Roman Organisation
Bookmark this page

ROMAN ORGANISATION, ARMS AND EQUIPMENT

Definition of relationship barbarian troops under Roman command, foederati, not possible.

Once ny special character of foederati lost – difference become invisible. – no reason to expect that they differed in size from regular Roman unit

Similarities to regular regiments appear more apparent than differences.

Foederati different to allies – allies, usually via treaty, large indivisible groups of Barbarians used for one off purposes – Goths used against Eugenius in 394.

Debate as to whether cavalry became more and important as our period progresses  - Dennis argues for this suggesting increased mobility needed and fact that opponents were more mobile.

No major change equipment 350 – 425 – without much technological development, any ne equipment / tactics unlikely – only internal reasons could have induced change in this period.

FINANCE
Military finance major concern during this period – consumed most of imperial budget and became difficult to cope with during 5^th century in the West.

Income of the empire was decreasing – 95% of state income based on the land – reduction in land, disruption caused by wandering tribes etc.

Short term expense of raising new troops made hiring allies an attractive option when troops needed for a short period only, like usurpations.

One reason for problems on successio was fact that ta needed to be raised to pay donatives – amounts paid to soldiers when new emperor.

Western Roman income fell dramtically during the early 5^th century  - Valentinian III “from the revenue which is with difficulty collected fro the exhausted taxpayer provision cannot be made for feeding and clothing even the old army, not to speak of newly levied troops”.  Still troop numbers maintained wit more use of allies, still complaints of shortages etc – according to Whittaker: “The costs of the army and the bureaucracy were not the economic millstone which sank the Roman Empire”

RECRUITMENT

4^th and 5^th centuries recruits drawn from inside and outside the empire.

Barbarisation: plenty of modern historians suggest that it happened and that its effects were deleterious.

Evidence for barbarisation:

1. Increased use of Barbarians allies
2. People complain about numbers of barbarians
3. More an more barbarian names.

Were barbarians more treacherous than the Romans?  EA Thompson finds it unlikely that recruitment would have continued if this was the case.

Very few contemporary sources mention that barbarians were prone to desertion, any explanation had little to do with nationality.

So far little evidence for detrimental impact of the barbarians on the army so why were there purges in the 4^th and 5^th century?  Barbarian groups not suffered because they were barbarians but because of their involvement in dubious activity

Modern historians cite a detrimental impact on army’s conduct, equipment, clothing of Barbarians – contemporaries are silent on such problems

Statistical evidence used by Elton suggests proportion of Barbarians did not increase dramatically in the period studied, also data shows that being barbarian had no effect on promotion.  Armies effectiveness does not seem to have been effected by Barbarians.

Boak and Crump suggest that late Roman Army suffered from manpower shortages, no direct evidence for this, number of arguments adduced to support this idea – contempoaries suggest existing one not doing their jobs as opposed to shortages.

Little evidence for injection of barbarians as a symptom of shortages, pretty persistent feature; why would the authorities have allowed the commutation of troops for payments if there were shortages>

Big drives before campaigns sued to suggest difficulties in recruiting, but shows army often under-strength but no problem in recruiting during times of need – large numbers of exclusions from the army during the period: coloni, curiales, salves, workhouses etc

Arguments for shortage of manpower in the Late Roman Army seem doubtful – whatever deficiencies there were do not seem to have seem insuperable.

FOREIGN POLICY

Principle of centralisation in decision making remained intact during the whole period.

Was there any central policy?  Survival of empire, most operations defensive in nature, almost inevitably given the size of the empire.

No grand strategy for defending the empire, merely reactions to crises as they occurred, despite loss of land in 5^th century Roman policy remained reactive and few attempts to regain territory.

Treaty relations with many tribes on the border – use of embassies and diplomats was common.

Use of allies effective in that it restored order without significant resources – problems if Roman state not strong enough to control Barbarians.

Use of subsidies to placate enemies seen as a particular weakness to the late Roman empire; had existed since first century and cheaper in financial and social terms than campaigning. Seen as a successful or problematic policy depending on viewpoint – always good propaganda for the opposition though.

USURPERS
Once a rebellion had taken place it was a problem often needed a military solution.

Importance of Africa shown by attempts to seize it in East-West civil wars

Other Notes in this Category

1. Barbarian Organisation
2. Barbarians and Bishops
3. Crisis 439
4. Introduction
5. Nomadism, Horses and Huns
6. Roman Organisation
7. Roman Strategy against Barbarians
8. The Huns
9. The Huns and the end of the Roman Empire - Peter Heather
10. Vandals and the Collapse of the west
11. Would Empire have collapsed without the huns?

Didn't find this useful?

• Visit Coursework.Info for over 14,000 GCSE, A-Level and University Essays