The fall of the roman military power

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

I agree wholeheartedly with the members who have disagreed with the notion of a weaker army in the Late Empire.

My investigation for my current novel, about Alaricus, the king of the (so-called) Visigoths, is clearly showing me that the Romans were able to lose battles when deep into internal wars, vastly outnumbered, or clearly misguided. However, not going to the great generals of the late empire like Stilicho, Constantine, or Aetius, you find many instances where even the limitanei were able to contend against attacks from outsiders, the comitatenses managed to force barbari to accept defeat with incredible terms (allowing huge Roman interference in their politics, for example) and only the huge invasions provocked by the pressure exerted by the Huns on the Alans and Goths (Tervingi and Greutungi first, with the Eastern army concentrated on the Sassanid Persians, then to the Hun Empire of Attila, and then on the Suevi, Vandals and Alans, Alamani, Burgundians, etc... you see several Roman losses until the Empire (West or East, depending on the side) manages to prepare an effective army.

The only instance I can think of or a real badly situation is the destruction of the Eastern Empire armies by Attila in the 440s... He didn't press on because he had no way of taking over Constantinople, despite the superb siege tactics of the Huns, but even the famed Battle of Hadrianopolis showed a very veteran, tough army, that had been marching for months from Antioquia (Valens's "favorite" capital town), weakened by a rush march from Hadrianopolis, fighting against an unknown army without noticing the Tervingi had received reinforcements from the Greutungi, Alans and even Huns during the rampage of the year 377...

No, I think that the late comitatenses were really tough guys that could march over everything with the right general, tactics and supply lines... the fact that they did what they did with smaller armies (circa 20,000-25,000 versus the 40,000 and even 80,000 ones in republican and early imperial times) is to be taken into account...

anyway,

BTW, I am reading a book which I am enjoying a great deal, Heather, Peter, _The Fall of the Roman Empire_, 2005., in a Spanish edition. Very interesting points of view, according to him the fall of the Empire was not due to military revisions, economical, fiscal pressure, or whatnot, but as a dire consequence of the arrival of the Huns and the massive movements of the barbari (Germanians and Iranians). Particularly, I think that a key point (I am not sure he says so, but it's my interpretation) is the fall of Carthague to the Vandals and Alans, and the need to recall the comitatenses of the Eastern Empire to fight Attila when Aetius was concentrating the Army in Sicily for a reconquest: Rome lost a good deal of food and tax money when it lost those provinces (the rest of the Mauretaniae only contributed some 5% of the taxes!).

anyway...

best regards!