Battle of Mursa Major

[Maximinus243]

The battle of Mursa Major is a battle between Constantius II and Magnentius, resulting the loss of over 50,000 Roman troops due to that battle. This is comparable to the total loss of Roman lives during the battle of Cannae.

So in what way does this battle affected the overall performance of the Late Roman army? It isn't easy to replace the loss of so many men in such a quick time, and if anything, is bound to allow barbarians to cross the Roman borders as a result of the death of so many troops, and yet the Romans still managed to replace their loss.

Is this battle really insignificant in the grander scheme of things?

[Theodosius the Great]

Is this battle really insignificant in the grander scheme of things?

Perhaps. You have to remember that barbarian allies made up a large part of the army too. So,the raw casualties probably exaggerate the impact on 'Roman' manpower.

~Theo

[Maximinus243]

Is this battle really insignificant in the grander scheme of things?

Perhaps. You have to remember that barbarian allies made up a large part of the army too. So,the raw casualties probably exaggerate the impact on 'Roman' manpower.

~Theo

Nevertheless, it would still result in difficulties for the Romans to replace those barbarians. Why did Historians often mentioned the losses at Adrianople instead of mentioning the losses at Mursa?

It the late Roman army can rebuild itself to a decent standard ( as shown by the performance of Julian's army in Gaul), why would the Roman army degrade after Adrianople?

[Robert Vermaat]

Nevertheless, it would still result in difficulties for the Romans to replace those barbarians. Why did Historians often mentioned the losses at Adrianople instead of mentioning the losses at Mursa?

It the late Roman army can rebuild itself to a decent standard ( as shown by the performance of Julian's army in Gaul), why would the Roman army degrade after Adrianople?

I think that Jaime refers to losses at Mursa being different from losses at Adrianople. If at Mursa the casualties were predominantly from allied federates and other barbarians hired for this campaign (as Constantine and Licinius had done in their civil war), this was different from Adrianople, where the core of the east Roman army fell.

The point is, the Late Roman army could apparently not rebuild itself that fast, at least not to a good standard. After Adrianople the east Roman army was strengthened by units from the West, but after that there were more battles. Magnus Maximus beat Gratian in 383, who was in turn defeated in 388 by Theodosius, who then seems to have taken the best units for his own army. Theodosius then had to beat Arbogast in 394. Thhis weakened both armies, to such an extent that Stilicho did not dare to rely on his forces when he weent after Alaric in Greece later.

[Maximinus243]

So it is fair to say that the Roman civil wars did more damage to the Roman army as a whole than the barbarians?

[Astiryu1]

So it is fair to say that the Roman civil wars did more damage to the Roman army as a whole than the barbarians?

I would think so. The American Civil War left a bitter taste for at least a few generations in the south and the north. It not only takes time to replace men but also get them to trust one another enough to fight side by side. An external threat is much more preferable (I think) than fighting someone I might have grown up with. Civil Wars are always a massive drain on a nation's manpower; both sides are from the same nation...

[Robert Vermaat]

So it is fair to say that the Roman civil wars did more damage to the Roman army as a whole than the barbarians?

In my opinion, absolutely.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

It's kind of hard to defend the front door, when the houshold is sticking daggers in your back.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

Perhaps. You have to remember that barbarian allies made up a large part of the army too.

Did they? Must admit that this would be new to me - unless, of course, I am missing something obvious (not for the first time) :roll:

IIRC Zosimus is about all we have on this - or is there more?

[Robert Vermaat]

Perhaps. You have to remember that barbarian allies made up a large part of the army too.

Did they? Must admit that this would be new to me - unless, of course, I am missing something obvious (not for the first time) :roll:
IIRC Zosimus is about all we have on this - or is there more?

We also have an excellent desription by Julian who wrote about this battle in his Oratio (Oratio I 36-39 and Oratio II 59-60 I think) as well as the 12th c. Iohannes Zonaras (Extracts of History II.1 and XIII.17).
I think you are right, we don't know in detail what forces fought on either side. But the high number of casualties seems not to have been of great effect on the Roman offensive capabilities. Therefore I would suggest that (like Constantine and Licinius a few years earlier) both opponents had swelled their number with large amounts of hired mercenaries for this campaign. These troops may have born the brunt of the attack (as Theodosius did at the river Frigidus later). But i admit this is speculation from me.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

But the high number of casualties seems not to have been of great effect on the Roman offensive capabilities. Therefore I would suggest that (like Constantine and Licinius a few years earlier) both opponents had swelled their number with large amounts of hired mercenaries for this campaign.

You are, of course, assuming that the casualty figure is reasonably accurate

[Robert Vermaat]

You are, of course, assuming that the casualty figure is reasonably accurate

If not, the topic of this discussion is void anyway. :wink: