10-08-2012, 05:25 PM
In the civil war between Constantius II and Magnentius, AD351-353, sources claim that the number of troops raised by both sides amounted to at least two hundred and fifty thousand. At the battle of Mursa Major the casualties numbered over 50,000, a mix of both Roman and 'barbarian' as Magnentius had been hiring 'barbarians' to aid him. Although this cviil war did have a huge impact on Gaul, it lead to the Allemanni over-running it at one stage, Julian, at Constantius' behest, restored Gaul to full Roman control. within just a year of becoming sole emperor Julian was able to raise an army of at least 60,000 for his invasion of Sasanid Persia. Even though that invsion ended in disaster, by 376AD Valens was able to raise another invasion force, possibly even larger than Julian's as Valens had been hiring Goth's in large numbers, the force could have been as large as 90,000 according to one historian.
What this shows is that despite very damaging set-backs the Romans usually bounced back and could raise large forces if needed. However, after Adrianopolis this appears to have changed, something happened to prevent the Romans raising large armies without having to resort to hiring large numbers of 'barbarians'. It's not as if the Battle of Adrianopolis was a complete disaster. Yes, two thirds of Valens army was lost, but that would only have amounted to something like 16,000 men at the most, and the Western army was largely intact. No, there must have been another factor and if we could only identify what that factor was then we could start to see waht actually casused the Western Empire to collapse.
What this shows is that despite very damaging set-backs the Romans usually bounced back and could raise large forces if needed. However, after Adrianopolis this appears to have changed, something happened to prevent the Romans raising large armies without having to resort to hiring large numbers of 'barbarians'. It's not as if the Battle of Adrianopolis was a complete disaster. Yes, two thirds of Valens army was lost, but that would only have amounted to something like 16,000 men at the most, and the Western army was largely intact. No, there must have been another factor and if we could only identify what that factor was then we could start to see waht actually casused the Western Empire to collapse.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
