Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Discipline in the imperial Roman army
#16
27 July 2013

Desmond (Gregalis);

Thank you for the chronology in Roman Recruitment and military development over its lifetime.
Especially, the hiring of mercenary armies in latter stages of Roman Military existence,
specifically,hiring of barbarian war bands,
and the bulling of the populace in the late Republic era.

This is the context I am looking for, thank you.

Geoffrey Ives
Reply
#17
Below is a link to a website dealing with Roman army punishments & the terms used but nothing about officers punishments. I have 1 question in regards to legionaries & auxilliary troops is who would try and punish a soldier if a legionnaire killed an auxilliary soldier in an off duty bar room brawl in say 4th century onwards? Would there be a military judgement & then condemned man handed over to tribe or war band of murdered auxilliary for execution or would military do it?

http://www.ancientl.com/roman/army-punishments/

Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#18
Quote:Regarding the late empire, the question wasn't Germans and Sarmatians forming "ethnic gangs" within the ranks of the Roman army, but rather the Romans hiring entire war bands of Germans as mercenaries, under the command of their own tribal leaders.
I think you're oversimplifying the process. War bands were hired before, also under their own leadership, sometimes even settled within the empire. The main difference between earlier practice and post-Adrianople was that entire groups were allowed to operate under their own leaders. Barbarians had led armies before, barbarian groups had served as unit in the Roman army before, but especially Theodosius allowed such groups to overn and defend entire regions. That way, a 'Gothic' army could function as a Roman army (which is essentially what Alaric's army was).

Btw, the 'legion system' had not been abolished at all. We see that after Caracalla, everyone is a Roman citizen, which means the main reason for joining the auxilia is gone. A century or so later the new model army (comitatenses and limitanei) are developed, but the classical legions were never abolished.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#19
@Robert:
Quote:The main difference between earlier practice and post-Adrianople was that entire groups were allowed to operate under their own leaders. Barbarians had led armies before, barbarian groups had served as unit in the Roman army before, but especially Theodosius allowed such groups to overn and defend entire regions. That way, a 'Gothic' army could function as a Roman army (which is essentially what Alaric's army was).

I have viewed this as nothing more than a "legal fiction" as we say in the profession. A barbarian group is able to extract favorable treaty terms and it is "settled" inside the empire; they are still under the command of their king/war-band leader. In exchange for the "land grant", the barbarian war-band is responsible for defending the frontier of the region in which they are settled, its leader is perhaps given an official rank, and his troops are deemed to be the "roman army" in that province.

In reality, the romans are paying tribute to what is basically an autonomous political entity with its own armed forces. The "service" obligation merely reflects the reality that the barbarian group will defend its given borders for its own security and has agreed to cease hostilities against the empire.
There are some who call me ......... Tim?
Reply
#20
That is not entirely true. The Romans, even in the 5th century West, still had control over who was settled in their borders and what they could do until about 455. The Romans had forced the Burgundians and Visigoths to Roman Terms, and the Alans had voluntarily chosen Roman terms. Capable Leaders like Aetius, Constantius III, and Stilicho maintained control of these groups, who were given areas to settle but were not autonomous. It wasn't until the Vandal Conquest of Africa that the Romans declare Gaiseric "Friend and Ally of the Romans" instead of as a subjugate nation.

Barbarian troops were usually just as well disciplined as Roman troops. Although the Roman Army was still inherently Roman, the increasing number of Provincial and Barbarian recruits meant a more aggressive Army, something Aetius readily took advantage of.
Reply
#21
Quote:That is not entirely true. The Romans, even in the 5th century West, still had control over who was settled in their borders and what they could do until about 455. The Romans had forced the Burgundians and Visigoths to Roman Terms, and the Alans had voluntarily chosen Roman terms. Capable Leaders like Aetius, Constantius III, and Stilicho maintained control of these groups, who were given areas to settle but were not autonomous. It wasn't until the Vandal Conquest of Africa that the Romans declare Gaiseric "Friend and Ally of the Romans" instead of as a subjugate nation.

Forgive my ignorance, but when these groups were settled, was the province still under the control of a prefect/comes? In other words, was there still an established Roman political infrastructure in place (magistrates, courts of law, etc), or just the barbarian groups agreeing to "play nice" when a strong leader like Constantine III, Aetius, and Stilicho appeared?
There are some who call me ......... Tim?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Imperial Roman Army Camp Excavated in Israel Gunthamund Hasding 1 1,328 07-09-2015, 09:01 PM
Last Post: Flavivs Aetivs
  High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army Mrbsct 133 27,196 11-01-2013, 02:39 PM
Last Post: Timianus
  Bronze armour/weapons in the Imperial Army Carus Andiae 5 3,524 08-06-2008, 02:15 PM
Last Post: Carus Andiae

Forum Jump: