Late Roman army: Difference between revisions

External images
External images
	Roman cataphract cavalryman
	Reenactor as Roman cataphract
	Reenactor as Late Roman archer

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:28, 22 September 2009

The Late Roman army is the term used to denote the military forces of the Roman Empire from the accession of Emperor Diocletian in 284 until the Empire's definitive division into Eastern and Western halves in 395. A few decades afterwards, the Western army disintegrated as the Western empire collapsed. The East Roman army, on the other hand, continued intact and essentially unchanged until its reorganization by themes and transformation into the Byzantine army in the 7th century. The term "late Roman army" is often used to include the East Roman army.

The army of the Principate underwent a significant transformation as a result of the chaotic 3rd century. Unlike the Principate army, the army of the 4th century was heavily dependent on conscription and its soldiers were more poorly remunerated than in the 2nd century. Barbarians from outside the empire probably supplied a much larger proportion of the late army's recruits than in the army of the 1st and 2nd centuries. There is no evidence, however, that barbarian recruitment damaged the army's effectiveness.

The army of the 4th century was probably no larger than that of the 2nd. The main change in structure was the establishment of large armies that accompanied the emperors (comitatus praesentales) and were generally based away from the frontiers. Their primary function was to deter usurpations. The legions were split up into smaller units comparable in size to the auxiliary regiments of the Principate. In parallel, legionary armour and equipment were abandoned in favour of auxiliary equipment. Infantry adopted the more protective equipment of the Principate cavalry.

The role of cavalry in the late army does not appear to have been enhanced as compared with the army of the Principate. The evidence is that cavalry was much the same proportion of overall army numbers as in the 2nd century and that its tactical role and prestige remained similar. Indeed, the cavalry acquired a reputation for incompetence and cowardice for their role in three major battles in mid-4th century. In contrast, the infantry retained its traditional reputation for excellence.

The 3rd and 4th centuries saw the upgrading of many existing border forts to make them more defensible, as well as the construction of new forts with much higher defensive specifications. The interpretation of this trend has fuelled an ongoing debate whether the army adopted a defence-in-depth strategy or continued the same posture of "forward defence" as in the early Principate. Many elements of the late army's defence posture were similar to those associated with forward defence, such as forward location of forts, frequent cross-border operations, and external buffer-zones of allied barbarian tribes. Whatever the defence strategy, it was apparently less successful in preventing barbarian incursions than in the 1st and 2nd centuries. This may have been due to heavier barbarian pressure, and/or to the practice of keeping large armies of the best troops in the interior, depriving the border forces of sufficient support.

Sources

Much of our evidence for 4th century army unit deployments is contained in a single document, the Notitia Dignitatum, compiled ca. 395–420, a manual of all late Roman public offices, military and civil. The main deficiency with the Notitia is that it lacks any personnel figures so as to render estimates of army size impossible. Also, it was compiled at the very end of the 4th century; it is thus difficult to reconstruct the position earlier. However, the Notitia remains the central source on the late Army's structure due to the dearth of other evidence.^[1]

The main literary sources for the 4th-century army are the Res Gestae (History) of Ammianus Marcellinus, whose surviving books cover the period 353 to 378. Marcellinus, himself a veteran soldier, is regarded by scholars as a reliable and valuable source. But he largely fails to remedy the deficiencies of the Notitia as regards army and unit strength or units in existence, as he is rarely specific about either. The third major source for the late army is the corpus of imperial decrees published in the East Roman empire in the 5th and 6th centuries: the Theodosian code (438) and the Corpus Iuris Civilis (528–39). These compilations of Roman laws dating from the 4th century contain numerous imperial decrees relating to all aspects of the regulation and administration of the late army.

De re militari, a treatise on Roman military affairs by Vegetius, a late 4th century writer, contains considerable information on the late army, although its focus is on the army of the Republic and Principate. However, Vegetius (who wholly lacked military experience) is often unreliable. For example, he stated that the army abandoned armour and helmets in the later 4th century (offering the absurd explanation that this equipment was too heavy), which is contradicted by sculptural and artistic evidence.^[2] In general, it is not safe to accept a Vegetius statement unless it is corroborated by other evidence.

Scholars of the late army have to contend with a dramatic diminution of the epigraphic record in the 3rd and 4th centuries, compared with the 1st–2nd centuries. Diplomas were no longer issued to retiring auxiliaries after 203 (most likely because almost all were already Roman citizens by then). In addition, there was a huge reduction in the number of tombstones, altars and other dedications by Roman servicemen. Official stamps of military units on building materials (e.g. tiles) are much rarer. But this trend should probably not be seen as indicating a decline in the army's administrative sophistication. Papyrus evidence from Egypt shows that military units continued to keep detailed written records in the 4th century (the vast bulk of which are lost due to organic decomposition). Most likely, the decline in inscriptions is due to changing fashion, in part influenced by the increase in barbarian recruits and the rise of Christianity.^[3] The dearth of inscriptions leaves major gaps in our understanding of the late army and renders many conclusions tentative.

Evolution of the 4th-century army

Background: the Principate army

The regular army of the Principate was established by the founder–emperor Augustus (ruled 30 BC – 14 AD) and survived until the end of the 3rd century. The regular army consisted of two distinct corps, both being made up of mainly volunteer professionals.

The elite legions were large infantry formations, varying between 25 and 33 in number, of ca. 5,500 men each (all infantry save a small cavalry arm of 120) which admitted only Roman citizens.^[4] The auxilia consisted of around 400 much smaller units of ca. 500 men each (a minority were up to 1,000 strong), which were divided into approximately 100 cavalry alae, 100 infantry cohortes and 200 mixed cavalry/infantry units or cohortes equitatae.^[5] Some auxilia regiments were designated sagittariorum, meaning that they specialised in archery. The auxilia thus contained almost all the Roman army's cavalry and archers, as well as (from the late 1st century onwards) approximately the same number of foot soldiers as the legions.^[6] The auxilia were mainly recruited from the peregrini: provincial subjects of the empire who did not hold Roman citizenship, but the auxilia also admitted Roman citizens and possibly barbari, the Roman term for peoples living outside the empire's borders.^[7] At this time both legions and auxilia were almost all based in frontier provinces.^[8] The only substantial military force at the immediate disposal of the emperor was the elite Praetorian Guard of 10,000 men which was based in Rome.^[9]

The senior officers of the army were, until the 3rd century, mainly from the Italian aristocracy. This was divided into two orders, the senatorial order (ordo senatorius), consisting of sitting members of the Roman Senate and their sons and grandsons, and the far more numerous lower equestrian order, composed of the equites or "knights".

Hereditary senators and equites combined military service with civilian posts, a career path known as the cursus honorum, typically starting with a period of junior administrative posts in Rome, followed by 5–10 years in the military and a final period of senior positions in the either the provinces or Rome.^[10] This tightly-knit ruling oligarchy, which monopolised political, military and economic power, achieved a remarkable degree of political stability. During the first 200 years of its existence (30 BC – 180 AD), the empire suffered only one major episode of civil strife (the Civil War of 68–9). Otherwise, usurpation attempts by provincial governors were very few and swiftly suppressed.

As regards the military, members of the senatorial order (senatorians) exclusively filled the following posts:

(a) legatus Augusti pro praetore (provincial governor of a border province, who was commander-in-chief of the military forces deployed there as well as heading the civil administration)

(b) legatus legionis (legion commander)

(c) tribunus militum laticlavius (legion deputy commander).^[11]

The equites, the second order of nobility, provided:

(a) the governors (procuratores) of Egypt and of a few minor provinces

(b) the two praefecti praetorio (commanders of the Praetorian Guard)

(c) a legion's praefectus castrorum (3rd-in-command) and its remaining five tribuni militum (senior staff officers)

(d) the praefecti (commanders) of the auxiliary regiments.^[12]

By the late 1st century, a distinct equestrian group, non-Italian and military in character, became established. This was a result of the practice whereby the emperor elevated the primuspilus (chief centurion) of each legion to equestrian rank on completion of his year in office. This resulted in some 30 career soldiers, mostly non-Italian and risen from the ranks, joining the aristocracy each year.^[13] Far less wealthy than their Italian counterparts, many such equites belonged to families that provided career soldiers for generations. Prominent among them were Romanised Illyrians, the descendants of the Illyrian-speaking tribes that inhabited the Roman provinces of Pannonia (W Hungary/Slovenia), Dalmatia (Croatia/Bosnia) and Moesia Superior (Serbia), together with the neighbouring Thracians of Moesia Inferior (N Bulgaria) and Macedonia provinces. From the time of Domitian (ruled 81–96), when over half the Roman army was deployed in the Danubian regions, the Illyrian and Thracian provinces became the most important recruiting ground of the auxilia and later the legions.^[14]

3rd-century developments

The seminal development for the army in the early 3rd century was the Constitutio Antoniniana (Antonine Decree) of 212, issued by Emperor Caracalla (ruled 211–18). This granted Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire, ending the second-class status of the peregrini.^[15] This had the effect of breaking down the distinction between the citizen legions and the auxiliary regiments. In the 1st and 2nd centuries, the legions were the symbol (and guarantors) of the dominance of the Italian "master nation" over its subject peoples. In the 3rd century, they were no longer socially superior to their auxiliary counterparts (although they may have retained their elite status in military terms) and the legions' special armour and equipment (e.g. the lorica segmentata) was phased out.^[16]

The traditional alternation between senior civilian and military posts fell into disuse in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as the Italian hereditary aristocracy was progressively replaced in the senior echelons of the army by the primipilares (former chief centurions).^[17] In the 3rd century, only 10% of auxiliary prefects whose origins are known were Italian equestrians, compared to the majority in the previous two centuries.^[18] At the same time, equestrians increasingly replaced the senatorial order in the top commands. Septimius Severus (ruled 197–211) placed equestrian primipilares in command of the three new legions he raised and Gallienus (260–68) did the same for all the other legions, giving them the title praefectus pro legato ("prefect acting as legate").^[19]^[20] The rise of the primipilares may have provided the army with more professional leadership, but it increased military rebellions by ambitious generals. The 3rd century saw numerous coups d'état and civil wars. Few 3rd-century emperors enjoyed long reigns or died of natural causes.^[21]

Emperors responded to the increased insecurity with a steady build-up of the forces at their immediate disposal. These became known as the comitatus ("escort", from which derives the English word "committee"). To the Praetorian Guard's 10,000 men, Septimius Severus added the legion II Parthica. Based at Albano Laziale near Rome, it was the first legion to be stationed in Italy since Augustus. He doubled the size of the imperial escort cavalry, the equites singulares Augusti, to 2,000 by drawing select detachments from alae on the borders.^[22] His comitatus numbered some 17,000 men, equivalent to 31 infantry cohortes and 11 alae of cavalry.^[23] The trend for the emperor to gather round his person ever greater forces reached its peak in the 4th century under Constantine I the Great (ruled 312–37) whose comitatus may have reached 100,000 men, perhaps a quarter of the army's total effective strength.^[24]

The rule of Gallienus saw the appointment of a senior officer, with the title of dux (plural form: duces, the origin of the medieval noble rank of duke), to command all the comitatus cavalry. This force included equites promoti (cavalry contingents detached from the legions), plus Illyrian light cavalry (equites Dalmatarum) and allied barbarian cavalry (equites foederati).^[25] Under Constantine I, the head of the comitatus cavalry was given the title of magister equitum ("master of horse"), which in Republican times had been held by the deputy to a Roman dictator.^[26] But neither title implies the existence of an independent "cavalry army", as was suggested by some more dated scholars. The cavalry under both officers were integral to mixed infantry and cavalry comitatus, with the infantry remaining the predominant element.^[23]

The 3rd century saw a progressive reduction in the size of the legions and even some auxiliary units. Legions were broken up into smaller units, as evidenced by the shrinkage and eventual abandonment of their traditional large bases, documented for example in Britain.^[27] In addition, from the 2nd century onwards, the separation of some detachments from their parent units became permanent in some cases, establishing new unit types, e.g. the vexillatio equitum Illyricorum based in Dacia in the early 2nd century^[28] and the equites promoti^[29] and numerus Hnaufridi in Britain.^[30] This led to the proliferation of unit types in the 4th century, generally of smaller size than those of the Principate. For example, in the 2nd century, vexillatio (from vexillum = "standard") was a generic term meaning any detachment from a legion or auxiliary regiment, either cavalry or infantry. In the 4th century, it denoted an elite cavalry regiment.^[31]

From the 3rd century are the first records of a small number of regular units bearing the names of barbarian tribes (as opposed to peregrini tribal names). These were foederati (allied troops under a military obligation to Rome) converted into regular units, a trend that was to accelerate in the 4th century.^[32] The ala I Sarmatarum, based in Britain, was probably composed of some of the 5,500 captured Sarmatian horsemen sent to garrison Hadrian's Wall by emperor Marcus Aurelius in ca. 175.^[33] There is no evidence of irregular barbarian units becoming part of the regular Principate army until the 3rd century.^[34]

3rd-century crisis

Template:FixBunching

File:104 Claudius II Gothicus.jpg

The Illyrian emperor Claudius II (r. 268–70), whose victories over the barbarian invaders of the empire saved it from collapse. Claudius was the first in a line of Illyrian emperors that ruled the empire for a century. Debased silver antoninianus

Template:FixBunching The mid-3rd century saw the empire plunged into a military and economic crisis which almost resulted in its disintegration. It consisted of a series of military catastrophes in 251–271 when Gaul, the Alpine regions and Italy, the Balkans and the East were overrun by Alamanni, Sarmatians, Goths and Persians.^[35] At the same time, the Roman army was struggling with the effects of a devastating pandemic, now thought to have been smallpox, the Plague of Cyprian which began in 251 and was still raging in 270, when it claimed the life of Emperor Claudius II Gothicus (268–70).^[36] The evidence for the earlier Antonine pandemic of the late 2nd century, probably also smallpox, indicates a mortality of 15–30% in the empire as a whole.^[37] Zosimus describes the Cyprianic outbreak as even worse.^[38] The armies and, by extension, the frontier provinces where they were based (and mainly recruited), would likely have suffered deaths at the top end of the range, due to their close concentration of individuals and frequent movements across the empire.^[39]

The 3rd-century crisis started a chain-reaction of socio-economic effects that proved decisive for the development of the late army. The combination of barbarian devastation and reduced tax-base due to plague bankrupted the imperial government, which resorted to issuing ever more debased coin e.g. the antoninianus, the silver coin used to pay the troops in this period, lost 95% of its silver content between its launch in 215 and its demise in the 260s. Thus 20 times more money could be distributed with the same amount of precious metal.^[40] This led to rampant price inflation: for example, the price of wheat under Diocletian was 67 times the typical Principate figure.^[41] The monetary economy collapsed and the army was obliged to rely on unpaid food levies to obtain supplies.^[42] Food levies were raised without regard to fairness, ruining the border provinces where the military was mainly based.^[43] Soldiers' salaries became worthless, which reduced the army's recruits to a subsistence-level existence.^[44] This in turn discouraged volunteers and forced the government to rely on conscription^[45] and large-scale recruitment of barbarians into the regular army because of the shortfalls caused by the plague. By the mid-4th century, barbarian-born men probably accounted for about a quarter of all recruits (and over a third in elite regiments), likely a far higher share than in the 1st–2nd centuries.^[46]

Illyrian military junta

By the 3rd century, Romanised Illyrians, mostly primipilares and their descendants, came to dominate the army's senior officer echelons.^[47] Finally, the Illyrian officer class seized control of the state itself. In 268, the emperor Gallienus (ruled 260–68) was overthrown by a coup d'état organised by a clique of Illyrian senior officers, including his successors Claudius II Gothicus and Aurelian (270–75).^[48] They and their successors Probus (276–82) and Diocletian (ruled 284–305) and his colleagues in the Tetrarchy formed a sort of self-perpetuating military junta of Illyrian officers who were born in the same provinces (several in the same city, Sirmium, a major legionary base in Moesia Superior) or had served in the same regiments.^[14]

The junta reversed the military disasters of 251–71 with a string of victories, most notably the defeat at Naissus of a vast Gothic army by Claudius II, which was so crushing that the Goths did not seriously threaten the empire again until a century later at Adrianople (378).^[49]

The Illyrian emperors were especially concerned with the depopulation of the border provinces due to plague and barbarian invasions during the Crisis. The problem was especially acute in their own Danubian home provinces, where much arable land had fallen out of cultivation through lack of manpower.^[50] The depopulation was thus a serious threat to army recruitment and supply. In response, the Illyrian junta pursued an aggressive policy of resettling defeated barbarian tribesmen on imperial territory on a massive scale. Aurelian moved a large number of Carpi to Pannonia in 272.^[51] (In addition, by 275 he evacuated the province of Dacia, removing the entire provincial population to Moesia, an act largely motivated by the same problem).^[52] His successor Probus is recorded as transferring 100,000 Bastarnae to Moesia in 279/80 and later equivalent numbers of Gepids, Goths and Sarmatians.^[53] Diocletian continued the policy, transferring in 297 huge numbers of Bastarnae, Sarmatians and Carpi (the entire latter tribe, according to Victor).^[54]^[55] Although the precise terms under which these people were settled in the empire are unknown (and may have varied), the common feature was the grant of land in return for an obligation of military service much heavier than the normal conscription quota. The policy had the triple benefit, from the Roman government's point of view, of weakening the hostile tribe, repopulating the plague-ravaged frontier provinces (and bringing their abandoned fields back into cultivation) and providing a pool of first-rate recruits for the army. But it could also be popular with the barbarian prisoners, who were often delighted by the prospect of a land grant within the empire. In the 4th century, such communities were known as laeti.^[56]

The Illyrian emperors ruled the empire for over a century, until 379. Indeed, until 363, power was held by descendants of one of the original junta members. Constantine I' s father, Constantius Chlorus, was a Caesar (deputy emperor) in Diocletian's Tetrarchy.^[57] His grandson Julian ruled until 363. The Illyrian emperors restored the army to its former strength and effectiveness, but were solely concerned with the needs and interests of the military. They were also divorced from the wealthy Roman senatorial families that dominated the Senate and owned much of the empire's land. This in turn bred a feeling of alienation from the army among the Roman aristocracy which in the later 4th century began to resist the military's exorbitant demands for recruits and supplies.^[58]

Diocletian

Diocletian's wide-ranging administrative, economic and military reforms were aimed at providing the military with sufficient resources, both in manpower and supplies.^[59] In the words of one historian, "Diocletian ... turned the entire empire into a regimented logistic base" (to supply the army).^[60]

To this end, Diocletian put an end to the arbitrary exaction of food levies (indictiones) for the army. He instituted a system of regular annual indictiones with the tax demanded set in advance for 5 years and related to the amount of cultivated land in each province, backed by a thorough empire-wide census of land, peasants and livestock.^[61] To deal with the problem of rural depopulation (and consequent loss of food production), he decreed that peasants, who had always been free to leave their land during the Principate, must never leave the locality in which they were registered by the census. This measure had the effect of legally tying tenant farmers (coloni) and their descendants to their landlords' estates.^[62]

To ensure the army received sufficient recruits, Diocletian appears to have instituted systematic annual conscription for the first time since the days of the Roman Republic. In addition he was probably responsible for the decree, first recorded in 313, obliging the sons of serving soldiers (and officers) or veterans to enlist.^[45]

Under Diocletian, the number of legions, and probably of other units, more than doubled.^[63] But it is unlikely that overall army size increased nearly as much, since unit strengths appear to have been reduced, in some cases drastically e.g. new legions raised by Diocletian appear to have numbered just 1,000 men, compared to the Principate establishment of ca. 5,500 i.e. the new legions increased overall legionary numbers by only ca. 15%.^[64]^[65] Even so, scholars generally agree that Diocletian increased army numbers substantially, by at least 33%.^[66] However, the only extant ancient figure for the size of Diocletian's army is 390,000, which is much the same as that of the early 2nd century and well below the peak figure of 440,000 under Septimius Severus.^[67]^[68] The contradiction may be resolved if one accepts that Diocletian was starting from a much lower base than the Severus figure, as the army's effective size had probably shrunk sharply as a result of losses from plague and the military disasters of the late 3rd century.^[69] In this case, simply restoring numbers to their 2nd-century level would have involved a major increase. (See Army size below).

Even more than restoring the size of the army, Diocletian's efforts and resources were focused on a massive upgrading of the defensive infrastructure along all the empire's borders, including new forts and strategic military roads.^[70]

Diocletian and his three colleagues each had a comitatus at their disposal. Under Diocletian, these remained informal and small in size and relied on reinforcements from frontier forces for major operations.^[71] Nevertheless, added together, they must have constituted a significant force.

Diocletian's administrative reforms had the twin aims of ensuring political stability and providing the bureaucratic infrastructure needed to raise the recruits and supplies needed by the army.

At the top, Diocletian instituted the Tetrarchy. This divided the empire into two halves, East and West, each to be ruled by an Augustus (emperor). Each Augustus would in turn appoint a deputy called a Caesar, who would act both as his ruling partner (each Caesar was assigned a quarter of the empire) and designated successor. This four-man team would thus have the flexibility to deal with multiple and simultaneous challenges as well as providing for a legitimate succession.^[72] The latter failed in its central aim, to prevent the disastrous civil wars caused by the multiple usurpations of the 3rd century . Indeed, the situation may have been made worse, by providing each pretender with a substantial comitatus to enforce his claim. Diocletian himself lived (in retirement) to see his successors fight each other for power. But the division of the empire into Eastern and Western halves, recognising both geographical and cultural realities, proved enduring: it was mostly retained during the 4th century and became permanent after 395.

Diocletian reformed the provincial administration, establishing a three-tiered provincial hierarchy, in place of the previous single-tier structure. The original 42 Principate provinces were almost tripled in number to ca. 120. These were grouped into 12 divisions called dioceses, each under a vicarius, in turn grouped into four praetorian prefectures, to correspond to the areas of command assigned to the four Tetrarchs, who were each assisted by a chief-of-staff called a praefectus praetorio (not be confused with the commanders of the Praetorian Guard, who held the same title). The aim of this fragmentation of provincial administration was probably to reduce the possibility of military rebellion by governors (by reducing the forces they each controlled).^[73]

Also to this end, Diocletian divorced military from civil command in some cases. The old legatus Augusti (governor) of the Principate had combined the role of administrative head with that of commander-in-chief of forces in his province. Now, command of troops in some provinces was entrusted to purely military officers called duces limitis ("border commanders"). However, this was not universally applied. In many provinces, the governor remained in command. In any case, both duces and governors continued to report to their vicarius and praefectus praetorio, who continued to combine civilian and military functions.^[74] Diocletian completed the exclusion of the senatorial class, still dominated by the Italian aristocracy, from all senior military commands and all top administrative posts except in Italy.^[75]

Ironically, Diocletian's administrative reforms may have worked against the army's best interests by entrenching a largely conscript army. The reforms led to explosive growth in the size of the imperial bureaucracy. The Principate had been a remarkably slimline administration, with just 250 senior officials running the vast empire, relying on local government and private contractors to deliver the necessary taxes and services. By the time of the Notitia, comparable positions had grown to ca. 6,000, a 24-fold increase.^[76] Admittedly, late high officials were paid far less than in the Principate, perhaps an average of a tenth as much.^[77] Nevertheless, the late bureaucracy would still have been around two and a half times as expensive overall, swallowing resources which would probably have been sufficient to bring soldiers' pay back to 2nd-century levels.^[78] The lower pay of the 4th century obliged the army to rely on often reluctant conscripts rather than attracting volunteers as in the Principate.

Constantine

Constantine I probably completed the replacement of provincial governors as commanders of military units in their provinces by duces. The praefecti praetorio lost their military command and became purely administrative officials, whose central and vital role was to ensure that the armies in their circumscription were properly supplied.^[79]

After defeating Maxentius in 312, Constantine disbanded the Praetorian Guard, ending the latter's 300-year existence.^[80] Although the instant reason was the Guard's support for his rival Maxentius, a force based in Rome had also become obsolete since emperors now rarely resided there. The imperial escort role of the Guard's cavalry, the equites singulares Augusti, was now fulfilled by the scholae. These elite cavalry regiments existed by the time of Constantine and may have been founded by Diocletian.^[81]

Constantine expanded his comitatus into a major and permanent force. This was achieved by the addition of units withdrawn from the frontier provinces and by creating new units: more cavalry vexillationes and new-style infantry units called auxilia. The expanded comitatus was now placed under the command of two new officers, a magister peditum to command the infantry and magister equitum for cavalry (after Constantine's death, these titles became interchangeable, with both officers commanding mixed infantry/cavalry forces). Comitatus troops were now formally denoted comitatenses to distinguish them from the frontier forces (limitanei).^[82] The size of the Constantinian comitatus is uncertain. But Constantine mobilised 98,000 troops for his war against Maxentius, according to Zosimus.^[83] It is likely that most of these were retained for his comitatus.^[84] This represented about a quarter of the total regular forces, if one accepts that the Constantinian army numbered around 400,000.^[85] The rationale for such a large comitatus has been debated among scholars. A traditional view sees the comitatus as a strategic reserve which could be deployed against major barbarian invasions that succeeded in penetrating deep into the empire or as the core of large expeditionary forces sent across the borders. But more recent scholarship has viewed its primary function as insurance against potential usurpers.^[23] (See Strategy of the Late Roman army below).

In addition, Constantine appears to have reorganised the border forces along the Danube, replacing the old-style alae and cohortes with new units of cunei (cavalry) and auxilia (infantry) respectively.^[86] It is unclear how the new-style units differed from the old-style ones, but those stationed on the border (as opposed to those in the comitatus) may have been smaller, perhaps half the size.^[87] In sectors other than the Danube, old-style auxiliary regiments survived.^[88]

The 5th-century historian Zosimus strongly criticised the establishment of the large comitatus, accusing Constantine of wrecking his predecessor Diocletian's work of strengthening the border defences: "By the foresight of Diocletian, the frontiers of the Roman empire were everywhere studded with cities and forts and towers... and the whole army was stationed along them, so it was impossible for the barbarians to break through... But Constantine ruined this defensive system by withdrawing the majority of the troops from the frontiers and stationing them in cities which did not require protection."^[89]

Zosimus' critique is probably excessive, both because the comitatus already existed in Diocletian's time and because some new regiments were raised by Constantine for his expanded comitatus, as well as incorporating existing units.^[90] Nevertheless, the majority of his comitatus was drawn from existing frontier units.^[91] This drawdown of large numbers of the best units inevitably increased the risk of successful large-scale barbarian breaches of the frontier defences.^[92]

It was probably this factor that led to the emergence of comitatus based in frontier regions (the regional comitatus), distinct from the comitatus praesentales escorting the emperor(s). From the defeat of the usurper Magnentius in 353, there appears to have always been a comitatus in Gaul and one in the East, each under a magister equitum, and one in Illyricum under a comes (literally "companion", the origin of the medieval noble rank of count), irrespective of where the emperor(s) were.^[93] These regional armies became steadily more numerous until, by the time of the Notitia, there were three in the East and six in the West.^[94] Their evolution was a partial reversal of Constantine's policy and, in effect, a vindication of Zosimus' critique that the limitanei forces had been left with insufficient support.^[95] But the imperial escort armies remained in existence, and in ca. 420 the three comitatus praesentales listed in the Notitia, each 20–30,000 strong, still contained a total of ca. 75,000 men.^[96] If one accepts that the army at the time numbered about 350,000 men, the escort armies still contained 20–25% of the total effectives.

Regiments which remained with the escort armies were, not later than 365, denoted palatini (lit. "of the palace", from palatium), a higher grade of comitatenses.^[97] Regiments were now classified in four grades, which denoted quality, prestige and probably pay. These were, in descending order, scholares, palatini, comitatenses and limitanei.^[98]

Army size

The traditional view of scholars is that the 4th-century army was much larger than the 2nd century army, in the region of double the size. The late 6th-century writer Agathias, gives a global total of 645,000 effectives for the army "in the old days", presumed to mean at its peak under Constantine I.^[99] This figure probably includes fleets, giving a total of ca. 600,000 for the army alone. A.H.M. Jones' Later Roman Empire (1964), which contains the fundamental study of the late Roman army, calculated a similar total of 600,000 (exc. fleets) by applying his own estimates of unit strength to the units listed in the Notitia Dignitatum.^[100]

But the Agathias-Jones view has fallen out of favour with some historians in more recent times. Agathias' figure, if it has any validity at all, may represent the official, as opposed to actual, strength of the Constantinian army. In reality, the slim evidence is that late units were often severely under-strength, perhaps only about two-thirds of official.^[101] Thus Agathias' 600,000 on paper may have been no more than ca. 400,000 in reality. The latter figure accords well with the other global figure from ancient sources, by the 6th century writer John Lydus, of 389,704 (excluding fleets) for the army of Diocletian. Lydus' figure is accorded greater credibility than Agathias' by scholars because of its precision (implying that it was found in an official document) and the fact that it is ascribed to a specific time period.^[102]

Jones' figure of 600,000 is based on assumptions about limitanei unit strengths which may be too high. Jones calculated unit strengths in Egypt under Diocletian using papyrus evidence of unit payrolls. But a rigorous reassessment of the evidence by R. Duncan-Jones concluded that Jones had overestimated unit sizes by 2–6 times.^[103] For example, Jones estimated legions on the frontiers at ca. 3,000 men and other units at ca. 500.^[104] But Duncan-Jones' revisions found frontier legions of around 500 men, an ala of just 160 and an equites unit of 80. Even allowing for the possibility that some of these units were detachments from larger units, it is likely that Diocletianic unit strengths were far lower than earlier.^[105]

Duncan-Jones' figures receive support from a substantial corpus of excavation evidence from all the imperial borders which suggests that late forts were designed to accommodate much smaller garrisons than their Principate predecessors. Where such sites can be identified with forts listed in the Notitia, the implication is that the resident units were also smaller. Examples include the Legio II Herculia, created by Diocletian, which occupied a fort just one-seventh the size of a typical Principate legionary base, implying a strength of ca. 750 men. At Abusina on the Rhine, the Cohors III Brittonum was housed in a fort only 10% the size of its old Trajanic fort, suggesting that it numbered only around 50 men. The evidence must be treated with caution as identification of archaeological sites with Notitia placenames is often tentative and again, the units in question may be detachments (the Notitia frequently shows the same unit in two or three different locations simultaneously). Nevertheless, the weight of the archaeological evidence favours small sizes for frontier units.^[106]

At the same time, more recent work has suggested that the regular army of the 2nd century was considerably larger than the ca. 300,000 traditionally assumed. This is because the 2nd century auxilia were not just equal in numbers to the legions as in the early 1st century, but some 50% larger.^[5] The Principate army probably reached a peak of nearly 450,000 (excluding fleets and foederati) at the end of the 2nd century.^[107] Furthermore, the evidence is that the actual strength of 2nd century units was typically much closer to official (ca. 85%).^[108] In any case, estimates of army strength for the Principate are based on much firmer evidence than those for the later period, which are highly speculative, as the table below shows.

**ROMAN ARMY NUMBERS 24–337**
Army corps	Tiberius 24	Hadrian ca. 130	S. Severus 211	Diocletian start 284	Diocletian 284–305	Constantine I end rule 337	Notitia ca. 420
LEGIONS	125,000^[109]	155,000^[110]	182,000^[111]
AUXILIA	125,000^[112]	218,000^[5]	250,000^[113]
PRAETORIAN GUARD	~~5,000^[114]	~10,000^[115]	~10,000
Total Roman Army	255,000^[116]	383,000^[117]	442,000^[118]	350,000?^[119]	390,000^[120]	410,000?^[121]	350,000?^[122]

NOTE: Regular land army only (excludes irregular barbarian foederati units and Roman navy effectives)

Army structure

The later 4th-century army contained three types of army group: (a) imperial escort armies (comitatus praesentales). These were ordinarily based near the imperial capitals (Milan in the West, Constantinople in the East), but usually accompanied the emperors on campaign. (b) Regional field armies (comitatus). These were based in strategic regions, on or near the frontiers. (c) Border armies (exercitus limitanei).^[123]

Types (a) and (b) are both frequently defined as "mobile field armies". This is because, unlike the limitanei units, they were not based in fixed locations. But their strategic role was quite different. The escort armies' primary role was probably to provide the emperor's ultimate insurance against usurpers: the very existence of such a powerful force would deter many potential rivals, and if it did not, the escort army alone was often sufficient to defeat them.^[23] Their secondary role was to accompany the emperor on major campaigns such as a foreign war or to repel a large barbarian invasion.^[124] The regional comitatus, on the other hand, had the task of supporting the limitanei in operations in the region they were based in.^[125]

Command structure

Template:FixHTML

File:Late roman army.svg

High command structure of the East Roman army ca. 395. Based on the Notitia Dignitatum. Locations given indicate usual winter quarters at this time. Reporting structure as in Jones (1964) 100 and 609

Template:FixHTML

File:Late West Roman army.svg

High command structure of the West Roman army ca. 410–425. Based on the Notitia Dignitatum. Locations given indicate usual winter quarters in this period. Reporting structure as in Jones (1964)^[126]

Template:FixHTML

Template:FixHTML The command structures of the Eastern and Western armies of the empire, as recorded in the Notitia Dignitatum, are represented diagramatically in the organisation charts (right). The eastern section of the Notitia is dated to ca. 395, at the death of Theodosius I. The western section was completed later, in the 420's, after the West had been overrun by barbarian tribes.^[127] The Notitia thus describes the evolved structure of the late army after a century of mutation. The position under Diocletian and even Constantine would have been very different.

The 2 imperial escort armies in the East were each commanded by a magister militum praesentalis, the highest military rank. The single imperial escort army in the West was under a magister utriusque militiae ("master of both services" i.e. of cavalry and infantry), an equivalent title. Each magister reported direct to the emperor and was assisted, at least from the early 5th century, by a deputy called a vicarius. The Eastern structure remained essentially intact until the 6th century.^[128] The Western structure was already in a state of collapse at the time of the Western Notitia.

In the East, the commanders of the five regional comitatus (all of magister rank except the comites of Egypt and Isauria) also reported to the emperor direct, according to the Notitia (although 5th-century laws imply that the two comites were subordinate to the magister militum per Orientem). In contrast, the commanders of the western regional comitatus were, unlike their Eastern colleagues, all of the lower comes rank, save for the magister equitum per Gallias: this is because all but the latter comitatus were smaller than the typical 20–30,000 commanded by a magister. They all reported to the magister utriusque militiae, who was the effective supreme commander of the Western army, unlike in the East, where the emperor retained direct control of the armies. This anomalous structure had arisen through the ascendancy of the half–Vandal military strongman Stilicho (395–410), who was appointed by Theodosius I as guardian of his infant son and successor Honorius. After Stilicho's death in 410, a succession of weak emperors ensured that this position continued until the dissolution of the Western empire in 476.^[129]

Under the command of the regional magistri and comites were the duces limitis (or, rarely, called comites limitis) in command of border forces in their sector. This was the case from at least the 360's onwards when the regional comitatus became permanent. Before that, the duces may have reported to the magistri of the imperial escort armies. In the time of Diocletian, the duces reported to the vicarius of their diocese.^[130]

Outside the normal military chain of command were the scholae, the emperors' personal cavalry escort. They did not belong to the comitatus praesentales and reported to the magister officiorum, a civilian official.^[131] However, this was probably only for administrative purposes. On campaign, the tribuni (regimental commanders) of the scholae probably reported direct to the emperor himself.^[132] At the time of the Notitia, each emperor, Eastern and Western, had his own corps of scholae.

Bases

Comitatus troops and border troops had different accommodation arrangements. Most border units were based in forts as were their predecessors, the auxiliary regiments of the Principate (indeed, in many cases, the same forts).^[133] Some of the larger limitanei units (legiones and vexillationes) were based in cities, probably in permanent barracks.^[134]

Comitatus troops were also based in cities (when not on campaign: then they would be in temporary camps). But it seems that did not usually occupy purpose-built accommodation like the city-based limitanei. From the legal evidence, it seems they were normally compulsorily billeted in private houses (hospitalitas).^[135] This is because they often wintered in different provinces. The comitatus praesentales accompanied their respective emperors on campaign, while even the regional comitatus would change their winter quarters according to operational requirements. However, in the 5th century, emperors rarely campaigned in person, so the praesentales became more static in their winter bases.^[136] The Western comitatus praesentalis normally was based in and around Mediolanum (Milan) and the two Eastern comitatus in the vicinity of Constantinople.^[137]

Regiments

The changes to unit structure in the 4th century were reduction of unit sizes and increase in unit numbers, establishment of new unit types and establishment of a hierarchy of units more complex than the old one of legions and auxilia.^[138]

Unit sizes

The evidence for the strength of late army units is very fragmented and equivocal.^[139] The table below gives some recent estimates of unit strength, by unit type and grade:

**SIZE ESTIMATES FOR REGIMENTS IN 4th CENTURY ARMY**^[140]
Cavalry unit type	Comitatenses (inc. palatini)	Limitanei	Infantry unit type	Comitatenses (inc. palatini)	Limitanei
Ala		120–500	Auxilium	400–1,200
Cuneus		200–300	Cohors		160–500
Equites		80–300	Legio	800–1,200	500–1,000
Schola*	500		Milites		200–300
Vexillatio	400–600		Numerus		200–300

Scholae were not technically comitatenses

Much uncertainty remains, especially regarding the size of limitanei regiments, as can be seen by the wide ranges of the size estimates. It is also possible, if not likely, that unit strengths changed over the course of the 4th century. For example, it appears that Valentinian I split about 150 comitatus units with his brother and co-emperor Valens. The resulting units may have been just half the strength of the parent units (unless a major recruitment drive was held to bring them all up to original strength).^[139]

Scholae are believed to have numbered ca. 500 on the basis of a 6th century reference.^[141]

In the comitatus, there is consensus that vexillationes were ca. 500 and legiones ca. 1,000 strong. The greatest uncertainty concerns the size of the crack auxilia palatina infantry regiments, originally formed by Constantine. The evidence is contradictory, suggesting that these units could have been either ca. 500 or ca. 1,000 strong, or somewhere in between.^[142]^[143] If the higher figure were true, then there would be little to distinguish auxilia from legiones, which is the strongest argument in favour of ca. 500.

For the size of limitanei units, opinion is divided. Jones and Elton suggest from the scarce and ambiguous literary evidence that border legiones numbered ca. 1,000 men and that the other units contained in the region of 500 men each.^[144]^[145] Others draw on papyrus and more recent archaeological evidence to argue that limitanei units probably averaged about half the Jones/Elton strength i.e. ca. 500 for legiones and around 250 for other units.^[146]^[147]

Unit types

Scholae

Template:FixBunching

Shield insignia of regiments under the command of the *Magister Militum Praesentalis II* of the East Roman army ca. 395. Page from the *Notitia Dignitatum*, a medieval copy of a Late Roman register of military commands

Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching Despite existing from the early 4th century, the only full list of scholae available is in the Notitia, which shows the position at the end of the 4th century/early 5th century. At that time, there were 12 scholae, of which 5 were assigned to the Western emperor and 7 to the Eastern. These regiments of imperial escort cavalry would have totalled ca. 6,000 men, compared to 2,000 equites singulares Augusti in the late 2nd century.^[149] The great majority (10) of the scholae were "conventional" cavalry, armoured in a manner similar to the alae of the Principate, carrying the titles scutarii ("shield-men"), armaturae ("armour" or "harnesses") or gentiles ("natives"). These terms appear to have become purely honorific, although they may originally have denoted special equipment or ethnic composition (gentiles was a term used to describe barbarian tribesmen admitted to the empire on condition of military service). Only two scholae, both in the East, were specialised units: a schola of clibanarii (cataphracts, or heavily armoured cavalry), and a unit of mounted archers (sagittarii).^[150]^[151] 40 select troops from the scholae, called candidati from their white uniforms, acted as the emperor's personal bodyguards.^[152]

Comitatenses (inc. palatini)

In the comitatus armies (both escort and regional) cavalry regiments were known as vexillationes, infantry regiments as either legiones or auxilia.^[153] Auxilia were only graded as palatini, emphasising their elite status, while the other two are graded either palatini or comitatenses.^[154]

The majority of Roman cavalry regiments in the comitatus (61%) remained of the traditional semi-armoured type, similar in equipment and tactical role to the alae of the Principate and suitable for mêlée combat. These regiments carry a variety of titles: comites, equites scutarii, equites stablesiani or equites promoti. Again, these titles are probably purely traditional, and do not indicate different unit types or functions.^[16] 24% of regiments were unarmoured light cavalry, denoted equites Dalmatae, Mauri or sagittarii (mounted archers), suitable for harassment and pursuit. Mauri light horse had served Rome as auxiliaries since the Second Punic War 500 years before. Equites Dalmatae, on the other hand, seem to have been regiments first raised in the 3rd century. 15% of comitatus cavalry regiments were heavily armoured cataphracti or clibanarii, which were suitable for the shock charge (all but one such squadrons are listed as comitatus regiments by the Notitia)^[155]

Infantry regiments mostly fought in close order as did their Principate forebears. Infantry equipment was broadly similar to the that of auxiliaries in the 2nd century, with some modifications (see Equipment, below).^[16]

Limitanei

In the limitanei forces, most types of regiment were present. For infantry, there are regiments called milites, numeri and auxilia as well as old-style legiones and cohortes. Cavalry regiments are called equites, cunei and old-style alae.^[156]

The evidence is that comitatenses regiments were considered of higher quality than limitanei. But the difference should not be exaggerated. Suggestions have been made that the limitanei were a part-time militia of local farmers, of poor combat capability. ^[157] This view is rejected by many modern scholars.^[158]^[159]^[160] The evidence is that limitanei were full-time professionals.^[161] They were charged with combating the incessant small-scale barbarian raids that were the empire's enduring security problem.^[162] It is therefore likely that their combat readiness and experience were high. This was demonstrated at the siege of Amida (359) where the besieged frontier legions resisted the Persians with great skill and tenacity.^[163] Elton suggests that the lack of mention in the sources of barbarian incursions less than 400-strong implies that such were routinely dealt with by the border forces without the need of assistance from the comitatus.^[164] Limitanei regiments often joined the comitatus for specific campaigns, sometimes remaining long-term with the title of pseudocomitatenses, implying adequate combat capability.^[165]

Specialists

The late Roman army contained a significant number of heavily armoured cavalry called cataphracti (from the Greek kataphraktos, meaning "covered all over"). These were covered from neck to foot by scale and/or lamellar, and their horses were often armoured also. Cataphracts carried a long, heavy lance called a contus, ca. 3.65 m (12 ft) long, that was held in both hands. Some also carried bows.^[166] The central tactic of cataphracts was the shock charge, which aimed to break the enemy line by concentrating overwhelming force on a defined section of it. A type of cataphract called a clibanarius also appears in the 4th century record. This term may be derived from Greek klibanos (a bread oven) or from a Persian word. It is likely that clibanarius is simply an alternative term to cataphract, or it may have been a special type of cataphract.^[16] This type of cavalry had been developed by the Iranic horse-based nomadic tribes of the Eurasian steppes from the 6th-century BC onwards: the Scythians and their kinsmen the Sarmatians. The type was adopted by the Parthians in the 1st century BC and later by the Romans, who needed it to counter Parthians in the East and the Sarmatians along the Danube.^[167] The first regiment of Roman cataphracts to appear in the archaeological record is the ala I Gallorum et Pannoniorum cataphractaria, attested in Pannonia in the early 2nd century.^[168] Although Roman cataphracts were not new, they were far more numerous in the late army, with most regiments stationed in the East.^[169]

Archer units are denoted in the Notitia by the term equites sagittarii (mounted archers) and sagittarii (foot archers, from sagitta = "arrow"). As in the Principate, it is likely that many non-sagittarii regiments also contained some archers. Mounted archers appear to have been exclusively in light cavalry units.^[16] Archer units, both foot and mounted, were present in the comitatus.^[170] In the border forces, only mounted archers are listed in the Notitia, which may indicate that many limitanei infantry regiments contained their own archers.^[171]

A distinctive feature of the late army is the appearance of independent units of artillery, which during the Principate appears to have been integral to the legions. Called ballistarii (from ballista = "catapult"), 7 such units are listed in the Notitia, all but one belonging to the comitatus. But a number are denoted pseudocomitatenses, implying that they originally belonged to the border forces. The purpose of independent artillery units was presumably to permit heavy concentration of firepower, especially useful for sieges. However, it is likely that many ordinary regiments continued to possess integral artillery, especially in the border forces.^[172]

The Notitia lists a few units of presumably light infantry with names denoting specialist function: superventores and praeventores ("interceptors") exculcatores ("trackers"), exploratores ("scouts"). At the same time, Ammianus describes light-armed troops with various terms: velites, leves armaturae, exculcatores, expediti. It is unclear from the context whether any of these were independent units, specialist sub-units, or indeed just detachments of ordinary troops specially armed for a particular operation.^[173] The Notitia evidence implies that, at least in some cases, Ammianus could be referring to independent units.

Foederati

Outside the regular army were substantial numbers of allied forces, generally known as foederati (from foedus = "treaty") or symmachi in the East. The latter were forces supplied either by barbarian chiefs under their treaty of alliance with Rome or dediticii.^[174] Such forces were employed by the Romans throughout imperial history e.g. the battle scenes from Trajan's Column in Rome show that foederati troops played an important part in the Dacian Wars (101–6).^[175]

In the 4th century, as during the Principate, these forces were organised into ill-defined units based on a single ethnic group called numeri ("troops", although numerus was also the name of a regular infantry unit).^[176] They served alongside the regular army for the duration of particular campaigns or for a specified period. Normally their service would be limited to the region where the tribe lived, but sometimes could be deployed elsewhere.^[177] They were commanded by their own leaders. It is unclear whether they used their own weapons and armour or the standard equipment of the Roman army. In the late army, the more useful and long-serving numeri appear to have been absorbed into the regular late army, rapidly becoming indistinguishable from other units.^[178]

Recruitment

Romans

During the Principate, it appears that most recruits, both legionary and auxiliary, were volunteers (voluntarii). Compulsory conscription (dilectus) was never wholly abandoned, but was generally only used in emergencies or before major campaigns when large numbers of additional troops were required.^[179] In marked contrast, the late army relied mainly on compulsion for its recruitment of Roman citizens. Firstly, the sons of serving soldiers or veterans were required by law to enlist. Secondly, a regular annual levy was held based on the indictio (land tax assessment). Depending on the amount of land tax due on his estates, a landowner (or group of landowners) would be required to provide a commensurate number of recruits to the army. Naturally, landowners had a strong incentive to keep their best young men to work on their estates, sending the less fit or reliable for military service. There is also evidence that they tried to cheat the draft by offering the sons of soldiers (who were liable to serve anyway) and vagrants (vagi) to fulfil their quota.^[45]

However, conscription was not in practice universal. Firstly, a land-based levy meant recruits were exclusively the sons of peasants, as opposed to townspeople.^[45] Thus some 20% of the empire's population was excluded.^[180] In addition, as during the Principate, slaves were not admissible. Nor were freedmen and persons in certain occupations such as bakers and innkeepers. In addition, provincial officials and curiales (city council members) could not enlist. These rules were relaxed only in emergencies, as during the military crisis of 405–6 (Radagaisus' invasion of Italy and the great barbarian invasion of Gaul).^[181] Most importantly, the conscription requirement was often commuted into a cash levy, at a fixed rate per recruit due. This was done for certain provinces, in certain years, although the specific details are largely unknown. It appears from the very slim available evidence that conscription was not applied evenly across provinces but concentrated heavily in the army's traditional recruiting areas of Gaul (including the two Germaniae provinces along the Rhine) and the Danubian provinces, with other regions presumably often commuted. An analysis of the known origins of comitatenses in the period 350–476 shows that in the Western army, the Illyricum and Gaul dioceses together provided 52% of total recruits. Overall, the Danubian regions provided nearly half of the whole army's recruits, despite containing only three of the 12 dioceses.^[182] This picture is much in line with the 2nd century position.^[183]

Prospective recruits had to undergo an examination. Recruits had to be 20–25 years of age, a range that was extended to 19–35 in the later 4th century. Recruits had to be physically fit and meet the traditional minimum height requirement of 6 Roman feet (5ft 10in, 175 cm) until 367, when it was reduced to 5 Roman feet and 3 Roman palms (5ft 7in, 167 cm).^[184]

Once a recruit was accepted, he was branded to facilitate recognition if he attempted to desert. The recruit was then issued with an identification disk (which was worn around the neck) and a certificate of enlistment (probatoria). He was then assigned to a unit. A law of 375 required those with superior fitness to be assigned to the comitatenses.^[185] In the 4th century, the minimum length of service was 20 years (24 years in some limitanei units).^[186] This compares with 25 years in both legions and auxilia during the Principate.

The widespread use of conscription, the compulsory recruitment of soldiers' sons, the relaxation of age and height requirements and the branding of recruits all add up to a picture of an army that had severe difficulties in finding, and retaining, sufficient recruits.^[187] Recruitment difficulties are confirmed in the legal code evidence: there are measures to deal with cases of self-mutilation to avoid military service (such as cutting off a thumb), including an extreme decree of 386 requiring such persons to be burnt alive.^[186] Desertion was clearly a serious problem, and was probably much worse than in the Principate army, since the latter was mainly a volunteer army. This is supported by the fact that the granting of leave of absence (commeatus) was more strictly regulated. While in the 2nd century, a soldier's leave was granted at the discretion of his regimental commander, in the 4th century, leave could only be granted by a far senior officer (dux, comes or magister militum).^[188]^[189] In addition, it appears that comitatus units were typically one-third understrength.^[190] The massive disparity between official and actual strength is powerful evidence of recruitment problems. Against this, Elton argues that the late army did not have serious recruitment problems, on the basis of the large numbers of exemptions from concription granted.^[191]

Barbarians

Barbari ("barbarians") was the generic term used by the Romans to denote peoples resident beyond the borders of the empire, and best translates as "foreigners" (it is derived from a Greek word meaning "to babble": a reference to their outlandish tongues).

Most scholars believe that significant numbers of barbari were recruited throughout the Principate by the auxilia (the legions were closed to non-citizens).^[186]^[192] However, there is little evidence of this before the 3rd century. The scant evidence suggests that the vast majority, if not all, of auxilia were Roman peregrini (second-class citizens) or Roman citizens.^[193] In any case, the 4th-century army was probably much more dependent on barbarian recruitment than its 1st/2nd-century predecessor. The evidence for this may be summarised as follows:

The Notitia lists a number of barbarian military settlements in the empire. Known as laeti or gentiles ("natives"), these were an important source of recruits for the army. Groups of Germanic or Sarmatian tribespeople were granted land to settle in the Empire, in return for military service. Most likely each community was under a treaty obligation to supply a specified number of troops to the army each year.^[186] The resettlement within the empire of barbarian tribespeople in return for military service was not a new phenomenon in the 4th century: it stretches back to the days of Augustus. ^[194] But it does appear that the establishment of military settlements was more systematic and on a much larger scale in the 4th century.^[195]
The Notitia lists a large number of units with barbarian names. This was probably the result of the transformation of irregular allied units serving under their own native officers (known as socii, or foederati) into regular formations. During the Principate, regular units with barbarian names are not attested until the 3rd century and even then rarely e.g. the ala I Sarmatarum attested in 3rd-century Britain, doubtless an offshoot of the Sarmatian horsemen posted there in 175.^[196]
The emergence of significant numbers of senior officers with barbarian names in the regular army, and eventually in the high command itself. In the early 5th century, the Western Roman forces were often controlled by barbarian-born generals, such as Arbogast, Stilicho and Ricimer.^[197]
The adoption by the 4th century army of barbarian (especially Germanic) dress, customs and culture, suggesting enhanced barbarian influence. For example, Roman army units adopted mock barbarian names e.g. Cornuti = "horned ones", a reference to the German custom of attaching horns to their helmets, and the barritus, a German warcry. Long hair became fashionable, especially in the palatini regiments, where barbarian-born recruits were numerous.^[198]

Quantification of the proportion of barbarian-born troops in the 4th century army is highly speculative. Elton has the most detailed analysis of the meagre evidence. According to this, about a quarter of the sample of army officers was barbarian-born in the period 350–400. Analysis by decade shows that this proportion did not increase over the period, or indeed in the early 5th century. The latter trend implies that the proportion of barbarians in the lower ranks was not much greater, otherwise the proportion of barbarian officers would have increased over time to reflect that.^[199]

If the proportion of barbarians was in the region of 25%, then it is probably much higher than in the 2nd-century regular army. If the same proportion had been recruited into the auxilia of the 2nd-century army, then in excess of 40% of recruits would have been barbarian-born, since the auxilia constituted 60% of the regular land army.^[8] There is no evidence that recruitment of barbarians was on such a large scale in the 2nd century.^[200] An analysis of named soldiers of non-Roman origin shows that 75% were Germanic: Franks, Alamanni, Saxons, Goths, and Vandals are attested in the Notitia unit names.^[201] Other significant sources of recruits were the Sarmatians from the Danubian lands; and Armenians and Iberians from the Caucasus region.^[202]

In contrast to Roman recruits, the vast majority of barbarian recruits were probably volunteers, drawn by conditions of service and career prospects that to them probably appeared desirable, in contrast to their living conditions at home. A minority of barbarian recruits were enlisted by compulsion, namely dediticii (barbarians who surrendered to the Roman authorities, often to escape strife with neighbouring tribes) and tribes who were defeated by the Romans, and obliged, as a condition of peace, to undertake to provide a specified number of recruits annually. Barbarians could be recruited directly, as individuals enrolled into regular regiments, or indirectly, as members of irregular foederati units transformed into regular regiments.^[203]

Ranks, pay and benefits

Common soldiers

Template:FixHTML

Template:FixHTML

Reenactor as late Roman infantryman, wearing a Burgh Castle-type ridge helmet with nose-guard. It was a more protective design than the contemporary, and probably more common, Intercisa type. Note the off-white tunic with sleeve borders, modelled on the Piazza Armerina mosaics

Template:FixHTML

Template:FixHTML At the base of the rank pyramid were the common soldiers: pedes (infantryman) and eques (cavalryman). Unlike his 2nd century counterpart, the 4th-century soldier's food and equipment was not deducted from his salary (stipendium), but was provided free. ^[208] This is because the stipendium, paid in debased silver denarii, was under Diocletian worth far less than in the 2nd century. It lost its residual value under Constantine and ceased to be paid regularly in mid 4th century.^[209]

The soldier's sole substantial disposable income came from the donativa, or cash bonuses handed out periodically by the emperors, as these were paid in gold solidi (which were never debased), or in pure silver. There was a regular donative of 5 solidi every five years of an Augustus reign (i.e. one solidus p.a.) Also, on the accession of a new Augustus, 5 solidi plus a pound of silver (worth 4 solidi, totaling 9 solidi) were paid. The 12 Augusti that ruled the West between 284 and 395 averaged about nine years per reign. Thus the accession donatives would have averaged about 1 solidus p.a. The late soldier's disposable income would thus have averaged at least 2 solidi per annum. It is also possible, but undocumented, that the accession bonus was paid for each Augustus and/or a bonus for each Caesar.^[210] The documented income of 2 solidi was only a quarter of the disposable income of a 2nd-century legionary (which was the equivalent of ca. 8 solidi).^[211] The late soldier's discharge package (which included a small plot of land) was also minuscule compared with a 2nd-century legionary's, worth just a tenth of the latter's.^[212]^[213]

Despite the disparity with the Principate, Jones and Elton argue that 4th century remuneration was attractive compared to the hard reality of existence at subsistence level that most recruits' peasant families had to endure.^[214] Against that has to be set the clear unpopularity of military service.

However, pay would have been much more attractive in higher-grade units. The top of the pay pyramid were the scholae elite cavalry regiments. Next came palatini units, then comitatenses, and finally limitanei. There is little evidence about the pay differentials between grades. But that they were substantial is shown by the example that an actuarius (quartermaster) of a comitatus regiment was paid 50% more than his counterpart in a pseudocomitatensis regiment.^[215]

Junior officers

Junior officer grades in old-style units (legiones, alae and cohortes) remained the same as under the Principate up to and including centurion and decurion. In the new-style units, (vexillationes, auxilia, etc), ranks with quite different names are attested, seemingly modelled on the titles of local authority bureaucrats.^[216] So little is known about these ranks that it is impossible to equate them with the traditional ranks with any certainty. Vegetius states that the ducenarius commanded, as the name implies, 200 men. If so, the centenarius may have been the equivalent of a centurion in the old-style units.^[217] Probably the most accurate comparison is by known pay levels:

**JUNIOR OFFICERS IN THE 4th CENTURY ARMY**^[218]
Multiple of basic pay (2nd c.) or annona (4th c.)	2nd c. cohors (ascending ranks)	2nd c. ala (ascending ranks)	4th c. units (ascending ranks)
1	pedes (infantryman)	gregalis (cavalryman)	pedes (eques)
1.5	tesserarius ("corporal")	sesquiplicarius ("corporal")	semissalis
2	signifer (centuria standard-bearer) optio (centurion's deputy) vexillarius (cohort standard-bearer)	signifer (turma standard-bearer) curator? (decurion's deputy) vexillarius (ala standard-bearer)	circitor biarchus
2.5 to 5	centurio (centurion) centurio princeps (chief centurion) beneficiarius? (deputy cohort commander)	decurio (turma commander) decurio princeps (chief decurion) beneficiarius? (deputy ala commander)	centenarius (2.5) ducenarius (3.5) senator (4) primicerius (5)

NOTE: Ranks correspond only in pay scale, not necessarily in function

Senior officers

**SENIOR OFFICERS IN THE 4TH CENTURY ARMY**^[219]
Pay scale (multiple of pedes)	Rank (ascending order)	No. of posts (Notitia)	Job description
12	Protector	Several hundreds (200 in domestici under Julian)	cadet officer
n.a.	Tribunus (or Praefectus)	ca. 800	regimental commander
n.a.	Comes (junior)	n.a.	(i) commander, brigade of two twinned regiments or (ii) staff officer to magister or emperor or (iii) some commanders of a schola
100	Dux (or, rarely, Comes) limitis	27	border army commander
n.a.	Comes (rei militaris)	7	(i) commander, smaller regional comitatus (ii) (same rank) comm., protectores domestici
n.a.	Magister militum (or magister peditum/equitum)	7	commander, comitatus praesentalis or larger regional comitatus

A significant innovation of the 4th century was the corps of protectores, which contained cadet senior officers. Although protectores were supposed to be soldiers who had risen through the ranks by meritorious service, it became a widespread practice to admit to the corps young men from outside the army (often the sons of senior officers). The protectores formed a corps that was both an officer training-school and pool of staff officers available to carry out special tasks for the magistri militum or the emperor. Those attached to the emperor were known as protectores domestici and organised in four scholae under a comes domesticorum. After a few years' service in the corps, a protector would normally be granted a commission (sacra epistula) by the emperor and placed in command of a military regiment.^[220]

Regimental commanders were known by one of three possible titles: tribunus (for comitatus regiments plus border cohortes), praefectus (most other limitanei regiments) or praepositus (for milites and some ethnic units).^[221]^[222] However, tribunus was used colloquially to denote the commander of any regiment. Although most tribuni were appointed from the corps of protectores, a minority, again mainly the sons of high-ranking serving officers, were directly commissioned outsiders.^[223] The status of regimental commanders varied enormously depending on the grade of their unit. At the top end, some commanders of scholae were granted the senior rank of comes, a practice which became standard after 400 AD.^[224]

Between regimental and corps command were a group of senior officers who carried the title of comes, but were junior to the comites rei militaris (literally "companions for military affairs") who commanded the regional comitatus. They included the commanders of scholae who had been granted this title, as well as "pure" staff officers (i.e. without a command) who accompanied the emperor or a magister militum.^[225] In addition, it appears that the commander of a brigade of two twinned comitatus regiments was called a comes. (Such twinned regiments would always operate and transfer together e.g. the legions Ioviani and Herculiani).^[226]

It is unknown what proportion of the corps commanders (duces, comites rei militaris and magistri militum) had risen from the ranks, but it is likely to have been small as most rankers would be nearing retirement age by the time they were given command of a regiment and would go no further.^[227] In contrast, directly commissioned protectores and tribuni dominated the higher echelons, as they were usually young men when they started. For such men, promotion to corps command could be swift e.g. Theodosius I was a dux at age 28.^[228] It was also possible for rungs on the rank ladder to be skipped. Commanders of scholae, who enjoyed direct access to the emperor, often reached the highest rank of magister militum. The barbarian-born Agilo was promoted direct to magister militum from tribunus of a schola in 360.^[229]

Equipment

The basic equipment of a 4th-century foot soldier was essentially the same as in the 2nd century: metal armour cuirass, metal helmet, shield and sword.^[230] Some evolution took place during the 3rd century. Trends included the adoption of warmer clothing; the disappearance of distinctive legionary armour and weapons; the adoption by the infantry of equipment used by the cavalry in the earlier period; and the greater use of heavily armoured cavalry called cataphracts.

Clothing

In the 1st and 2nd centuries, a Roman soldier's clothes consisted of a single-piece, short-sleeved tunic whose hem reached the knees and special hobnailed sandals (caligae). This attire, which left the arms and legs bare, had evolved in a Mediterranean climate and was not suitable for northern Europe in cold weather. In northern Europe, long-sleeved tunics, trousers (bracae), socks (worn inside the caligae) and laced boots were commonly worn in winter from the 1st century. During the 3rd century, these items of clothing became much more widespread, apparently common in Mediterranean provinces also.^[231] However, it is likely that in warmer weather, trousers were dispensed with and caligae worn instead of socks and boots.^[232] Late Roman clothing was often highly decorated, with woven or embroidered strips, clavi, and circular roundels, orbiculi, added to tunics and cloaks. These decorative elements usually consisted of geometrical patterns and stylised plant motifs, but could include human or animal figures.^[233] A distinctive part of a soldier's costume, though it seems to have also been worn by non-military bureaucrats, was a type of round, brimless hat known as the pannonian cap (pileus pannonicus).^[234]

Armour

Legionary soldiers of the 1st and 2nd centuries had exclusive use of the lorica segmentata or laminated-strip cuirass which was a complex piece of armour which provided superior protection to the other types of Roman armour, chain mail (lorica hamata) and scale armour (lorica squamata). Testing of modern replicas have demonstrated that this kind of armour was impenetrable to most direct and missile strikes. It was, however, uncomfortable: reenactors have discovered that chafing renders it painful to wear for longer than a few hours at a time. It was also expensive to produce and difficult to maintain.^[235] In the 3rd century, the segmentata appears to have been dropped and troops are depicted wearing chain mail (mainly) or scale, the standard armour of the 2nd century auxilia. The artistic record shows that most late soldiers wore metal armour, despite Vegetius' statement to the contrary. For example, illustrations in the Notitia show that the army's fabricae (arms factories) were producing mail armour at the end of the 4th century.^[236] Actual examples of both scale armour and quite large sections of mail have been recovered, at Trier and Weiler-La-Tour respectively, within fourth century contexts.^[237] Officers generally seem to have worn bronze or iron cuirasses, as in the days of the Principate, together with traditional pteruges.^[238] The cataphract and clibanarii cavalry, from limited pictorial evidence and especially from the description of these troops by Ammianus, seem to have worn specialist forms of armour. In particular their limbs were protected by laminated defences, made up of curved and overlapping metal segments.^[239]

Helmets

In general, Roman cavalry helmets had enhanced protection, in the form of wider cheek-guards and deeper neck-guards, for the sides and back of the head than infantry helmets. Infantry were less vulnerable in those parts due to their tighter formation when fighting.^[240] During the 3rd century, infantry helmets tended to adopt the more protective features of Principate cavalry helmets. Cheek-guards could often be fastened together over the chin to protect the face, and covered the ears save for a slit to permit hearing e.g. the "Auxiliary E" type or its Niederbieber variant. Cavalry helmets became even more enclosed e.g. the "Heddernheim" type, which is close to the medieval great helm, but at the cost much reduced vision and hearing.^[241]

In contrast, some infantry helmets in the 4th century reverted to the more open features of the main Principate type, the "Imperial Gallic". The "Intercisa" design left the face unobstructed and had ear-holes in the join between cheek-guards and bowl to allow good hearing. In a radical change from the earlier single-bowl design, the Intercisa bowl was made of two separate pieces joined by a riveted ridge in the middle (hence the term "ridge helmet"). It was simpler and cheaper to manufacture, and therefore probably by far the most common type, but structurally weaker and therefore offered less effective protection.^[242] A more protective ridge helmet, with nose-guard and ear-holes, was the "Burgh Castle" type (with ear-holes) and its Conceşti variant, which is probably the cavalry version, as it lacks ear-holes. Face-guards of mail or in the form of metal 'anthropomorphic masks,' with eye-holes, were often added to the helmets of the heaviest forms of cavalry, especially cataphracti.^[243]

Despite the apparent cheapness of manufacture of their basic components, many surviving examples of Late Roman helmets, including the Intercisa type, show evidence of expensive decoration in the form of silver or silver-gilt sheathing.^[244]^[245] A possible explanation is that most of the surviving exemplars may have belonged to officers and that silver- or gold-plating denoted rank; and, in the case of mounted gemstones, high rank e.g. the ornate Deurne helmet, believed by some historians to have belonged to a senior officer.^[217] Other academics, in contrast, consider that silver-sheathed helmets may have been widely worn by comitatus soldiers, given as a form of pay or reward.^[246]

Shields

The legionary scutum, a convex rectangular shield also disappeared during the 3rd century. All troops adopted the auxiliary oval (or sometimes round) shield (clipeus).^[247] Shields, from examples found at Dura and Nydam, were of vertical plank construction, the planks glued, and faced inside and out with painted leather. The edges of the shield were bound with stitched rawhide, which shrank as it dried improving structural cohesion. It was also lighter than the edging of copper alloy used in earlier Roman shields.^[248]

Hand weapons

The gladius, a short (median length: 460 mm) stabbing-sword that was designed for close-quarters fighting, and was standard for the Principate infantry (both legionary and auxiliary), also was phased out during the 3rd century. The infantry adopted the spatha, a longer (median length: 760 mm) sword that during the earlier centuries was used by the cavalry only.^[16] In addition, Vegetius mentions the use of a shorter-bladed sword termed a semispatha.^[249] At the same time, infantry acquired a heavy thrusting-spear (hasta) which became the main close order combat weapon to replace the gladius, as the spatha was too long to be swung comfortably in tight formation (although it could be used to stab). These trends imply a greater emphasis on fighting the enemy "at arm's length".^[250] In the 4th century, there is no archaeological or artistic evidence of the pugio (Roman military dagger), which is attested until the 3rd century. 4th-century graves have yielded short, single-edged knives in conjunction with military belt fittings.^[251]

Missiles

In addition to his thrusting-spear, a late foot soldier might also carry a throwing-spear (verrutum) or a spiculum, a kind of heavy, long pilum, similar to an angon. Alternatively, a couple of short javelins (lanceae). Late infantrymen often carried half a dozen lead-weighted throwing-darts called plumbatae (from plumbum = "lead"), with an effective range of ca. 30 m (98 ft), well beyond that of a javelin. The darts were carried clipped to the back of the shield.^[252] The late foot soldier thus had greater missile capability than his Principate predecessor, who was usually limited to just one pilum.^[253] Late archers continued to use the recurved composite bow as their standard. This was a sophisticated, compact and powerful weapon, suitable for mounted and foot archers alike (the cavalry version being more compact than the infantry's). A small number of archers may have been armed with crossbows (manuballistae).^[254]

Supply infrastructure

Template:FixBunching Compared to the 1st and 2nd centuries, the 3rd and 4th centuries saw much greater fortification activity, with many new forts built.^[255] Later Roman fortifications, both new and upgraded old ones, contained much stronger defensive features than their earlier counterparts. In addition, the late 3rd/4th centuries saw the fortification of many towns and cities including the City of Rome itself and its eastern sister, Constantinople.^[256] A critical advantage enjoyed by the late army over all its foreign enemies except the Persians was a highly sophisticated organisation to ensure that the army was properly equipped and supplied on campaign. Like their enemies, the late army could rely on foraging for supplies when campaigning on enemy soil. But this was obviously undesirable on Roman territory and impractical in winter. The empire's complex supply organisation enabled the army to campaign in all seasons and in areas where the enemy employed a "scorched earth" policy.

Supply organisation

The responsibility for supplying the army rested with the praefectus praetorio of the operational sector. He in turn controlled a hierarchy of civilian authorities (diocesan vicarii and provincial governors), whose agents collected, stored and delivered supplies to the troops direct or to predetermined fortified points.^[257] The quantities involved were enormous and would require lengthy and elaborate advance planning for major campaigns. A late legion of 1,000 men would require a minimum of 2.3 tonnes of grain-equivalent every day.^[258] An imperial escort army of 25,000 men would thus require around 5,000 tonnes of grain-equivalent for three months' campaigning (plus fodder for the horses and pack animals).

Supply transport

Such vast cargoes would be carried by boat as far as possible, by sea and/or river, and only the shortest possible distance overland. That is because transport on water was far more economical than on land (as it remains today, although the differential is smaller).

Land transport of military supplies on the cursus publicus (imperial transport service) was typically by wagons (angariae), with a maximum legal load of 1,500 lbs (680 kg), drawn by two pairs of oxen.^[259] The payload capacity of most Roman freighter-ships of the period was in the range of 10,000–20,000 modii (70–140 tonnes).^[260] Thus, a vessel of median capacity of 100 tonnes, with a 20-man crew, could carry the same load as ca. 150 wagons (which required 150 drivers and 600 oxen, plus pay for the former and fodder for the animals). A merchant ship would also, with a favourable wind, typically travel three times faster than the typical 3 km/h (2 mph) achieved by the wagons and for as long as there was daylight, whereas oxen could only haul for at most 5 hours per day. Thus freighters could easily cover 100 km (62 mi) per day, compared to ca. 15 km (9 mi) by the wagons.^[261]^[262] Against this must be set the fact that most freighters of this capacity were propelled by square sails only (and no oars). They could only progress if there was a following wind, and could spend many days in port waiting for one. (However, smaller coastal and fluvial freighters called actuariae combined oars with sail and had more flexibility). Maritime transport was also completely suspended for at least four months in the winter (as stormy weather made it too hazardous) and even during the rest of the year, shipwrecks were common.^[263] Nevetheless, the surviving shipping-rates show that it was cheaper to transport a cargo of grain by sea from Syria to Lusitania (i.e. the entire length of the Mediterranean – and a ways beyond – ca. 5,000 km) than just 110 km (68 mi) overland.^[264]

On rivers, actuariae could operate year-round, except during periods when the rivers were ice-bound or of high water (after heavy rains or thaw), when the river-current was dangerously strong. It is likely that the establishment of the empire's frontier on the Rhine-Danube line was dictated by the logistical need for large rivers to accommodate supply ships more than by defensibility. These rivers were dotted with purpose-built military docks (portus exceptionales).^[265] The protection of supply convoys on the rivers was the responsibility of the fluvial flotillas (classes) under the command of the riverine duces. The Notitia gives no information about the Rhine flotillas (as the Rhine frontier had collapsed by the time the Western section was compiled), but mentions 4 classes Histricae (Danube flotillas) and 8 other classes in tributaries of the Danube. Each flotilla was commanded by a praefectus classis who reported to the local dux. It appears that each dux on the Danube disposed of at least one flotilla (one, the dux Pannoniae, controlled three).^[266]

Weapons manufacture

In the 4th century, the production of weapons and equipment was highly centralised (and presumably standardised) in a number of major state-run arms factories (fabricae) documented in the Notitia. It is unknown when these were first established, but they certainly existed by the time of Diocletian.^[267] In the 2nd century, there is evidence of fabricae inside legionary bases and even in the much smaller auxiliary forts, staffed by the soldiers themselves.^[268] But there is no evidence, literary or archaeological, of fabricae outside military bases and staffed by civilians during the Principate (although their existence cannot be excluded, as no archaeological evidence has been found for the late fabricae either). Late fabricae were located in border provinces and dioceses.^[269] Some were general manufacturers producing both armour and weapons (fabrica scutaria et armorum) or just one of the two. Others were specialised in one or more of the following: fabrica spatharia (sword manufacture), lanciaria (spears), arcuaria (bows), sagittaria (arrows), loricaria (body armour), clibanaria (cataphract armour), and ballistaria (catapults).^[270]

Fortifications

According to Luttwak, Roman forts of the 1st/2nd centuries, whether castra legionaria (inaccurately translated as legionary "fortresses") or auxiliary forts, were clearly residential bases that were not designed to withstand assault. The typical rectangular "playing-card" shape, the long, thin and low walls and shallow ditch and the unfortified gates were not defensible features and their purpose was delimitation and keeping out individual intruders.^[271] This view is too extreme, as all the evidence suggests that such forts afforded a significant level of protection, even the more rudimentary early type based on the design of marching-camps (ditch, earth rampart and wooden palisade). The latter is exemplified by the siege of the legionary camp at Castra Vetera (Xanten) during the revolt of the Batavi in 69–70 AD. 5,000 legionaries succeeded in holding out for several months against vastly superior numbers of rebel Batavi and their allies under the renegade auxiliary officer Civilis, despite the latter disposing of ca. 8,000 Roman-trained and equipped auxiliary troops and deploying Roman-style siege engines. (The Romans were eventually forced to surrender the fort by starvation).^[272]

Nevertheless, later forts were built to much higher defensive specifications than their 2nd century predecessors, including the following features:

Deeper (average: 3 m) and much wider (av. 10 m) perimeter ditches (fossae). These would have flat floors rather than the traditional V-shape.^[273] Such ditches would make it difficult to bring siege equipment (ladders, rams, and other engines) to the walls. It would also concentrate attackers in an enclosed area where they would be exposed to missile fire from the walls.^[274]
Higher (av. 9 m) and thicker (av. 3 m) walls. Walls were made of stone or stone facing with rubble core. The greater thickness would protect the wall from enemy mining. The height of the walls would force attackers to use scaling-ladders. The parapet of the rampart would have crenellations to provide protection from missiles for defenders.^[275]
Higher (av. 17.5 m) and projecting corner and interval towers. These would enable enfilading fire on attackers. Towers were normally round or half-round, and only rarely square as the latter were less defensible. Towers would be normally be spaced at 30 m (98 ft) intervals on circuit walls.^[276]
Gate towers, one on each side of the gate and projecting out from the gate to allow defenders to shoot into the area in front of the entrance. The gates themselves were normally wooden with metal covering plates to prevent destruction by fire. Some gates had portcullises. Postern gates were built into towers or near them to allow sorties.^[277]

More numerous than new-build forts were old forts upgraded to higher defensive specifications. Thus the two parallel ditches common around earlier forts could be joined by excavating the ground between them. Projecting towers were added. Gates were either rebuilt with projecting towers or sealed off by constructing a large rectangular bastion. The walls were strengthened by doubling the old thickness. Upgraded forts were generally much larger than new-build. New forts were rarely over one hectare in size and were normally placed to fill gaps between old forts and towns.^[278] However, not all of the old forts that continued to be used in the 4th century were upgraded e.g. the forts on Hadrian's Wall and some other forts in Britannia were not significantly modified.^[279]

The main features of late Roman fortification clearly presage those of medieval castles. But the defensibility of late Roman forts must not be exaggerated. Late Roman forts were not always located on defensible sites, such as hilltops and they were not designed as independent logistic facilities where the garrison could survive for years on internal supplies (water in cisterns or from wells and stored food). They remained bases for troops that would sally out and engage the enemy in the field.^[280]

Nevertheless, the benefits of more defensible forts are evident: they could act as temporary refuges for overwhelmed local troops during barbarian incursions, while they waited for reinforcements. The forts were difficult for the barbarians to take by assault, as they generally lacked the necessary equipment. The forts could store sufficient supplies to enable the defenders to hold out for a few weeks, and to supply relieving troops. They could also act as bases from which defenders could make sorties against isolated groups of barbarians and to cooperate with relieving forces.^[281]

The question arises as to why the 4th century army needed forts with enhanced defensive features whereas the 2nd century army apparently did not. Luttwak argues that defensible forts were an integral feature of a 4th century defence-in-depth "grand strategy", while in the 2nd century "preclusive defence" rendered such forts unnecessary . But the existence of such a "strategy" is strongly disputed by several scholars, as many elements of the late Roman army's posture were consistent with continued forward defence.^[282] An alternative explanation is that preclusive defence was still in effect but was not working as well as previously and barbarian raids were penetrating the empire more frequently.(see Strategy, below)

Strategy and tactics

Strategy

Edward Luttwak's Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire (1976) re-launched the thesis of Theodor Mommsen that in the 3rd and early 4th centuries, the empire's defence strategy mutated from "forward defence" (or "preclusive defence") in the Principate to "defence-in-depth" in the 4th century. According to Luttwak, the Principate army had relied on neutralising imminent barbarian incursions before they reached the imperial borders. This was achieved by stationing units (both legions and auxiliary regiments) right on the border and establishing and garrisoning strategic salients beyond the borders. The response to any threat would thus be a pincer movement into barbarian territory: large infantry and cavalry forces from the border bases would immediately cross the border to intercept the coalescing enemy army. ^[283]

According to Luttwak, the forward defence system was always vulnerable to unusually large barbarian concentrations of forces, as the Roman army was too thinly spread along the enormous borders to deal with such threats. In addition, the lack of any reserves to the rear of the border entailed that a barbarian force that successfully penetrated the perimeter defences would have unchallenged ability to rampage deep into the empire before Roman reinforcements from other border garrisons could arrive to intercept them.^[284]

The essential feature of defence-in-depth, according to Luttwak, was an acceptance that the Roman frontier provinces themselves would become the main combat zone in operations against barbarian threats, rather than the barbarian lands across the border. Under this strategy, border forces would not attempt to repel a large incursion. Instead, they would retreat into fortified strongholds and wait for mobile forces (comitatenses) to arrive and intercept the invaders. Border forces would be substantially weaker than under forward defence, but their reduction in numbers (and quality) would be compensated by the establishment of much stronger fortifications to protect themselves.^[285]

But the validity of Luttwak's thesis has been strongly disputed by a number of scholars, especially in a powerful critique by B. Isaac, the author of a leading study of the Roman army in the East (1992).^[286]^[287]^[288] Isaac claims that the empire did not have the intelligence capacity or centralised military planning to sustain a grand strategy e.g. there was no equivalent to a modern army's general staff.^[289] In any case, claims Isaac, the empire was not interested in "defence" at all: it was fundamentally aggressive both in ideology and military posture, up to and including the 4th century.^[290]

Furthermore, there is a lack of substantial archaeological or literary evidence to support the defence-in-depth theory.^[291] (a) J.C. Mann points out that there is no evidence, either in the Notitia Dignitatum or in the archaeological record, that units along the Rhine or Danube were stationed in the border hinterlands.^[292] On the contrary, virtually all forts identified as built or occupied in the 4th century on the Danube lay on, very near or even beyond the river, strikingly similar to the 2nd-century distribution.^[293]^[294]

Another supposed element of "defence-in-depth" were the comitatus praesentales (imperial escort armies) stationed in the interior of the empire. But Luttwak himself admits that these were too distant from the frontier to be of much value in intercepting barbarian incursions.^[295] Their arrival in theatre could take weeks, if not months.^[296] Although they are often described as "mobile field armies", in this context "immobile" would be a more accurate description. A traditional view is that the escort armies' role was precisely as a strategic reserve of last resort that could intercept really large barbarian invasions that succeeded in penetrating deep into the empire (such as the invasions of the late 3rd century). But this theory conflicts with the fact the large comitatus was not established before 312, by which time there had not been a successful barbarian invasion for ca. 40 years. Hence the mainstream modern view that the praesentales armies central role was as insurance against usurpers.^[23]

Luttwak terminates his analysis at the end of Constantine's reign, before the establishment of the regional comitatus. Unlike the imperial escort armies, these were close enough to the theatre of operations to succour the border troops. But their stationing may have differed little from the location of legions in the 2nd century, even though they apparently wintered inside cities, rather than in purpose-built legionary bases.^[297] For example, the two comitatus of Illyricum (East and West) are documented as wintering in Sirmium, which was the site of a major legionary base in the Principate.^[298]

Furthermore, the late empire maintained a central feature of Principate forward defence: a system of treaties of mutual assistance with tribes living on the imperial frontiers. The Romans would promise to defend the ally from attack by its neighbours. In return, the ally would promise to refrain from raiding imperial territory, and prevent neighbouring tribes from doing the same. Although the allies would officially be denoted tributarii (i.e. subject to paying tribute to Rome, in cash or in kind), in practice the loyalty of the ally was often secured by gifts or regular subsidies from Rome. This practice was applied on all the frontiers.^[299] The Romans continued to assist the client tribes to defend themselves in the 4th century. For example, Constantine I's army constructed two massive lines of defensive earthworks, 100–250 km beyond the Danube, totalling ca. 1,500 km (932 mi) in length, the Devil's Dykes in Hungary/Romania and the Brazda lui Novac de Nord in Romania. Garrisoned by a mix of Roman and native troops, their purpose was to protect Dacian and Sarmatian tributary tribes of the Tisza and Wallachian plains against Gothic incursions. This created a Transdanubian buffer zone, extending from Aquincum (Budapest) all the way to the Danube delta, obviously contradicting the proposition that the empire's Danubian border provinces were themselves envisaged as buffer zones.^[300] (This was especially unlikely in the case of these regions, as the Illyrian emperors and officer class that dominated the late army would hardly relish seeing their native provinces reduced to combat zones).

