High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army

[Mrbsct]

Why didn't the Romans bother finishing off the Goths after Adrianople? The Gothic army was no means massive(15,000 Adrianople) and a bunch of scattered civilians. When Fridigern reach Constantinople, a sortie of Arab Foederettii cavalry drove them off. Gratian I believed defeated some Goths in small numbers. Why did they negotiate with the Goths?

Were the Roman border troops that incapable of fielding an army to meet the Goths in combat? What happened to Valen's field army in Persia?
I heard in Gibbon's book that the Roman Emperors at this time were under huge pressure from the church and arostacracy, any military defeat was a disgrace and often avoided battles and were defensive in tactics. Theodosis was often very defensive and needed manpower so he employed the Goths as Human shields at Fridigus.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I disagree that the West had "no more a full working professional", or that the "names of the units quoted in the Notitia, after Frigidus, are only names written on the paper". I look forward to seeing evidence for that. I think that the West did have an army, but that Stilicho squandered that in a useless conflict with the East.

Well, only looking in your timeline, what happened in year 406 is something more than an evidence .... what the germanic invaders found or better did not find in Spain,it is something more than an evidence, in my opinion.

Look, reading the Notitia, In Spain there should have been 11 Auxilia Palatina and 5 legiones comitatenses under a Comes Hispaniarum, even half of this force probably would have been able to stop any invasion, so probably this force actually existed but sadly, ...... only on the paper.

You gave to understand that there were usurpations going on. The Barbarians were not just "invaders" but Opportunists. There was almost no Barbarian expansion under Aetius' reign, but the instant he was dead the Suebes siezed the rest of spain, the Visigoths siezed North Aquitaine, the Franks expanded south, and the various peoples north of the danube invaded Noricum.

With the usurpation in Britain in 406, and Stilicho being tied up with a war in the East, then the Barbarians knew the Roman Army was tied up and took the opportunity to cross the Rhine.

Furthermore, Spain was never meant to see combat - the Spanish army existed but was not experienced. they would have had highly trained, but no veteran soldiers and Generals. When Maxentius usurped in Spain in 413, he had a Spanish Army, so it certainly did exist, but it was not a capable force.

[Robert Vermaat]

I disagree that Frigidus was the deathblow. The cuts of 40,000 men from the fall of Africa was the deathblow.
The elite units certainly were withdrawn to the east to deter future usurpers, but they were replaced. We have tons of edits to the Notitia where units were shifted around or new elite troops were created.

I'm not so sure whether the quality of the 40.000 men from Africa can be compared to the quality of the field army units that we see removed into the Eastern Field army after Frigidus. Also, you seem to think that these were replaced, but i don't see 'tons of edits' reflecting such replacements. What I do see are edits in which vanished limitanei are replaced by local units (named after the towns they were raised in), and many limitanei being promoted into the field armies (pseudocomitatenses). All this does not signify a return of elite regiments pulled from the West after 394.

Of course the loss of Africa was a killing blow, but the victorious forces we know from the time of Gratian never return after Frigidus. I mean, all the problems that Stilicho had with untrained, unsure forces stem from this - most likely he would have crushed the East had Theodosius not rearranged the military by 394.

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, only looking in your timeline, what happened in year 406 is something more than an evidence .... what the germanic invaders found or better did not find in Spain,it is something more than an evidence, in my opinion.
Look, reading the Notitia, In Spain there should have been 11 Auxilia Palatina and 5 legiones comitatenses under a Comes Hispaniarum, even half of this force probably would have been able to stop any invasion, so probably this force actually existed but sadly, ...... only on the paper.

Two things -
One, IF as you say troops had only exitsted on paper, Gaul would have been overrun by 400 or shortly after.
It wasn't.

Two, according to the ND, in 394 there would indeed have been 16 units. You say they were paper forces because they could not stop the invaders. I say, you forget the little fact that the area had been the scene of a civil war - it's in my timeline! Constantine III probably either disbanded these units (if they were pro-Honorius), or used them for the army he needed to invade Italy. Or Honorius pulled them out before that, fearing that scenario. Probably both.
That's more than nough reason to see them gone afterwards, leaving hardly any troops available to do anything else but defend Tarragonensis.

[Robert Vermaat]

Furthermore, Spain was never meant to see combat - the Spanish army existed but was not experienced. they would have had highly trained, but no veteran soldiers and Generals. When Maxentius usurped in Spain in 413, he had a Spanish Army, so it certainly did exist, but it was not a capable force.

I agree. Constantine III was attacked by several of Honorius' relatives - I imagine they had more than their own guards and kitchen slaves! I assume that the Spanish cities had militias, which (as we see in Gaul) were transformed after 411 into regular units, but I think of a much lower quality.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

And by the 420's there was a Magister Militum of Spain, while the earlier ND only listed a Comes.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Why didn't the Romans bother finishing off the Goths after Adrianople? The Gothic army was no means massive(15,000 Adrianople) and a bunch of scattered civilians. When Fridigern reach Constantinople, a sortie of Arab Foederettii cavalry drove them off. Gratian I believed defeated some Goths in small numbers. Why did they negotiate with the Goths?

Were the Roman border troops that incapable of fielding an army to meet the Goths in combat? What happened to Valen's field army in Persia?
I heard in Gibbon's book that the Roman Emperors at this time were under huge pressure from the church and arostacracy, any military defeat was a disgrace and often avoided battles and were defensive in tactics. Theodosis was often very defensive and needed manpower so he employed the Goths as Human shields at Fridigus.

A point first needs clearing up. You stated in an earlier post that Ammianus commented unfavourably on the state of the Roman army during his history. That is not so, he makes very many comments on how brave and strong the Late Roman army was during the time he served as a Tribune in it. I think your confusing Ammianus with Vegetius who did indeed lament the state of the Late Roman army when he wrote his Epitome.

As to the question of the Goths. Gratian has a proportion of the Western Army under his command when he was on his way to support Valens at Adrianople, but he had already despatched a large section of the Western army several times to assist Valens, along with senior officers such as Richomeres. A goodly number of the despatched forces were badly mauled at Ad Salices, which was a blue print for the disaster at Adrianople as the Roman army at that battle fought essentially a draw against the Goths, and was commanded by Richomeres. One could easily question why Valens allowed the Goths to escape after that battle.

The truth of the matter was that Gratian could not afford to attack Fritigern and his army on equal terms without risking another defeat. The eastern army was effectively wiped out and it would take months, if not years for it to be built up again, and that would have meant the Goths being placated so this could happen. Look at what happened during the crisis of the 3rd Century AD where the Goths managed to reach Rome, and killed the Emperor Decius in battle. Its likely the Romans believed that they would recover from this disaster the same as they had done back then.

And many of the forces that were built up in the east by Valens for the imminent Sasanid invasion were comprised of Goths, the last book of Ammianus gives a description of what was done about them.

[Robert Vermaat]

Why didn't the Romans bother finishing off the Goths after Adrianople? The Gothic army was no means massive(15,000 Adrianople) and a bunch of scattered civilians. When Fridigern reach Constantinople, a sortie of Arab Foederettii cavalry drove them off. Gratian I believed defeated some Goths in small numbers. Why did they negotiate with the Goths?
Were the Roman border troops that incapable of fielding an army to meet the Goths in combat? What happened to Valen's field army in Persia?
I heard in Gibbon's book that the Roman Emperors at this time were under huge pressure from the church and arostacracy, any military defeat was a disgrace and often avoided battles and were defensive in tactics. Theodosis was often very defensive and needed manpower so he employed the Goths as Human shields at Fridigus.

First of all the Goth actually won at Adrianople, wiping out most of the army of the eastern Empire. After that, the Romans did not dare risk another field battle lest they would lose another battle. Gratian knew he could not rule the empire by himself and he was busy enough with restructuring the army (that would take years and years). Theodosius was never the military commander as Constantine for instance had been, but he managed to pin down most of the still antagonistic Goths while appeasing other groups. He had to – the Goths were no more risking a large engagement in the field than the Romans, and raiding was to be limited as much as possible. Theodosius and Gratian did not only negotiate of course, the did take military action, driving the remaining Goths back into Thrace by 381.

Gibbon is a nice read, but he’s a 19th c. writer with an agenda (he blamed the Christian church for the downfall of Rome) and not a great source. The use of Goth in the front ranks at frigidus was no different from the use of Batavian auxiliaries at Mons Graupius, to name but one such occasion. Nothing new.

And many of the forces that were built up in the east by Valens for the imminent Sasanid invasion were comprised of Goths, the last book of Ammianus gives a description of what was done about them.

Indeed. Adrianople did not halt the war in the East. Ardeshir died in 383, and attention had to be on new treaties and pacifying tribe who broke the treaty of 377.

