caesar

I disagree, that 'heavy barbarian presence' has long been disproven as an explanatory myth.
Of course the Goths could form good formations - they were most of the time functioning as a Roman army! The Goths were no rampaaging mass of barbarians, 'a people in flight' as popularly known from the game RTW. Already at Adrianople, part of their forces were regular Roman units. From Theodosius onwards, the Goths were employed as Roman armies, supplied with Roman weapons etc. No doubt they were also commanded by Roman or Roman-trained officers, and could perform all commands given by Roman generals.

4 The romans used large sheilds, a thrusting spear and employed a formation called the falum a more mobile version of the testudo and all of the above would again require displine to utilize effectivley

No, it's called the fulcum. And yes, you need good discipline to perform that in battle - occcasions are known when heavy outnumbered Roman infantry managed to hold out against vastly superior heavy cavalry.

Conclusion: The late roman army was just as disiplined as the army of the principate

Agreed.

[Robert Vermaat]

I know I have over simplified here, but if the , people, troops, leadership ( pick one ) felt that they were at the end of things, that might explain the perception about lack of quality or discipline in the late roman forces....or is that all just our modern perception of things?

I think that's a modern cconception. Apart from some sources who saw things very black and moaned about the End of Time, folks in the fields would have noticed that times were bad, but not worse than before (it's not like there were figures on banditry and starvation being kept), and humans seem to have a tendency to decry the present and idealise the past anyway. People were not informed by town-cryers that "today Antiquity has ended - welcome Middle Ages!".

[fasta]

Hi Thomas,

Conclusion: The late roman army was just as disiplined as the army of the principate

Agreed.

Robert you put it so much better than me