Late Roman emperors continued major and frequent offensive operations beyond the imperial borders throughout the 4th century. These were strikingly similar to the pincer movements described by Luttwak as being characteristic of forward defence in the early Principate. For example, Valentinian I's campaign against the Quadi in 375.^[301] Julian in 356–60 and Valentinian I in 368–74 carried out several operations across the Rhine and Danube designed to force the submission of local tribes and their acceptance of tributarii status.^[302]

The late army's "defence" posture thus contains many elements that are similar to the Principate army's, raising the question of whether defence-in-depth was ever in reality contemplated (or implemented) as a strategy. But the debate about defence-in-depth is still very much alive in academic circles.

Role of cavalry

Bas-relief of a Parthian heavily armoured mounted warrior. He is wearing what is probably a chain-mail face-guard. This is possibly the kind of armour denoted by the Roman term *clibanarius*, probably meaning "furnace man" in reference to the heat that would build up inside such all-encompassing armour. Note the armoured caparison for the horse. From Taq-e Bostan, Iran

A traditional thesis is that cavalry assumed a much greater importance in the 4th-century army than it enjoyed in the 2nd century. According to this view, cavalry increased significantly as a proportion of the total forces and took over the leading tactical role from the infantry. It also enjoyed much higher status than in the 2nd century. At the same time, the infantry declined in efficiency and value in operations, leaving the cavalry as the effective arm. In fact, there is no good evidence to support this view, and plenty of evidence against it.^[169]

As regards numbers, the mid-2nd century army contained ca. 80,000 cavalry out of ca. 385,000 total effectives i.e. cavalry constituted ca. 21% of the total forces.^[5] For the late army, about one third of the army units in the Notitia are cavalry, but in numbers cavalry were a smaller proportion of the total because cavalry units were on average smaller than infantry units. For example, in the comitatus, cavalry vexillationes were probably half the size of infantry legiones. Overall, the available evidence suggests that the proportion of cavalry was much the same as in the 2nd century. Examples: in 478, a comitatus of 38,000 men contained 8,000 cavalry (21%). In 357, the comitatus of Gaul, 13–15,000 strong, contained an estimated 3,000 cavalry (20–23%).^[303]

As a consequence, most battles in the 4th century were, as in previous centuries, primarily infantry encounters, with cavalry playing a supporting role. The main qualification is that on the Eastern frontier, cavalry played a more prominent role, due to the Persian reliance on cavalry as their main arm. This obliged the Romans to strengthen their own cavalry element, in particular by increasing the number of cataphracti.^[16]

The supposedly higher status of cavalry in the 4th century is also open to doubt. This view is largely based on underestimating the importance of cavalry in the 2nd century.^[169] Cavalry always had higher status than infantry in the Principate: in the time of Domitian (r. 81–96), auxiliary cavalry was paid 20–40% more than auxiliary infantry.^[304]

The view of some modern scholars that the 4th century cavalry was a more efficient service than the infantry was certainly not shared by Ammianus and his contemporaries. Ammianus describes three major battles which were actually or nearly lost due to the incompetence or cowardice of the Roman cavalry.^[305] (1) The Battle of Strasbourg (357), where the cavalry, including cataphracts, were routed by their German counterparts at an early stage, leaving the Roman infantry right wing dangerously exposed. After fleeing behind the infantry lines, it took the personal intervention of Julian to rally them and persuade them to return to the fight. (The cataphracts were later ordered to wear female clothes by Julian as punishment).^[306] (2) During his Persian campaign (363), Julian was obliged to sanction two cavalry units for fleeing when caught by surprise attacks (one unit was decimated, the other dismounted). Later, the Tertiaci cavalry regiment was ordered to march with the camp followers for deserting the field just as the infantry was on the point of breaking the Persian line. (3) At the Battle of Adrianople (378), the Roman cavalry was largely responsible for the catastrophic defeat. Scholae units started the battle by an unauthorised attack on the enemy wagon circle, at a moment when their emperor Valens was still trying to negotiate a truce with the Goths. The attack failed, and when the Gothic cavalry appeared, the Roman cavalry fled, leaving the Roman infantry left wing exposed. The Gothic cavalry then routed the Roman left wing, and the battle was as good as lost.^[307]

In contrast, the excellent performance of the infantry, both comitatenses and limitanei, is a recurrent feature of Ammianus' history. At the Persian siege of Amida, Ammianus' eye-witness account describes the city's defence by limitanei units as skilful and tenacious, if ultimately unsuccessful.^[308] At Strasbourg (357), the infantry showed remarkable skill, discipline and resilience throughout, saving the day at two critical moments.(see Battle of Strasbourg for a detailed account).^[309] Even at the disaster of Adrianople, the Roman infantry fought on, despite being abandoned by their cavalry and surrounded on three sides by overwhelmingly superior numbers of Goths.^[310]

Tactics

File:Missorium Valentinian.jpg

The Silver Missorium of Valentinian. An impression of what a Late Roman shield wall would look like, showing an emperor flanked by infantrymen. The shield insignia show close parallels to some illustrated in the Notitia.

Just as the armour and weapons of the late army were fundamentally similar to those of earlier eras, so the army's tactics were based on traditional principles. The key elements of systematic scouting, marching formation, battle array, fortified camping, and siegecraft were all followed intact in the late period.^[311] This section examines aspects of late tactics that differed significantly from Principate tactics.

One striking difference was that late army doctrine (and practice) aimed at avoiding open battle with the enemy if possible, unlike the early Principate doctrine of seeking to bring the enemy to battle as often and as quickly as possible.^[312]^[313] The main motivation was likely not a reduced ability to win such encounters. The late army continued to win the great majority of its battles with barbarians.^[314] Rather, the primary concern seemed to be the need to minimise casualties.^[312] Pitched battles generally resulted in heavy losses of high-grade comitatenses troops, which could not be easily replaced. This in turn supports the hypothesis that the late army had greater difficulty than the Principate in finding sufficient recruits, and especially high-quality recruits. The late army preferred to attack the enemy by stealth or stratagem: ambushes, surprise attacks, harassment and manoeuvres to corner the enemy in zones where they could not access supplies and from which they could not escape (e.g. by blocking mountain passes or river crossings).^[315]

Where battle could not be avoided, the late army broadly followed traditional practice as regards array. Heavy infantry would be drawn up in a main line, normally straight and several ranks deep. Mounted archers were stationed, together with light-armed slingers, in front of the main infantry line. Cavalry would be posted on the wings (light cavalry on the outside). Foot archers would form the rear rank(s) of the main infantry line.^[316] There would be a reserve infantry and cavalry line of variable size to the rear of the main line, in order to deal with breaches in the main line and to exploit opportunities. At a distance of a mile or so to the rear of the army, its fortified camp of the previous night would contain its assistants and baggage, guarded by a small garrison. The camp could act as a refuge if the army was put to flight. Roman armies in the field never camped overnight without constructing defences. A ditch would be dug around the perimeter of the camp, and the spoil used to erect a rampart, which would then be topped with a palisade of sharpened wooden stakes arranged cross-hatched to form an impenetrable screen. Such defences, systematically patrolled, effectively precluded surprise attacks and enabled the troops to get a good night's sleep.^[317]

Where the late army appears to have evolved to some extent is in battle tactics. The Principate army had relied on a barrage of heavy javelins (pila) followed by a shock infantry charge, which was often sufficient to shatter, or at least disorganise, the barbarian line. After that, legionaries were trained to engage in aggressive mano-a-mano combat, striking the enemy in the face with the boss of their heavy shields (scuta) and stabbing them viciously with short swords (gladii). In close combat, the Romans had the crucial advantage of superior armour, and such tactics very often resulted in the rout of the less well-equipped and trained barbarian foe.^[169] The mounted archers and slingers in front of the main infantry line would loose their missiles on the enemy before the infantry lines engaged and would then hastily retreat to the rear of their own infantry line, whence, in conjunction with the foot archers already there, they would loose a continuous rain of missiles on the enemy foot by shooting over the heads of their own infantry.^[318] The cavalry's task on each wing was to scatter the enemy cavalry facing them and then, if possible, to encircle the main body of enemy infantry and attack them from the flanks and rear.

In the late army, while the role of archers and cavalry remained similar, the infantry's tactics were less aggressive, relying less on the charge and often waiting for the enemy to charge.^[253] During the battle, the Roman line would exert steady pressure in close formation. The thrusting-spear (2–2.5m long) had replaced the gladius (just 0.5 m (1 ft 8 in) long) as the primary mêlée weapon.^[319] The extended reach of the thrusting-spear, combined with the adoption of oval or round shields, permitted a battle array where shields were interlocked to form a "shield wall". (Spears would protrude through the 'V' shaped gaps formed between overlapping shields).^[320]^[321] The late army also relied more heavily on missiles, replacing the single volley of pila with a more prolonged discharge of javelins and darts.^[253]

This kind of combat was consistent with the aim of minimising casualties and its efficacy is illustrated by the Battle of Strasbourg. The battle was primarily a struggle of attrition where steady pressure on the barbarians resulted in their eventual rout. Despite a long and hard-fought struggle, Roman casualties were negligible.^[322]

The "barbarisation" theory

Drawing of Flavius Stilicho, the barbarian-born general who was *magister utriusque militiae* (commander-in-chief) of West Roman forces 395–408. The general is depicted in the standard attire of a common foot soldier of the time when not in combat, wearing a *chlamys* (military cloak) over his tunic and carrying a heavy thrusting-spear and oval shield (in combat most late soldiers wore mail shirts and helmets). He was made a scapegoat for the barbarian invasions of 405–6, although in reality his military skill may have saved the West from early collapse. Derived (1848) from an ivory diptych at Monza, Italy

The barbarisation theory, ultimately derived from Edward Gibbon's 18th-century magnum opus, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, contains two propositions. (1) That the late army recruited much greater numbers of barbarian-born troops than the Principate army; and (2) that the greater number of barbarian recruits resulted in a major decline of the army's effectiveness and was a leading factor in the collapse of the Western Roman empire. As discussed above, proposition (1) is probably correct, although it should be borne in mind that probably about three-quarters of the late army's recruits remained Roman-born. This section discusses proposition (2).

According to this view, the barbarian officers and men recruited by the late army, coming from tribes that were traditional enemies of Rome, had no real loyalty to Rome and often betrayed her interests, colluding with invading barbarian tribes, especially if those tribes were their own. At the same time, the spread of barbarian customs and culture led to a decline in traditional military discipline, and internal army disunity due to friction between Romans and barbarians. Ultimately, the army degenerated into just a collection of foreign mercenary bands that were incapable of defending the empire effectively.^[186]

According to the historian A.D. Lee, there is little evidence to support this view and compelling reasons to reject it. Firstly, the late army clearly was not, and did not become, ineffective. The regular army in the West remained a formidable force until the political disintegration of the West in mid 5th century and continued to win most of its major encounters with barbarian forces e.g. the defeat of Radagaisus in 405.^[323] In any case, the Eastern empire did not collapse, even though its army probably contained at least the same proportion of barbarians as the West, if not greater. An analysis of the ethnicity of Roman army officers named in the sources shows that in the period 350–99, 23% were probably barbarian-born. The same figure for period 449–76 officers, virtually all Easterners (as the Western army had largely dissolved) was 31%. ^[324] In the Notitia, 55 Eastern regiments carry barbarian names, compared with 25 in the Western army.^[325]

Recorded incidents of alleged barbarian treachery in the regular army are very few and isolated. There is a tendency by some modern scholars to ascribe to ancient barbarians a degree of ethnic solidarity that did not exist, according to A.H.M. Jones. Germanic tribes were constantly fighting each other and even within such tribal confederations as the Franks or Alamanni there were bitter feuds between the constituent tribes and clans. Indeed, a primary reason why many tribal sub-groups surrendered to the Roman authorities (dediticii) and sought to settle in the empire as laeti was in order to escape pressure from their neighbours.^[326] The few known conflicts of loyalty only arose when the Roman army was campaigning against a barbarian-born soldier's own specific clan.^[327] Ammianus himself never characterises barbarian-born troops as unreliable.^[328] On the contrary, his evidence is that barbarian soldiers were as loyal, and fought as hard, as Roman ones.^[329]

Perhaps the most cogent objection to the theory is that barbarian-born troops appear to have been especially concentrated in the elite units of the imperial escort armies. In the crack auxilia palatina infantry regiments, the proportion of barbarians in the ranks appears to have numbered anywhere between a third and a half of effectives.^[330] This implies that they were considered highly reliable, as well as of first-rate combat capability.^[331]

In conclusion, the barbarisation theory is rejected by many scholars as regards the regular Roman army of the 4th century. On the contrary, it is likely that barbarian recruitment was crucial to the army's continued existence, by providing a badly-needed source of first-rate recruits.^[332]^[333]^[334]^[335]

