The fall of the roman military power

[Aryaman2]

Republican armies were not that large either, the typical repulican army, with 2 legions and socii, was about 20.000 paper strength. Besides, being conscript armies, their real strength would be much lowerafter few months of campaign.
I recall that Delbruck calculated the number of Roman citizens in arms during the high period of the 2nd Punic War at about 60.000
Besides, although Cannae is usually pictured as a huge battle, the numbers usually recorded (around 85.000 Romans vs 50.000 Punics) are not very reliable. Livius himself cites another source according to which the Roman force would be nor larger than 45.000, and to me the large force under Hannibal command is especially suspicious, after all he arrived to Italy with 26.000, and after 3 battles he is supposed to have 50.000, since he received not reinforcement either from Spain or Africa, by far the largest part of this army should be of Gallic allies, however they get little mention in the account of the battle.
Remember, still many authors give numbers over 200.000 for the Roman army at Adrianople

[Robert Vermaat]

I think that sinking tax revenues also had something to do with it. We see sinking population levels, marginal agricultural areas being left. recent claims of reforestation have been refuted at least for Britain, but in the Lower Rhine area we see most people have left due to rising sea levels and colder temperatures.

I'm not sure if rising equipment costs were crippling the state finances (but state production control (fabricae) and less complicated equipment may point in that direction. I never read evidence about it, but it is generally accepted among archaeologists that federates and temporary allies were sometimes (often?) equipped with Roman arms & armour.

[Aryaman2]

I think that sinking tax revenues also had something to do with it. We see sinking population levels, marginal agricultural areas being left. recent claims of reforestation have been refuted at least for Britain, but in the Lower Rhine area we see most people have left due to rising sea levels and colder temperatures.

I'm not sure if rising equipment costs were crippling the state finances (but state production control (fabricae) and less complicated equipment may point in that direction. I never read evidence about it, but it is generally accepted among archaeologists that federates and temporary allies were sometimes (often?) equipped with Roman arms & armour.

I have read also about sinking tax revenues, but as a consequence of Honestiores avoiding taxes rather than a general declive in economic output, although one does not exclude the other

[Alexius]

Dear fellows,

This topic is a kind of “not endingâ€

[Razor]

Hi, theres a question thats been buggin me about the late army
By 180AD by the time Marcus Aurelius had the war in Germania with the different barbarian tribes the roman army was a killing machine but slowly that machine became weak. At what point did this happen were the reforms made by Constantine what killed the efficiency of the army or what was it , was it the influence of the barbarians in society , what happened ? What made the once invincible roman army weak and beatable

The army didn't lose anything in efficiency. Instead it gained in efficiency in guarding the empire's border by developing a defence-in-depth (oh I love that word :lol: ). This way the limitanei/bordertroops were the ones to stop/slowdown the enemy/put the enemy into some sort of a quarantine and the comitatenses forces, the reserves stationed in the provinces behind the bordertroops, were the actual killers and would come into action when the bordertroops have put the enemy in this 'quarantine'... This actually really worked really well in the late 370's although the Roman comitatenses troops found themselves slaughtered at Hadrianopolis (378).

To answer the importance of barbarians in Roman society: Because the border regions in Gaul suffered severely from constant wars and didn't make money the Romans made the Germans living in these border regions so that they were still able to profit from taxes. Also in exchange they would deliver troops and thus became Federates/Foederati in times of war. Many Germanic noblemen enjoyed a good military career in the Roman army and frequently occupied high ranks.
And no they weren't more disloyal than any other Roman in the same position...

The fact that the Romans are thought to have been invincible is because they were a superb and tactful people in warfare. During the republic is because the Romans never gave up during a war even when they were on the very brick of destruction (like during the Second Punic war when they lost battle after battle). They constantly kept on coming with new and fresh armies.
After the Marian reforms the Romans had a professional army payed by the Roman state. With their superb training and skillful tactics they were very capable force, but still very much beatable various Parthian expeditions ended in disaster although this was more due to logistics and breaches in supply lines. Also three Roman legions under Varus were destroyed by Germans in Teutoburg forest, Germania and even the Roman general Germanicus, although victorious in Germania, also nearly shared the same fate. Also we should not forget that during the relatively peaceful time in the first and part of the second centuries the economy was at a high level.
From the second century plague spread through the empire, causing a lot of deaths and thus leaving more jobs available to men thus wages started to rise. Especially from the crisis of the third century soldiers began to ask for more money and it even became threequarter of the empire's expenses as the emperors of this period totally relied on their soldiers.
In the end (4th and 5th century) cities started to decay and a feudal system rose in the lands surrounding the cities with landowners and farmers who're being protected by these landowners. and partially because of that the army found it hard to recruit men as the army became very impopular. The landowners didn't allow the army to recruit his 'servants' and only people who were very desperate or very impopular in society (perhaps people like half-criminals) would have joined the army. Also the late Roman soldiers didn't really care if they were to loot a Roman city. In fact they were perhaps very eager to do so at times. Also this contributes to the impopularity of the late Roman army. And there was an amount of barbarization in the late Roman armies but even the Romans called Romans were not necessarily pure Roman but might have had Celtic and/or Germanic origins.
The bordertroops of the late Roman empire (limitanei) I've mentioned didn't want to be moved to anyplace else in the empire because they've become attached to the area they were stationed because they lived there with their family. (start of the feudal system in the darkages and middleages)
The comitatenses troops could also become a great threat to the emperor when the general or the leading commander is gaining popularity among his troops and would have been proclaimed emperor. In eitehr way the meaning of emperor in the west started to mean nothing. It was the Generals that were the real emperors.

After all this has been said I think that the true weakness of the later Roman troops was the lack of loyalty of the troops towards the emperor, the morale decline and not having this ideal of fighting for the Emperor, but rather for selfinterest and selfprofit. But the efficiency of the legions was still very high and certainly not less compared to the early imperial legions.

I think in the same way, the Republic armies were paid less than the Late Empire armies. In spite of this, in the Republic times there were more accesible lands to conquer, but in the Late Empire it wasn´t that lands. However, this isn´t the main problem.

As far as I know the republic armies didn't get payed until Marius' reforms but got their spoils of war back to their homes instead. Or am I wrong?

[Razor]

[quote]The collapse was relative “quicklyâ€

[Theodosius the Great]

If you would have to blame one man, I would choose Stilicho. He striped the Rhine frontier of it's garrisons turning them into pseudo-comitatenses so he could fight both the Goths and the Eastern Empire. As a result, the frontier collapsed and the barbarians poured into Gaul and Spain, but there were too few troops left to deal with the catastrophy.

Why must the explanation be any more complicated than that ? True, earlier Emperors striped the frontier of some troops to fight civil wars, but there were too few troops left to do this by the 400's without leaving it vulnerable.

[Robert Vermaat]

I would blame any 'strong man' (patrician or emperor) who thought it more prudent to rely on hired germanics instead of a strong (but possibbly unloyal) Roman army.

But most of all i blame the ones responcible for the loss of Africa to Alaric. That really did them in!!

[Razor]

I would blame any 'strong man' (patrician or emperor) who thought it more prudent to rely on hired germanics instead of a strong (but possibbly unloyal) Roman army.

well if you were in the position of a strong emperor or patrician, what would you do? Recruiting Roman legions would be very difficult I think. Why not hiring barbarian mercs who are with many and are expendable?

But most of all i blame the ones responcible for the loss of Africa to Alaric. That really did them in!!

Ehm don't you mean Geiseric? :?

[Felix]

I had thought that the idea of paying the soldiers went back to the siege of Veii (sp?); but that was basically enough so the soldiers wouldn't starve/be financially ruined by their military service. I don't think it was meant to be enough to make a military career possible.

[L.Valerius Gaudentius]

I think in the same way, the Republic armies were paid less than the Late Empire armies. In spite of this, in the Republic times there were more accesible lands to conquer, but in the Late Empire it wasn´t that lands. However, this isn´t the main problem.

As far as I know the republic armies didn't get payed until Marius' reforms but got their spoils of war back to their homes instead. Or am I wrong?

You have reason, I forgot to say that the Roman army started to be paid with Marius' reforms.

[Robert Vermaat]

I would blame any 'strong man' (patrician or emperor) who thought it more prudent to rely on hired germanics instead of a strong (but possibbly unloyal) Roman army.

well if you were in the position of a strong emperor or patrician, what would you do? Recruiting Roman legions would be very difficult I think. Why not hiring barbarian mercs who are with many and are expendable?

It's not hiring mercs INSTEAD of raising armies, it's maintaining armies instead of hiring mercs, but deciding on the latter because you're being afraid of your own generals. Well, I must admit, sometimes with good reason..

But most of all i blame the ones responcible for the loss of Africa to Alaric. That really did them in!!

Ehm don't you mean Geiseric? :?

Nope, he was the one profiting from the others bitching. Boniface was (supposedly) the one inviting him to Africa from Spain ( :!: Hey! That reminds me of Vortigern inviting the Saxons to Britain! Same time, same result). Other expeditions also failed because the Romans were suspicious of each other and sometimes working against Romans rather than beating Vandals. Later, Maiorian could have beaten him in the early stages, but his power base was too insecure. When he failed but once in battle he was for it.

[Felix]

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... ndium.html

For what it is worth; it seems the origins of paying legionaries is obscure but clearly before Marius' time. Whether this pay was enough to make a career of soldiering is another matter, of course.

[L.Valerius Gaudentius]

Other aspect was the ausence of "patriotism" or "implication", it was quiet difficult to recruit a Roman army, normally half of the army was composed by Germanic mercenaries or Roman bandits, there wasn´t the same quantity of "potential" soldiers like in other times.

In my opinion, the Roman army relaxed his customs and get rids of things like a heavy armour, the sword like the gladius hispaniensis...

Besides, the barbarian tribes gets stronger and stronger, for example, the Huns mounted archers were a revolution unity in that time that was almost unknown in the Roman World.

Finally, I think that this topic will never end.

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Vortigern,

Nope, he was the one profiting from the others bitching. Boniface was (supposedly) the one inviting him to Africa from Spain ( Hey! That reminds me of Vortigern inviting the Saxons to Britain! Same time, same result).

Have you seen this drawing before ? "Vortigern greets Hengest and Horsa"

[url:1h5tqzfv]http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s285238/DECB/Hengest450.gif[/url]