[Timianus]

Also, remember the fact that before Adrianople good ole Theo was in exile in spain after losing two legions to the Sarmatians in late 374. When he was recalled, he engaged the goths on several occasions but was unable to soundly defeat them. Even after he had re-assembled the eastern army, he nearly lost at the Battle of Frigidus. I don't think we can discount the fact that Theo did not seem to be a very good battle commander.

[Mrbsct]

I know they lost, by Rome was by no means low on manpower to field another army. They were capable of fielding 50,000 on the Western side at Frigus, and 30,000 on the Easter side. Gothic armies were quite small. After all Stillico did defeat the Goths.

The reason why the Romans didn't bother finishing off the Goths was mainly political than actual manpower or lack of military capacity.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The goths of Radagasius and the Goths of Alaric were two different groups, both attacking and being defeated with about 30,000 fighting men. Pollentia was a narrow victory, and Radagasius' defeat was rather sound.

[Diocle]

Well, only looking in your timeline, what happened in year 406 is something more than an evidence .... what the germanic invaders found or better did not find in Spain,it is something more than an evidence, in my opinion.
Look, reading the Notitia, In Spain there should have been 11 Auxilia Palatina and 5 legiones comitatenses under a Comes Hispaniarum, even half of this force probably would have been able to stop any invasion, so probably this force actually existed but sadly, ...... only on the paper.

Two things -
One, IF as you say troops had only exitsted on paper, Gaul would have been overrun by 400 or shortly after.
It wasn't.

Two, according to the ND, in 394 there would indeed have been 16 units. You say they were paper forces because they could not stop the invaders. I say, you forget the little fact that the area had been the scene of a civil war - it's in my timeline! Constantine III probably either disbanded these units (if they were pro-Honorius), or used them for the army he needed to invade Italy. Or Honorius pulled them out before that, fearing that scenario. Probably both.
That's more than nough reason to see them gone afterwards, leaving hardly any troops available to do anything else but defend Tarragonensis.

I agree, and how might I disagree if what you wrote it 's the simple truth? But in my opinion we are not saying two very different things, the difference is based on the wrong assuption I was considering them all 'Paper units', instead, what I mean was only this: To calculate the actual strenght of the Roman forces in Gaul at the beginning of the V century, the names written on the Notitia Dignitatum have to be considered very cautiously.

Side note: I've considered the civil wars, indeed they were one of the reasons why I wrote about 'paper units'.
The nice touristic trip that the Germanic hordes had in Gaul in 406, at least shows that they didn't find a true professional Western Exercitus Comitatensis ready to stop them, there wasn't any true field army in Gaul with the strenght to face them.

Thereafter: yes, you're right, of course, Gaul was still part of the Empire during the first half of the V century, but as they were part of the Empire the Visigoth kingdoms, the Burgundian kingdom, the Frank territories and last but not the least: Africa Vandalorum. This only to say that yes, Gaul was still Roman (on the paper! Because who was getting the taxes in the Germanic lands?), but, actually , what were Gaul and Spain? Can we state they were still fully Roman lands? or we should consider them as something halfway between the new Germanic Kingdoms of the VI century and some kind of Roman Provinciae highly independent and highly germanized over which the control of the Roman state was written only on the paper? (Sorry please, I've abused of the word 'paper', again!)

So, looking at the Western-Roman Army in the V century, at least after Frigidus, even the use of definitions as 'Germanization of the army' may sound really euphemistic.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

You do realize that the reason why the Vandals et al. crossed into Spain was because they were being pursued by the Western field Army? They did have a temporary free reign in Gaul, but the Army mobilized against them after Constantine III came to Gaul.

Furthermore, those taxes in Gaul were going to the Roman state, the only people settled in Gaul without Roman Authority were the Visigoths, all the rest were under the firm grip of Aetius and his Huns and Alans.

Although the roman army was low on manpower, they were certainly not replaced with Barbarians. The Gallic Field Army was indeed strong. 22,500 men at Chalons is my estimate for the Gallic Army (based on a 2/3 strength of AHM Jones 34,000 in the ND to compensate for paper strength, wounded, sick, deserters, etc.)

[Timianus]

Although the roman army was low on manpower, they were certainly not replaced with Barbarians. The Gallic Field Army was indeed strong. 22,500 men at Chalons is my estimate for the Gallic Army (based on a 2/3 strength of AHM Jones 34,000 in the ND to compensate for paper strength, wounded, sick, deserters, etc.)

So what happened to it after Chalons? From your other posts, you seem to state that a large part of the Gallic Field Army were personal retainers of Aetius and they just disbanded after he died. Or, am I misunderstanding you?