Citations

^ Lee (1997) 212
^ Elton (1996) 110–5
^ Mattingly (2006) 247–8
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 50, 78
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Holder (2003) 120
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 56–8
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 80
^ ^a ^b Holder (2003) 145
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 58
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 60, 66
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 60
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 64–5
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 65–6
^ ^a ^b Tomlin (1988) 109
^ The Roman Law Library Constitutio Antoniniana de Civitate
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Goldsworthy (2003) 205
^ Goldsworthy (2000) 164–65
^ Holder (1982) 65
^ Goldsworthy (2000) 164
^ Tomlin (1988) 108
^ Goldsworthy (2000) 164–5
^ Tomlin (1988) 107
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Goldsworthy (2000) 170
^ Zosimus II.43
^ Tomlin (1988) 108
^ Jones (1964) 97
^ Mattingly (2006) 244
^ Holder (2003) 133
^ Tomlin (1988) 108
^ Mattingly (2006) 223
^ Goldsworthy (2000) 219
^ Jones (1964) 620
^ Dio Cassius LXXI.16
^ Holder (1980) 109–24
^ Jones (1964)25
^ Zosimus I.24
^ D. Ch. Stathakopoulos Famine and Pestilence in the late Roman and early Byzantine Empire (2007) 95
^ Zosimus I.16
^ Zosimus I.20
^ J. Kent The Monetary System in Wacher (1988) 576–7.
^ Duncan-Jones (1990) 115
^ Tomlin (1988) 110
^ Jones (1964) 32
^ Jones (1964) 29
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Jones (1964) 615
^ Elton (1996) 148–52
^ Goldsworthy (2000) 165
^ Zosimus I.22
^ Zosimus I.23
^ Jones (1964)
^ Victor 39.43
^ Eutropius IX.15
^ Hist. Aug. Probus 18
^ Eutropius IX.25
^ Victor 39.43
^ Jones (1964) 620
^ Zosimus II.40
^ Lee (1997) 221 (note 58)
^ Luttwak (1977) 177
^ Luttwak (1976) 177
^ Jones (1964) 61–2
^ Jones (1964) 68
^ Jones (1964) 17
^ Tomlin (1988) 111
^ Jones (1964) 681
^ Heather (2005)
^ John Lydus De Mensibus I.47
^ MacMullen (1979) 454
^ MacMullen (1979) 455
^ Jones (1964) 55–6
^ Jones (1964) 608
^ Goldsworthy (2000) 166
^ Jones (1964) 608
^ Jones (1964) 608
^ Jones (1964) 50
^ Heather (2005) 228
^ Jones (1964) 31
^ cf. Duncan-Jones (1994)
^ Jones (1964) 606, 627
^ Jones (1964) 100
^ Jones (1964) 613
^ Jones (1964) 608
^ Zosimus II.43
^ Jones (1964) 97
^ Elton (1996) 120
^ Jones (1964) 608
^ Mattingly (2006) 239
^ Jones (1964) 58
^ Zosimus II.54–5 (Translation in Jones (1964) 52)
^ Jones (1964) 52
^ Tomlin (1988) 111
^ Luttwak (1976) 179
^ Jones (1964) 125
^ Jones (1964) 608
^ Lee (1997) 216
^ Treadgold (1995) 45
^ Jones (1964) 125
^ Elton (1996) 94–5
^ Agathias History V.13.7–8; Jones (1964) 680
^ Jones (1964) 683
^ Elton (1996) 89
^ Heather (1995) 63
^ Duncan-Jones (1990) 105–17
^ Jones (1964) 681–2
^ Duncan-Jones (1990) 117
^ Coello (1996) 51
^ MacMullen (1979) 454
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 144–5
^ Goldsworthy (2000) 124–5 (map)(25 legions of 5,000 men each)
^ Holder (2003) 120 (28 legions of 5,500 each: double-strength 1st cohorts introduced in late 1st c.)
^ Goldsworthy (2000) 152–3 (map) (33 legions of 5,500 each)
^ Tacitus Annales IV.5
^ Assuming that auxilia would be expanded by the same amount as legions. J. C. Spaul ALA (1996) 257–60 and COHORS 2 (2000) 523–7 identify 4 alae and 20–30 cohortes raised in the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 58: 9 cohorts of 480 men each plus German bodyguards
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 58: 9 double-cohorts of 800 men each plus 2,000 equites singulares
^ Implied by Tacitus Annales IV.5
^ Hassall (2000) 320
^ MacMullen How Big was the Roman Army? in KLIO (1979) 454 estimates 438,000
^ MacMullen (1979) 455
^ John Lydus De Mensibus I.47
^ Elton (1996) 120
^ Applying mid-point unit size estimates to Notitia units
^ Lee (1997) 215–6
^ Goldsworthy (2000) 171
^ Elton (1996) 214–5
^ Jones (1964) 100, 609
^ Heather (2005) 246
^ Jones (1964) 609
^ Jones (1964) 609–10
^ Jones (1964) 100, 609
^ Notitia Dignitatum Titles IX and XI
^ Jones (1964) 613
^ Mattingly (2006) 245
^ Jones (1964) 631
^ Jones (1964) 631–2
^ Elton (1996) 208
^ Elton (1996) 208
^ Lee (1997) 214
^ ^a ^b Tomlin (1988) 113
^ Data from: Duncan-Jones (1990) 105–17; Elton (1996) 89; Goldsworthy (2003) 206; Mattingly (2006) 239
^ Jones (1964) 681
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 206
^ Jones (1964) 684
^ Jones (1964) 681–2
^ Elton (1996) 99
^ Duncan-Jones (1990) 105–70
^ Mattingly (2006) 239
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 123, 209
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 58
^ Woods (1996) 368–9
^ Barlow & Brennan (2001) 240–1
^ Jones (1964) 613
^ Elton (1996) 89
^ Jones (1964) 610
^ Elton (1996) 106
^ Elton (1996) 99
^ Luttwak (1976) 173
^ Jones (1964) 649–51
^ Elton (1996) 99
^ Lee (1997) 234
^ Goldsworthy (2000) 172
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 203
^ Tomlin (1988) 112
^ Elton (1996) 206
^ Goldsworthy (2000) 172
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 139
^ Goldsworthy (2000) 213
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 138
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Goldsworthy (2000) 169
^ Notitia Oriens.V
^ e.g. Notitia Oriens.XXXI
^ Elton (1996) 105
^ Elton (1996) 104
^ Jones (1964) 611
^ Rossi (1971) 104
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 204
^ Jones (1964) 611–2
^ Elton (1996) 92
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 77
^ Mattingly (2006) 356
^ Jones (1964) 614
^ Elton (1996) 134
^ Roman Diplomas Online Introduction
^ Jones (1964) 614, 616
^ Jones (1964) 617
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Goldsworthy (2003) 208
^ Lee (1997) 221–2
^ Vindolanda Tablets 166–77
^ Jones (1964) 633
^ Elton 1996) 89
^ Elton (1996) 154
^ Heather (2005) 119
^ Roman Military Diplomas Vols IV and V: Personnel tables
^ Tacitus, Germania 28; Dio Cassius, LXXI.11
^ Lee (1997) 222–3
^ www.roman-britain.org Table of auxiliary regiments
^ Zosimus books IV, V
^ Elton (1996) 144–5
^ Elton (1996) 148–9
^ Holder (1980) 109–24
^ Elton (1996) 136
^ Jones (1964) 619
^ Jones (1964) 619–20
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 118
^ http://www.le.ac.uk/ar/stj/ Retrieved 7 February 2008
^ http://s85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/dogpng1/KOLR/ Retrieved 7 February 2008
^ http://www.comitatus.net/trooptypes.htm Retrieved 6 February 2008
^ Elton (1996) 121–2
^ Jones (1964) 623
^ Elton (1996) 120–1
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 94
^ Duncan-Jones (1990) 35
^ Jones (1964) 31
^ Jones (1964) 647
^ Jones (1964) 626, 647
^ Jones (1964) 634
^ ^a ^b Goldsworthy (2003) 202
^ Based on: Jones (1964) 634; Goldsworthy (1995) 202; Holder (1980) 90–6
^ Jones (1964) 640, 643
^ Jones (1964) 636–40
^ Jones (1964) 640
^ Elton (1996) 101
^ Jones (1964) 642
^ Jones (1964) 640–1
^ Jones (1964) 641
^ Elton (1996) 91
^ Tomlin (1988) 115
^ Jones (1964) 639
^ Jones (1964) 641
^ Elton (1996) 107
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 120, 127
^ Mosaic from Piazza Armerina
^ Sumner and D'Amato, 7–9
^ Sumner and D'Amato, 37
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 129
^ Notitia Oriens.XI
^ Bishop and Coulston (2006) 208
^ Elton (1996) 111
^ Ammianus, XVI 10
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 137
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 126
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 123, 126
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 123, 205
^ Southern & Dixon (1996) 92–93
^ Bishop & Coulston (2006) 210–213
^ Bishop & Coulston (2006) 214–5.
^ Elton (1996) 115
^ Bishop & Coulston (2006) 217
^ Bishop & Coulston (2006) 202
^ Elton (1996) 110
^ Bishop & Coulston (2006) 205
^ Goldsworthy (2000) 167; (2003) 205
^ ^a ^b ^c Goldsworthy (2000) 168
^ Elton (1996) 108
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 206
^ Elton (1996) 161–71
^ Elton (1996) 236
^ Elton (1996) 237
^ Jones (1964) 831
^ Jones (1964) 843, 868
^ Jones (1964) 842
^ www.2.rgzm.de Merchant Vessels and Maritime Commerce in Roman Times
^ Jones (1964) 843
^ Jones (1964) 842
^ Jones (1964) 844
^ Notitia Oriens Titles XXXIX to XLII and Occidens Titles XXXII to XXXIV
^ Jones (1964) 834
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 88, 149
^ Elton (1996) 116
^ Notitia Titles Oriens XI, Occidens IX
^ Luttwak (1976) 134–5
^ Tacitus Historiae IV.22, 23, 29, 30, 60
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 206
^ Elton (1996) 161
^ Elton (1996) 163
^ Elton (1996) 162–3
^ Elton (1996) 164
^ Elton (1996) 165–7
^ Elton (1996) 167
^ Isaac (1992) 198
^ Luttwak (1976) 132–4
^ Mann (1979) 175–83
^ Luttwak (1976) Fig.3.3
^ Luttwak (1976) 136
^ Luttwak (1976) 132
^ J. C. Mann in Journal of Roman Studies 69 (1979)
^ F. Miller in Britannia 13 (1982)
^ Isaac (1992) 372–418
^ Isaac (1992) 378, 383, 401–6
^ Isaac (1992) 387–93
^ Mann (1979) 180–1
^ Mann (1979) 180
^ C. Scarre Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome (1995) 87 (map)
^ Elton (1996) 157, 159 (Fig 13)
^ Luttwak (1976) 190
^ Elton (1996) 215
^ Mann (1979) 181
^ Elton (1996) 209
^ Jones (1964) 611
^ Scarre Atlas 87
^ Ammianus XVI.11
^ Ammianus XXVII.10, XXVIII.2, XXIX.4, XXX.5,6
^ Elton (1996) 105–6
^ Hassall (2000) 336
^ Tomlin (1998) 117–8
^ Ammianus XVI.12
^ Ammianus XXXI
^ Ammianus XIX.1–8
^ Goldsworthy (2000) 176–7
^ Ammianus XXXI.13
^ Elton (1996) 243–63
^ ^a ^b Goldsworthy (2000) 182
^ Elton (1996) 216
^ Elton (1996) 218
^ Elton (1996) 216, 218–9
^ Arrian Acies contra Alanos
^ Elton (1996) 251–2
^ Goldsworthy (2000) 137
^ Elton (1996) 109
^ Ammianus XVI.12 (para. 44)
^ Lendon (2005) 261–268
^ Goldsworthy (2000)
^ Lee (1997) 233
^ Elton (1996) 148
^ Notitia Dignitatum passim
^ Jones (1964) 620
^ Jones (1964) 622
^ Jones (1964) 621–2
^ Elton (1996) 138
^ Elton (1996) 151
^ Lee (1997) 224
^ Jones (1964) 621
^ Elton (1996) 152
^ Lee (1997) 223–4
^ Goldsworthy (2003) 209

References

Ancient

Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman History (late 4th c.)
Zosimus, Historia Nova (5th century)
Notitia Dignitatum, Augustana (late 4th/early 5th c.)

Modern

Barlow and Brennan, J. & P. (2001). Tribuni Scholarum Palatinarum c. A.D. 353-64: Ammianus Marcellinus and the Notitia Dignitatum in The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 237–254.
Bishop and Coulston, M.C. & J.C.N. (2006). Roman Military Equipment From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, 2nd ed. ISBN 1-84217-159-3.
The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, vol. 2: Rome from the Late Republic to the Late Empire, ed. P. Sabin, H. van Wees and L.M. Whitby (Cambridge University Press 2007) ISBN 9780521857796
Coello, T. (1996). Unit Sizes in the late Roman Army.
Duncan-Jones, Richard (1990). Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy.
Duncan-Jones, Richard (1994). Money and Government in the Roman Empire.
Elton, Hugh (1996). Warfare in Roman Europe, AD 350–425. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198152415.
Goldsworthy, Adrian (2000). Roman Warfare.
Goldsworthy, Adrian (2003). Complete Roman Army.
Hassall, Mark (2000). "The Army" in Cambridge Ancient History 2nd Ed Vol XI (The High Empire 70–192).
Heather, Peter (2005). Fall of the Roman Empire.
Holder, Paul (2003). Auxiliary Deployment in the Reign of Hadrian.
Isaac, B. (1992). Limits of Empire.
Jones, A.H.M. (1964). Later Roman Empire.
Lee, A.D. (1997). "The Army" in Cambridge Ancient History 2nd Ed Vol XIII (The Later Empire 337–425).
Lendon, J.E. (2005). Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity. ISBN 978-0-300-11979-4.
Luttwak, Edward (1976). Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire.
Mattingly, David (2006). An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire.
Nicasie, M.J. (1998). Twilight of Empire: The Roman Army from the Reign of Diocletian until the Battle of Adrianople.
Rance, Philip, ‘Campidoctores, vicarii vel tribuni: the senior regimental officers in the late Roman army and the rise of the campidoctor’ in A.S. Lewin and P. Pellegrini (ed.), The Late Roman Army in the Near East from Diocletian to the Arab Conquest ([BAR Int. Ser. 1717] Oxford 2007) 395-409
Southern & Dixon, P. & K. (1996). The Late Roman Army. ISBN 0-300-06843-3.
Sumner & D'Amato, G. & R. (2002). Roman Military clothing (2) AD 200 to 400. ISBN 18417655970. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
Tomlin, R. S. O. (1988). "The Army of the Late Empire" in The Roman World (ed J. Wacher).
Woods, David (1996). "Subarmachius, Bacurius, and the Schola Scutariorum Sagittariorum" in Classical Philology, Vol. 91, No. 4 (Oct.), pp. 365–371, The University of Chicago Press.

External links

Late Roman army reenactors
Comitatus Historical reenactment and Living history group portraying the Late Roman army in northern England
Britannia Historical reenactment/Living history The largest (and oldest) Late Roman group in the UK, with members located around the country.

[1] Lee (1997) 212

[2] Elton (1996) 110–5

[3] Mattingly (2006) 247–8

[4] Goldsworthy (2003) 50, 78

[Holder_2003_120-5] Holder (2003) 120

[6] Goldsworthy (2003) 56–8

[7] Goldsworthy (2003) 80

[Holder_2003_145-8] Holder (2003) 145

[9] Goldsworthy (2003) 58

[10] Goldsworthy (2003) 60, 66

[11] Goldsworthy (2003) 60

[12] Goldsworthy (2003) 64–5

[13] Goldsworthy (2003) 65–6

[t109-14] Tomlin (1988) 109

[15] The Roman Law Library Constitutio Antoniniana de Civitate

[Goldsworthy_2003_205-16] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Goldsworthy (2003) 205

[17] Goldsworthy (2000) 164–65

[18] Holder (1982) 65

[19] Goldsworthy (2000) 164

[20] Tomlin (1988) 108

[21] Goldsworthy (2000) 164–5

[22] Tomlin (1988) 107

[g170-23] Goldsworthy (2000) 170

[24] Zosimus II.43

[25] Tomlin (1988) 108

[26] Jones (1964) 97

[27] Mattingly (2006) 244

[28] Holder (2003) 133

[29] Tomlin (1988) 108

[30] Mattingly (2006) 223

[31] Goldsworthy (2000) 219

[32] Jones (1964) 620

[33] Dio Cassius LXXI.16

[34] Holder (1980) 109–24

[35] Jones (1964)25

[36] Zosimus I.24

[37] D. Ch. Stathakopoulos Famine and Pestilence in the late Roman and early Byzantine Empire (2007) 95

[38] Zosimus I.16

[39] Zosimus I.20

[40] J. Kent The Monetary System in Wacher (1988) 576–7.

