StarDestroyer.Net BBS

While many people like to attribute the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the collapse of the Western Roman army, I think it is a much more interesting to ask when did the Western Roman Army collapse as an effective fighting force.

There are several points in time brought forward by many people, such as the battle of Adrianople, Battle of the Frigidus, the assassination of Stilicho and assassination of Aetius.

In my opinion, I would say that the fall of the Western Roman army occurred when Stilicho was assassinated, with many troops under the command of Stilicho defecting from the Roman Empire. While Aetius did assemble an army capable of fighting off the Huns, that army is in my opinion extremely reliant on Roman allies. It seems to me that by that time, the Western Roman Army is unable to fight off any threat to its existence without requiring external help.

So in your opinion, when do you think the Western Roman Army collapsed as an effective army?

--Bad Grammar fixed by Sheppypoo

I'm not sure it was incapable, but more wasn't utilized properly. The Romans may have been more concerned with Roman foes then barbarian ones, and they may have been keeping their strength in reserve to guard against usurpations.

ray245 wrote:While many people like to attribute the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the collapse of the Western Roman army, I think it is a much more interesting to ask when did the Western Roman Army collapse as an effective fighting force.

There are several points in time brought forward by many people, such as the battle of Adrianople, Battle of the Frigidus, the assassination of Stilicho and assassination of Aetius.

In my opinion, I would say that the fall of the Western Roman army occurred when Stilicho was assassinated, with many troops under the command of Stilicho defecting from the Roman Empire. While Aetius did assemble an army capable of fighting off the Huns, that army is in my opinion extremely reliant on Roman allies. It seems to me that by that time, the Western Roman Army is unable to fight off any threat to its existence without requiring external help.

Not true. Even in the time of Ricimer the Roman Empire was still able to hold its own. Aetius's army was still able to reconquer the Rhine Border. Blanket statements like this really do nothing. The question you want to ask is "when did the roman army stop being distinctly superior to its enemies"? To which the answer would be: "Somewhere along the later half of the fourth century".

Setzer wrote:I'm not sure it was incapable, but more wasn't utilized properly. The Romans may have been more concerned with Roman foes then barbarian ones, and they may have been keeping their strength in reserve to guard against usurpations.

And where is the reserve army you are talking about?

Not true. Even in the time of Ricimer the Roman Empire was still able to hold its own. Aetius's army was still able to reconquer the Rhine Border.

Doesn't it still depends heavily on their allies? If the army is unable to mount a campaign independently, then there's really not much point in calling it a functional army.

ray245 wrote:Doesn't it still depends heavily on their allies? If the army is unable to mount a campaign independently, then there's really not much point in calling it a functional army.

That point is pretty much self-defeating. By that standard, the Byzantine army of Belisar is not functional.

Thanas wrote:

ray245 wrote:Doesn't it still depends heavily on their allies? If the army is unable to mount a campaign independently, then there's really not much point in calling it a functional army.

That point is pretty much self-defeating. By that standard, the Byzantine army of Belisar is not functional.

Then again, the Belisarius's army is only a faction of the entire Byzantine army, so I won't say that is a valid comparison.

ray245 wrote:

Thanas wrote:

ray245 wrote:Doesn't it still depends heavily on their allies? If the army is unable to mount a campaign independently, then there's really not much point in calling it a functional army.

That point is pretty much self-defeating. By that standard, the Byzantine army of Belisar is not functional.

Then again, the Belisarius's army is only a faction of the entire Byzantine army, so I won't say that is a valid comparison.

Any roman army is only a fraction of the entire army. You do not think they left no reserves behind, do you?

Thanas wrote:
Any roman army is only a fraction of the entire army. You do not think they left no reserves behind, do you?

I thought that the army of Belisarius is rather small part of the entire Byzantine army? In comparison, the army of Aetius being a rather large portion of the WRA.

By holding it in reserve I mean they don't send it out to battle for fear of other enemies. Like, they need a loyal general in Gaul to make sure another one doesn't have his barracks buddies declaring him Emperor, so neither force goes out to fight the barbarians.

ray245 wrote:

Thanas wrote:
Any roman army is only a fraction of the entire army. You do not think they left no reserves behind, do you?

I thought that the army of Belisarius is rather small part of the entire Byzantine army? In comparison, the army of Aetius being a rather large portion of the WRA.

You will of course cite figures?

Thanas wrote:

ray245 wrote:

Thanas wrote:
Any roman army is only a fraction of the entire army. You do not think they left no reserves behind, do you?

I thought that the army of Belisarius is rather small part of the entire Byzantine army? In comparison, the army of Aetius being a rather large portion of the WRA.

You will of course cite figures?

I'll get back to you ASAP.

Let's assume that the Praesental army was still at full strength at the time of Aetius, which would give us a figure of 20,000 troops in Italy. Aetius managed to draw upon 30,000 men ( which includes are large number of Roman allies) for the battle of Chalons.

Aetius army is roughly half of the empire Roman army.

Whereas, Belisarius's army on the other hand, commanded 30,000 men in the battle of Dara, and once again assembling up to 16,000 men for his campaign in Africa. That is a rather small size, given that the Eastern Roman army under Justinian consist of 300,000 men. (Haldon 1999: 99-100)

Correct me if I am any major mistakes.

ray245 wrote:Let's assume that the Praesental army was still at full strength at the time of Aetius, which would give us a figure of 20,000 troops in Italy. Aetius managed to draw upon 30,000 men ( which includes are large number of Roman allies) for the battle of Chalons.

Aetius army is roughly half of the empire Roman army.

Whereas, Belisarius's army on the other hand, commanded 30,000 men in the battle of Dara, and once again assembling up to 16,000 men for his campaign in Africa. That is a rather small size, given that the Eastern Roman army under Justinian consist of 300,000 men. (Haldon 1999: 99-100)

Correct me if I am any major mistakes.

Well, as the general size goes, these numbers are probably correct. However note that this does not speak to a collapse at all. What you were asking for is an indication that the Roman Army collapsed, ergo not being able to defeat its enemies in the field any longer. The numbers you cited are not proof of that - the mere fact that they were able to defeat the huns is pretty much proving the opposite.

You would have a better chance arguing the same about the aftermath of the death of Aetius, when the army could not protect Italy for a time, or for the army of Ricimer which was nowhere near effective, but neither army collapsed.

However, note that Belisars army included a large portion of foederati as well. Most notably Narses army included several thousand langobards. Also note that it was nearly the entire effective reserve as well, for most of the large number of men you cite were very stationary and could not be deployed elsewhere - as seen in the subsequent invasion of Italy by the Lombards, where the Byzantines could not put enough men in the field.

So in short - that is not really an argument for collapse. It is an argument for a much diminished army, but not an argument for collapse.

Thanas wrote: However, note that Belisars army included a large portion of foederati as well. Most notably Narses army included several thousand langobards. Also note that it was nearly the entire effective reserve as well, for most of the large number of men you cite were very stationary and could not be deployed elsewhere - as seen in the subsequent invasion of Italy by the Lombards, where the Byzantines could not put enough men in the field.

I thought that by Justinian's time, the foederati consist of a large number of roman citizens as well?

The Lombards and the Huns making up a large portion of Belisar's forces certainly did not.