Late Roman Army during the 5th century

[Flavivs Aetivs]

It's debatable actually. The Roman Army of the west likely numbered (estimate of course) around 90,000 men total in 395. The Notitia Dignitatum was written roughly in 420 in the west, and with a firm hold on Africa the Army likely numbered 60,000 under Constantius III and Aetius (prior to 439). Afterwards Aetius probablt had about 30000 men spread throughout the empire, which declined further after the Illyrian and Gallic portions left after the death of Majoran.

The Roman army would still have been distinguishable by Shield Patterns and Equipment, but would have looked similar to thier foes. However; most Roman Troops (in the front ranks at least) wore metal armor, so that would have been a big way to distinguish.

The Army had never been entirely "Romans." After the 230s everyone in the empire was a "Roman" or was at least Heavily "Romanized" despite thier ethnicity. The Army had Celts, Romans, Germans, Egyptians, Syrians, Spaniards, and Greeks in it prior to the Barbarian Invasion.

The Army was a Roman army, the difference between sides would be thier commanders or who paid them. Aetius had Burgundians, ex-Roman Veterans, Huns, and Goths in his retainer under his pay probably. Same would apply to Stilicho, Constantius III, Avitus, Sidonius Apollinaris, and Ricimer.

[starman2012]

Perhaps the source refers to the Vandals leaving Tingitania and Mauretania when they went for Carthage?

Sure the western area prior to the fighting near Hippo.

[Robert Vermaat]

I owe you an appology on this one, I checked and true, the numbers are not given or at least verified.

Accepted! :grin:

Altrough I found some interpretations of the ND reporting 150.000 troops in the western empire between 410 & 425AD, which is highly exagerated.

I'm not sure, Agathius tells us that the total (east & west) numbered about 645.000. On paper, of course, but the total for the west could have been 150.000 by the early 5th c., or even higher, not including Germanic forces hired for several campaigns. A strength of 50% below paper strength is feasible.

Do we basically have approximate figures of the population of the western empire in the 4th-5th century? We couls estimate the potential army enrollment based on that.

I'm afraid not, no.

Warfare in the 5th century and after needed probably far less manpower than half a millenium ago. Looking a century forward, Belisarius managed to reconquer Africa and Italy with no more than 10-15.000 men.

Indeed. Look at my page with army numbers as given in the sources: http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/numbers.htm
From the later 4th c. onwards, army numbers begin to drop.

[Robert Vermaat]

It's debatable actually. The Roman Army of the west likely numbered (estimate of course) around 90,000 men total in 395.

Are you referring to the total number or to the field army troops? based on?

The Notitia Dignitatum was written roughly in 420 in the west,

Erm, no, it was wriiten 25 years earlier (c. 394) and some (but not all) parts may have been updated, some indeed as late as perhaps c. 420. [note the many 'may's' and 'perhapses' here].

and with a firm hold on Africa the Army likely numbered 60,000 under Constantius III and Aetius (prior to 439). Afterwards Aetius probablt had about 30000 men spread throughout the empire, which declined further after the Illyrian and Gallic portions left after the death of Majoran.

I think this is based on guesswork only? :wink:

The Roman army would still have been distinguishable by Shield Patterns and Equipment, but would have looked similar to thier foes. However; most Roman Troops (in the front ranks at least) wore metal armor, so that would have been a big way to distinguish.

Although Sidonius describes Gothic noblemen richly clad in fur, the continuation of Roman fashions may suggest that he was showing his dislike for his new rulers (they kicked him from part of his estates) by overstating their barbarious-ness. many non-Roman troops took over Roman fabricae or were supplied by them, suggesting that it would have been really difficult to keep them apart by looking at their equipment.

[Marja]

Hi, thanks for linking your Fectio article. But I've got to disagree with the figures here.

Zosimus' army sizes are extremely high. Ioannes Lydos gives just under 390,000 soldiers, and Agathias 645,000 soldiers and sailors, for the whole Empire. Zosimus gives 581,000 if we add all four figures, 286,000 in the first conflict and 295,000 in the second. Treadgold argues that Zosimus has re-used what were paper strengths for the armies of Constantinus, Maxentius, Licinius, and Maximinus Daia as field-army strengths for the armies of Constantinus, Maxentius, Constantinus again, and Licinius, which involves some fiddling with the data but isn't an unreasonable way to make sense of Zosimus.

The Panegyrici Latini 12:3 claims that Constantinus crossed the Alps, with barely ¼ of his army, against 100,000 enemies.

Lactantius in the Deaths of the Persecutors ch. 45 claims that Maximinus Daia had a field army of 70,000 and Licinius of 30,000.

Neither of these are entirely reliable sources, but they are at least earlier, and their numbers paint a different picture than Zosimus do.

[starman2012]

It's debatable actually. The Roman Army of the west likely numbered (estimate of course) around 90,000 men total in 395. The Notitia Dignitatum was written roughly in 420 in the west, and with a firm hold on Africa the Army likely numbered 60,000 under Constantius III and Aetius (prior to 439). Afterwards Aetius probablt had about 30000 men spread throughout the empire..

Apparently there was a big difference between the number of troops they could afford to pay and the number they actually had, in the WR army. That's why they had to hire Huns in the 430s, and needed 10,000 as far back as 409.

[starman2012]

Do we basically have approximate figures of the population of the western empire in the 4th-5th century? We couls estimate the potential army enrollment based on that.

Whatever the population was, it seems practically irrelevant. The barbarian component was practically ubiquitous.

Warfare in the 5th century and after needed probably far less manpower than half a millenium ago. Looking a century forward, Belisarius managed to reconquer Africa and Italy with no more than 10-15.000 men.

Which shows how militarily degenerated the WRE was in the 5th century. It could hardly do anything by itself.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

It's debatable actually. The Roman Army of the west likely numbered (estimate of course) around 90,000 men total in 395.

Are you referring to the total number or to the field army troops? based on?

The Notitia Dignitatum was written roughly in 420 in the west,

Erm, no, it was wriiten 25 years earlier (c. 394) and some (but not all) parts may have been updated, some indeed as late as perhaps c. 420. [note the many 'may's' and 'perhapses' here].

and with a firm hold on Africa the Army likely numbered 60,000 under Constantius III and Aetius (prior to 439). Afterwards Aetius probablt had about 30000 men spread throughout the empire, which declined further after the Illyrian and Gallic portions left after the death of Majoran.

I think this is based on guesswork only? :wink:

The Roman army would still have been distinguishable by Shield Patterns and Equipment, but would have looked similar to thier foes. However; most Roman Troops (in the front ranks at least) wore metal armor, so that would have been a big way to distinguish.

Although Sidonius describes Gothic noblemen richly clad in fur, the continuation of Roman fashions may suggest that he was showing his dislike for his new rulers (they kicked him from part of his estates) by overstating their barbarious-ness. many non-Roman troops took over Roman fabricae or were supplied by them, suggesting that it would have been really difficult to keep them apart by looking at their equipment.

I took the listings for the number of Palatina, Limitanei, and Comitatenses Units, assigned them numbers, and counted. I played around with it (Goldsworthy says 38,000 in his complete Roman Army).

The Figure of 90,000 is based on Heather actually, but I have no Idea where he got that figure as I dont have the book on hand. Heather lists 120,000 for the Eastern Half.

[Marja]

It's an open question.

I tend to agree with Treadgold about the paper strengths, with certain specific disagreements [He counts one unit of sagitarii twice, because it appears in Illyricum and Thracia. I count it once. He counts twenty-one legiones comitatenses in Thrace. I suspect that the break between legiones and pseudocomitatenses has been dropped. And so on.]

It works out to about 100,000 palatini and comitatenses in the east, though many if not most units were understrength and 60,000 to 80,000 might be more true. The western armies are on the same order of magnitude as the eastern ones.

I have lately been trying to reconstruct the army structure of the Tetrarchy and the post-Tetrarchan civil wars. It is incredibly frustrating.

I understand that early modern European armies often had a policy of preferentially recruiting from potential enemy territory. I think this might apply here.

[Nathan Ross]

The Panegyrici Latini 12:3 claims that Constantinus crossed the Alps, with barely ¼ of his army, against 100,000 enemies.

The panegyric actually specifies that Constantine's expeditionary force was 'fewer than forty thousand men', and notes that Alexander the Great believed a army larger than this was not an army but a mob!

I have lately been trying to reconstruct the army structure of the Tetrarchy and the post-Tetrarchan civil wars. It is incredibly frustrating.

A while ago, just out of interest, I tried to work out what sort of units and army numbers might have been available to Constantine in 312, based on earlier estimates and the tetrarchic-looking units mentioned in the ND. It was far from a scientific or rigorous analysis (!), but I remember coming up with a figure of around 120,000. So perhaps if Constantine led a force of 30-35,000 or so into Italy, and allowing for a little panegryical exaggeration, it wasn't too far short of a quarter of his entire army.

All the competing emperors of this period were probably conscripting as hard as fast as they could, and enlisting any barbarian groups they could too, so the army as a whole would be quite swollen. Maxentius in particular appears to have raised a large number of men in southern Italy, Sicily and North Africa. The quality of these new units (or whatever they were) may have been debatable, and none seem to have survived into the later establishment, but by leaving his borders undefended and centralising his force he could have put 100,000 men onto the battlefield (though they would have been something more like Alexander's 'mob'!)

So if all four emperors of the day were able to muster comparable forces to Constantine, the total combined 'Roman' army in 312 may have been close to half a million. But, like the civil wars of the late Republic, this was a time of crisis and expediency.

However, this is a bit of a digression from the late 5th century! :neutral:

[Marja]

I got the ¼ from "Vix enim quarta parte exercitus contra centum milia armatorum hostium Alpes transgressus es," in 12-3.

I see the 40,000 comes from "Magnus Alexander... numquam tamen maiores quadraginta milium copias duxit inhabile regenti ratus, quicquid excederet, et turbam potius quam exercitum. Tu vero etiam minoribus copiis bellum multo maius aggressus es, tanto scilicet propria tua virtute potior quanto ille numero instructior." etc. in 12-5.

I'll need to go over that.

By the end of the 4th century, none of the eastern field armies exceed 25,000, although many campaigns combined two or even three field armies. I'm not sure if any of the western field armies exceeded 25,000. Part of the limit may be operational, since larger armies are slower, and part may be political, since larger armies give their commanders more power.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi, thanks for linking your Fectio article. But I've got to disagree with the figures here.

You should. But take note, however, my list just gives the numbers related to us by the sources, I did not say they were right.

Zosimus' army sizes are extremely high. Ioannes Lydos gives just under 390,000 soldiers, and Agathias 645,000 soldiers and sailors, for the whole Empire. Zosimus gives 581,000 if we add all four figures, 286,000 in the first conflict and 295,000 in the second.

Actually, they may not be out of the question. Zosimus mentions these numbers for the armies in the civli war between Constantine and Licinius. it's entirely possible that these forces were for the best parts made up from mercenaries, hired by each antagonist for this war only. Zosimus never tells us that his number is meant to be the number of regular troops under Roman command. In fact I think it isn't.

Treadgold argues that Zosimus has re-used what were paper strengths for the armies of Constantinus, Maxentius, Licinius, and Maximinus Daia as field-army strengths for the armies of Constantinus, Maxentius, Constantinus again, and Licinius, which involves some fiddling with the data but isn't an unreasonable way to make sense of Zosimus.

Indeed. But even so the numbers are quite high, which is why I favour the regulars + mercenaries explanation.

The Panegyrici Latini 12:3 claims that Constantinus crossed the Alps, with barely ¼ of his army, against 100,000 enemies.

Especially that enemy figure (plus that it's written by a panegyrist) makes it doubtful.

Lactantius in the Deaths of the Persecutors ch. 45 claims that Maximinus Daia had a field army of 70,000 and Licinius of 30,000.

Sure, but the concept of the 'field army' was still young then, later field armies were much larger.

Neither of these are entirely reliable sources, but they are at least earlier, and their numbers paint a different picture than Zosimus do.

Sure, IF Zosimus meant the entire standing army, which I don't think he does.

[Timianus]

It appears the key difference between the fifth century and earlier times was the lack of resilience. . . . . For some reason, the fifth century western empire was different. It just couldn't summon the strength (i.e. of its own) to crush enemies settled on its own territory, or prevent a progressive erosion of its position.

A couple of things to note on this point. First, as Ian Hughes discusses in both Stilicho and Aetius, the civil wars fought by Theodisius devastated the Western army, probably to the same effect that Andrianople had on the eastern army. Not only that, but Theodisius stripped the frontiers and passages to the alps of all troops to ensure a victory at the Frigidus, thus opening the way for more incursions.

In terms of willingness to serve, Rome replaced a culture of military service as a civic virtue and duty, rewarded by land grants, to one where service was used to gain citizenship, and, finally, as being compulsory based on heredity. Consider further the shrinking "free" class of citizens and also the effect that near constant civil war had on citizens' view of the army and/or state. Its one thing to join to protect Roma and the frontiers from barbarians; but why join if all you are doing is sacking your own territory on behalf of the imperator of the week? Without loyalty to the state and/or prospect of riches or reward, what incentive did the average Marcus have to join up? Finally, I do think overall population needs to be taken into account, particularly with the number of instances of plague.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Disease wasn't a problem in the 5th century, that was mostly a 3rd century thing. The population averaged around 30 million by 395 I think.

A big problem was a shrinking number of "Free" provincials and Citizens, agreed. The Romans could have solved that with serious reforms to their government though, but the land-owning aristocracy controlled the government thereby making those reforms unwanted and have limiting effect. There were some reforms but they came too late, mostly after the fall of carthage.

[Magister_Officiorum13241]

About 30 "Laeti" settlements are mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum. Is there are any consensus on whether Laeti is just another term for the barbarian Foederati, or would the Laeti have been more under direct Roman control than the allied Foederati tribes?