[41] Duncan-Jones (1990) 115

[42] Tomlin (1988) 110

[43] Jones (1964) 32

[44] Jones (1964) 29

[j615-45] Jones (1964) 615

[46] Elton (1996) 148–52

[47] Goldsworthy (2000) 165

[48] Zosimus I.22

[49] Zosimus I.23

[50] Jones (1964)

[51] Victor 39.43

[52] Eutropius IX.15

[53] Hist. Aug. Probus 18

[54] Eutropius IX.25

[55] Victor 39.43

[56] Jones (1964) 620

[57] Zosimus II.40

[58] Lee (1997) 221 (note 58)

[59] Luttwak (1977) 177

[60] Luttwak (1976) 177

[61] Jones (1964) 61–2

[62] Jones (1964) 68

[63] Jones (1964) 17

[64] Tomlin (1988) 111

[65] Jones (1964) 681

[66] Heather (2005)

[67] John Lydus De Mensibus I.47

[68] MacMullen (1979) 454

[69] MacMullen (1979) 455

[70] Jones (1964) 55–6

[71] Jones (1964) 608

[72] Goldsworthy (2000) 166

[73] Jones (1964) 608

[74] Jones (1964) 608

[75] Jones (1964) 50

[76] Heather (2005) 228

[77] Jones (1964) 31

[78] . Duncan-Jones (1994)

[79] Jones (1964) 606, 627

[80] Jones (1964) 100

[81] Jones (1964) 613

[82] Jones (1964) 608

[83] Zosimus II.43

[84] Jones (1964) 97

[85] Elton (1996) 120

[86] Jones (1964) 608

[87] Mattingly (2006) 239

[88] Jones (1964) 58

[89] Zosimus II.54–5 (Translation in Jones (1964) 52)

[90] Jones (1964) 52

[91] Tomlin (1988) 111

[92] Luttwak (1976) 179

[93] Jones (1964) 125

[94] Jones (1964) 608

[95] Lee (1997) 216

[96] Treadgold (1995) 45

[97] Jones (1964) 125

[98] Elton (1996) 94–5

[99] Agathias History V.13.7–8; Jones (1964) 680

[100] Jones (1964) 683

[101] Elton (1996) 89

[102] Heather (1995) 63

[103] Duncan-Jones (1990) 105–17

[104] Jones (1964) 681–2

[105] Duncan-Jones (1990) 117

[106] Coello (1996) 51

[107] MacMullen (1979) 454

[108] Goldsworthy (2003) 144–5

[109] Goldsworthy (2000) 124–5 (map)(25 legions of 5,000 men each)

[110] Holder (2003) 120 (28 legions of 5,500 each: double-strength 1st cohorts introduced in late 1st c.)

[111] Goldsworthy (2000) 152–3 (map) (33 legions of 5,500 each)

[112] Tacitus Annales IV.5

[113] Assuming that auxilia would be expanded by the same amount as legions. J. C. Spaul ALA (1996) 257–60 and COHORS 2 (2000) 523–7 identify 4 alae and 20–30 cohortes raised in the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries

[114] Goldsworthy (2003) 58: 9 cohorts of 480 men each plus German bodyguards

[115] Goldsworthy (2003) 58: 9 double-cohorts of 800 men each plus 2,000 equites singulares

[116] Implied by Tacitus Annales IV.5

[117] Hassall (2000) 320

[118] MacMullen How Big was the Roman Army? in KLIO (1979) 454 estimates 438,000

[119] MacMullen (1979) 455

[120] John Lydus De Mensibus I.47

[121] Elton (1996) 120

[122] Applying mid-point unit size estimates to Notitia units

[123] Lee (1997) 215–6

[124] Goldsworthy (2000) 171

[125] Elton (1996) 214–5

[126] Jones (1964) 100, 609

[127] Heather (2005) 246

[j609-128] Jones (1964) 609

[129] Jones (1964) 609–10

[130] Jones (1964) 100, 609

[131] Notitia Dignitatum Titles IX and XI

[132] Jones (1964) 613

[133] Mattingly (2006) 245

[134] Jones (1964) 631

[135] Jones (1964) 631–2

[136] Elton (1996) 208

[137] Elton (1996) 208

[138] Lee (1997) 214

[t113-139] Tomlin (1988) 113

[140] Data from: Duncan-Jones (1990) 105–17; Elton (1996) 89; Goldsworthy (2003) 206; Mattingly (2006) 239

[141] Jones (1964) 681

[142] Goldsworthy (2003) 206

[143] Jones (1964) 684

[144] Jones (1964) 681–2

[145] Elton (1996) 99

[146] Duncan-Jones (1990) 105–70

[147] Mattingly (2006) 239

[148] Goldsworthy (2003) 123, 209

[149] Goldsworthy (2003) 58

[150] Woods (1996) 368–9

[151] Barlow & Brennan (2001) 240–1

[152] Jones (1964) 613

[153] Elton (1996) 89

[154] Jones (1964) 610

[155] Elton (1996) 106

[156] Elton (1996) 99

[157] Luttwak (1976) 173

[158] Jones (1964) 649–51

[159] Elton (1996) 99

[160] Lee (1997) 234

[161] Goldsworthy (2000) 172

[162] Goldsworthy (2003) 203

[163] Tomlin (1988) 112

[164] Elton (1996) 206

[165] Goldsworthy (2000) 172

[166] Goldsworthy (2003) 139

[167] Goldsworthy (2000) 213

[168] Goldsworthy (2003) 138

[Goldsworthy_2000_169-169] Goldsworthy (2000) 169

[170] Notitia Oriens.V

[171] .g. Notitia Oriens.XXXI

[172] Elton (1996) 105

[173] Elton (1996) 104

[174] Jones (1964) 611

[175] Rossi (1971) 104

[176] Goldsworthy (2003) 204

[177] Jones (1964) 611–2

[178] Elton (1996) 92

[179] Goldsworthy (2003) 77

[180] Mattingly (2006) 356

[181] Jones (1964) 614

[182] Elton (1996) 134

[183] Roman Diplomas Online Introduction

[184] Jones (1964) 614, 616

[185] Jones (1964) 617

[g208-186] Goldsworthy (2003) 208

[187] Lee (1997) 221–2

[188] Vindolanda Tablets 166–77

[189] Jones (1964) 633

[190] Elton 1996) 89

[191] Elton (1996) 154

[192] Heather (2005) 119

[193] Roman Military Diplomas Vols IV and V: Personnel tables

[194] Tacitus, Germania 28; Dio Cassius, LXXI.11

[195] Lee (1997) 222–3

[196] www.roman-britain.org Table of auxiliary regiments

[197] Zosimus books IV, V

[198] Elton (1996) 144–5

[199] Elton (1996) 148–9

[200] Holder (1980) 109–24

[201] Elton (1996) 136

[202] Jones (1964) 619

[203] Jones (1964) 619–20

[204] Goldsworthy (2003) 118

[205] ttp://www.le.ac.uk/ar/stj/ Retrieved 7 February 2008

[206] ttp://s85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/dogpng1/KOLR/ Retrieved 7 February 2008

[207] ttp://www.comitatus.net/trooptypes.htm Retrieved 6 February 2008

[208] Elton (1996) 121–2

[209] Jones (1964) 623

[210] Elton (1996) 120–1

[211] Goldsworthy (2003) 94

[212] Duncan-Jones (1990) 35

[213] Jones (1964) 31

[214] Jones (1964) 647

[215] Jones (1964) 626, 647

[216] Jones (1964) 634

[Goldsworthy_2003_202-217] Goldsworthy (2003) 202

[218] Based on: Jones (1964) 634; Goldsworthy (1995) 202; Holder (1980) 90–6

[219] Jones (1964) 640, 643

[220] Jones (1964) 636–40

[221] Jones (1964) 640

[222] Elton (1996) 101

[223] Jones (1964) 642

[224] Jones (1964) 640–1

[225] Jones (1964) 641

[226] Elton (1996) 91

[227] Tomlin (1988) 115

[228] Jones (1964) 639

[229] Jones (1964) 641

[230] Elton (1996) 107

[231] Goldsworthy (2003) 120, 127

[232] Mosaic from Piazza Armerina

[233] Sumner and D'Amato, 7–9

[234] Sumner and D'Amato, 37

[235] Goldsworthy (2003) 129

[236] Notitia Oriens.XI

[237] Bishop and Coulston (2006) 208

[238] Elton (1996) 111

[239] Ammianus, XVI 10

[240] Goldsworthy (2003) 137

[241] Goldsworthy (2003) 126

[242] Goldsworthy (2003) 123, 126

[243] Goldsworthy (2003) 123, 205

[244] Southern & Dixon (1996) 92–93

[245] Bishop & Coulston (2006) 210–213

[246] Bishop & Coulston (2006) 214–5.

[247] Elton (1996) 115

[248] Bishop & Coulston (2006) 217

[249] Bishop & Coulston (2006) 202

[250] Elton (1996) 110

[251] Bishop & Coulston (2006) 205

[252] Goldsworthy (2000) 167; (2003) 205

[Goldsworthy_2000_168-253] Goldsworthy (2000) 168

[254] Elton (1996) 108

[255] Goldsworthy (2003) 206

[256] Elton (1996) 161–71

[257] Elton (1996) 236

[258] Elton (1996) 237

[259] Jones (1964) 831

[260] Jones (1964) 843, 868

[261] Jones (1964) 842

[262] www.2.rgzm.de Merchant Vessels and Maritime Commerce in Roman Times

[263] Jones (1964) 843

[264] Jones (1964) 842

[265] Jones (1964) 844

[266] Notitia Oriens Titles XXXIX to XLII and Occidens Titles XXXII to XXXIV

[267] Jones (1964) 834

[268] Goldsworthy (2003) 88, 149

[269] Elton (1996) 116

[270] Notitia Titles Oriens XI, Occidens IX

[271] Luttwak (1976) 134–5

[272] Tacitus Historiae IV.22, 23, 29, 30, 60

[273] Goldsworthy (2003) 206

[274] Elton (1996) 161

[275] Elton (1996) 163

[276] Elton (1996) 162–3

[277] Elton (1996) 164

[278] Elton (1996) 165–7

[279] Elton (1996) 167

[280] Isaac (1992) 198

[281] Luttwak (1976) 132–4

[282] Mann (1979) 175–83

[283] Luttwak (1976) Fig.3.3

[284] Luttwak (1976) 136

[285] Luttwak (1976) 132

[286] J. C. Mann in Journal of Roman Studies 69 (1979)

[287] F. Miller in Britannia 13 (1982)

[288] Isaac (1992) 372–418

[289] Isaac (1992) 378, 383, 401–6

[290] Isaac (1992) 387–93

[291] Mann (1979) 180–1

[292] Mann (1979) 180

[293] C. Scarre Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome (1995) 87 (map)

[294] Elton (1996) 157, 159 (Fig 13)

[295] Luttwak (1976) 190

[296] Elton (1996) 215

[297] Mann (1979) 181

[298] Elton (1996) 209

[299] Jones (1964) 611

[300] Scarre Atlas 87

[301] Ammianus XVI.11

[302] Ammianus XXVII.10, XXVIII.2, XXIX.4, XXX.5,6

[303] Elton (1996) 105–6

[304] Hassall (2000) 336

[305] Tomlin (1998) 117–8

[306] Ammianus XVI.12

[307] Ammianus XXXI

[308] Ammianus XIX.1–8

[309] Goldsworthy (2000) 176–7

[310] Ammianus XXXI.13

[311] Elton (1996) 243–63

[Goldsworthy_2000_182-312] Goldsworthy (2000) 182

[313] Elton (1996) 216

[314] Elton (1996) 218

[315] Elton (1996) 216, 218–9

[316] Arrian Acies contra Alanos

[317] Elton (1996) 251–2

[318] Goldsworthy (2000) 137

[319] Elton (1996) 109

[320] Ammianus XVI.12 (para. 44)

[321] Lendon (2005) 261–268

[322] Goldsworthy (2000)

[323] Lee (1997) 233

[324] Elton (1996) 148

[325] Notitia Dignitatum passim

[326] Jones (1964) 620

[327] Jones (1964) 622

[328] Jones (1964) 621–2

[329] Elton (1996) 138

[330] Elton (1996) 151

[331] Lee (1997) 224

[332] Jones (1964) 621

[333] Elton (1996) 152

[334] Lee (1997) 223–4

[335] Goldsworthy (2003) 209

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]

@@ Line 299: / Line 299: @@
 ===== Specialists =====
-The late Roman army contained a significant number of heavily armoured cavalry called ''[[cataphracts|cataphracti]]'' (from the Greek ''kataphraktos'', meaning "covered all over"). These were covered from neck to foot by [[scale armour|scale]] and/or [[lamellar armour|lamellar]], and their horses were often armoured also. Cataphracts carried a long, heavy lance called a ''[[contus]]'', ca. {{convert|3.65|m|0|abbr=on}} long, that was held in both hands. Some also carried bows.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 139</ref> The central tactic of cataphracts was the shock charge, which aimed to break the enemy line by concentrating overwhelming force on a defined section of it. A type of cataphract called a ''[[clibanarii|clibanarius]]'' also appears in the 4th century record. This term may be derived from Greek ''klibanos'' (a bread oven) or from a Persian word. It is likely that ''clibanarius'' is simply an alternative term to cataphract, or it may have been a special type of cataphract.<ref name="Goldsworthy 2003 205"/> This type of cavalry had been developed by the Iranic horse-based nomadic tribes of the Eurasian [[steppes]] from the 6th-century BCE onwards: the [[Scythians]] and their kinsmen the [[Sarmatians]]. The type was adopted by the [[Parthians]] in the 1st century BCE and later by the Romans, who needed it to counter Parthians in the East and the Sarmatians along the Danube.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 213</ref> The first regiment of Roman cataphracts to appear in the archaeological record is the ''ala I Gallorum et Pannoniorum cataphractaria'', attested in [[Pannonia]] in the early 2nd century.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 138</ref> Although Roman cataphracts were not new, they were far more numerous in the late army, with most regiments stationed in the East.<ref name="Goldsworthy 2000 169">Goldsworthy (2000) 169</ref>
+The late Roman army contained a significant number of heavily armoured cavalry called ''[[cataphracts|cataphracti]]'' (from the Greek ''kataphraktos'', meaning "covered all over"). These were covered from neck to foot by [[scale armour|scale]] and/or [[lamellar armour|lamellar]], and their horses were often armoured also. Cataphracts carried a long, heavy lance called a ''[[contus]]'', ca. {{convert|3.65|m|0|abbr=on}} long, that was held in both hands. Some also carried bows.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 139</ref> The central tactic of cataphracts was the shock charge, which aimed to break the enemy line by concentrating overwhelming force on a defined section of it. A type of cataphract called a ''[[clibanarii|clibanarius]]'' also appears in the 4th century record. This term may be derived from Greek ''klibanos'' (a bread oven) or from a Persian word. It is likely that ''clibanarius'' is simply an alternative term to cataphract, or it may have been a special type of cataphract.<ref name="Goldsworthy 2003 205"/> This type of cavalry had been developed by the Iranic horse-based nomadic tribes of the Eurasian [[steppes]] from the 6th-century BC onwards: the [[Scythians]] and their kinsmen the [[Sarmatians]]. The type was adopted by the [[Parthians]] in the 1st century BC and later by the Romans, who needed it to counter Parthians in the East and the Sarmatians along the Danube.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 213</ref> The first regiment of Roman cataphracts to appear in the archaeological record is the ''ala I Gallorum et Pannoniorum cataphractaria'', attested in [[Pannonia]] in the early 2nd century.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 138</ref> Although Roman cataphracts were not new, they were far more numerous in the late army, with most regiments stationed in the East.<ref name="Goldsworthy 2000 169">Goldsworthy (2000) 169</ref>
 Archer units are denoted in the ''Notitia'' by the term ''equites sagittarii'' (mounted archers) and ''sagittarii'' (foot archers, from ''sagitta'' = "arrow"). As in the Principate, it is likely that many non-''sagittarii'' regiments also contained some archers. Mounted archers appear to have been exclusively in light cavalry units.<ref name="Goldsworthy 2003 205">Goldsworthy (2003) 205</ref> Archer units, both foot and mounted, were present in the ''comitatus''.<ref>''Notitia'' Oriens.V</ref> In the border forces, only mounted archers are listed in the ''Notitia'', which may indicate that many ''limitanei'' infantry regiments contained their own archers.<ref>e.g. ''Notitia'' Oriens.XXXI</ref>

External images
Roman cataphract cavalryman^[205]
Reenactor as Roman cataphract^[206]
Reenactor as Late Roman archer^[207]

Revision as of 03:28, 22 September 2009

Sources

Evolution of the 4th-century army

Background: the Principate army

3rd-century developments

3rd-century crisis

Illyrian military junta

Diocletian

Constantine

Army size

Army structure

Command structure

Bases

Regiments

Unit sizes

Unit types

Scholae

Comitatenses (inc. palatini)

Limitanei

Specialists

Foederati

Recruitment

Romans

Barbarians

Ranks, pay and benefits

Common soldiers

Junior officers

Senior officers

Equipment

Clothing

Armour

Helmets

Shields

Hand weapons

Missiles

Supply infrastructure

Supply organisation

Supply transport

Weapons manufacture

Fortifications

Strategy and tactics

Strategy

Role of cavalry

Tactics

The "barbarisation" theory

Citations

See also

References

Ancient

Modern

External links