Talk:Late Roman army

Eastern army command structure

There has been some controversy among users about the article's high command structure chart for the Eastern army at the time the eastern Notitia was drawn up (ca. 395). It has been suggested that the duces limitis reported direct to the eastern emperor, and not, as shown in the chart, to the regional magistri militum. This is to clarify the basis for the chart.

Title I of the Eastern section of the Notitia Dignitatum, which is a summary of the rest, lists 5 magistri militum, 2 praesentales and 3 regional (per Illyricum, per Thracias and per Orientem); and 2 comites rei militaris (per Aegyptum and per Isauriam). All these posts are entered independently, and their holders thus presumably reported direct to the emperor.

In addition, 13 duces are listed, but these are divided under headings which, with one exception, correspond to the military districts of the 3 regional magistri and the comes per Aegyptum. The chart follows this list's dispositions. Against this view, it has been suggested that the ducal headings are simply geographical, showing the provinces/dioceses in which they were based. One dux, the one in command of Armenia, is listed under Pontica, a province, not a magisterial command. But this may simply be one of many minor errors that have crept into Notitia manuscripts as a result of centuries of copying by medieval monks.

Since civilian and military commands had been separated since Constantine I, the only alternative to the duces reporting to the magistri is that they reported direct to the emperor. But all the other available evidence shows that this was not the case. An imperial rescript (a letter with the force of a decree) dated AD 412, the same period as the Notitia (Codex Theodosianus VII. 17.1), is a letter to the magister per Thracias concerning the Danube flotillas under the command of the duces of Scythia and Moesia I. This was presumably in response to a letter from the magister on this subject. The emperor specifies how many lusoriae (military patrol boats) each flotilla should contain and authorises funds to bring them up to strength. Further imperial decrees of 438 and 442 show clearly that the magistri were in firm control over their duces. (Jones (1964) p.609). EraNavigator (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As Jones states (p609): "The 5th-century laws show clearly that the regional magistri retained authority over the comites and duces in their respective zones". The position did not change between the drafting of the eastern Notitia (ca. 395) and the period of these laws (412-442), as "by the end of the reign of Theodosius I [395] the system of command in the Eastern parts had been stabilised in the form set out in the Notitia, which survived substantially unchanged until the time of Justinian [525-65]" (Jones (1964) p609)

Indeed the supremacy of the magistri over the duces was established much earlier than the Notitia, possibly under Constantine I and certainly by the 360's (Jones (1964) p100).

I modified the caption of the East Army reporting structure. The Notitia dignitatum Occidentis, ch. 5, places all the previously (ch. 1, the 'general' list) mentioned duces sub dispositone magistri peditum, whereas the Notitia Dignitatum Orientis, which lists the Eastern duces in ch. 1, does never place them sub dispositione of any magister, the latter having under them vexillationes, legiones and auxilia (ch. 5–10). As it stands, therefore, this chart illustrates not the situation at the time of the Notitia Dignitatum – as was wrongly claimed in the former caption and still is in the embedded caption, which I cannot modify – but a second stage in the development of the Eastern command structure, only perceivable in 5th-century laws of the Theodosian Code, as Jones, in the pages referred to in the footnote, and no doubt the other authors, make very well clear. The possible difference between East and West around 400, were it only occasioned by the different date of the two halves of the Notitia, cannot be overlooked. It is not the first time that, with the very same arguments, I propose these changes. Each and every time they have been brutally removed by user EraNavigator, who has not spared me his impolite comments. For this, I publicly demand satisfaction. Besides, it is remarkable that the same user is now, as it seems, trying to mend his mistakes, yet with the data and references he had not really read before and which I pointed out to him. He still believes, however, that "the position did not change between the drafting of the eastern Notitia (ca. 395) and the period of these laws (412-442)" (how on earth can he state that?) and is still misrepresenting Jones's views in order to support his queer claims. Fredmont (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

User Fredmont persists in inserting his own personal interpretation of the Notitia into this article. But, as he has been advised before, his own opinions are inadmissible on Wikipedia articles. Only the opinions of published academic experts in the field may be presented. Fredmont is neither published, nor an academic, nor an expert in late Roman affairs (correct me if I am mistaken). For my part, I present the opinions of two experts, Jones Later Roman Empire (1964) and Elton Warfare in Roman Europe 350-425 (1996) - and they don't come more heavyweight than these two in this field.

To avoid Fredmont's baseless claim that I am misusing my sources, I shall quote verbatim from Jones:

Jones (p100) states that the supremacy of the magistri over the duces was established much earlier than the Notitia, "possibly under Constantine I and certainly by the 360's".

"The 5th-century laws show clearly that the regional magistri retained authority over the comites and duces in their respective zones". "By the end of the reign of Theodosius I [395] the system of command in the Eastern parts had been stabilised in the form set out in the Notitia, which survived substantially unchanged until the time of Justinian [525-65]" (Jones (1964) p609)

Taken together, these quotes show that Fredmont's theory that the duces reported to the emperor direct in 395 but by 412 (just 17 years later) were reporting to the magistri is just nonsense.

Elton (p201) concurs that the duces reported to their regional magister militum, not just in the 5th century, but throughout the period that he covers (i.e. from 350).

There is little else to be said. If Fredmont wants to present a different opinion, he must produce reputable academic references to support it. Even if he does so, he must still present the Jones/Elton view, to avoid taking sides in an academic dispute, which is prohibited by Wiki rules. In the meantime, I shall revert Fredmont's nth unreferenced amendment of the High Command Structure section.

PS: Apart from the referencing issue, it's a mystery to me what the basis of Fredmont's interpretation is. Although the East section does not use the same sub dispositione phrase as the West section, it is clear from Title I, where the 13 duces are listed under the known eastern magisterial commands that they reported to the relevant magister militum. EraNavigator (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The evidence that the duces reported to the magistri dates from well before the Notitia, from the 360's, with several examples in Ammianus Marcellinus. e.g. in 359, the magister militum Orientis, Ursicinus, faced with a massive Persian invasion, sent orders by despatch-riders from his HQ at Antioch to the dux of Mesopotamia, Cassianus, to evacuate the civilian population of his military district, esp. from the poorly fortified town of Carrhae, and to move them (and later his troops) to the heavily fortified town of Amida.(Ammianus XVIII.7.3). The late Roman army's operations were based on close coordination between the frontier forces and the diocesan comitatus. Clearly such operations would be impractical without a clear chain of command in theatre: if each dux operated independently, and only responded to orders from a distant court at Byzantium, coherent theatre operations would have been impossible. It stands to reason that the senior military officer in the diocese would have overall command of all forces deployed there. EraNavigator (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear EraNavigator. Your ideas of "unreferenced", "opinion", "academic dispute" and even "source" are all quite puerile. Please, keep in mind, that whatever does or does not stand to your reason might be little indicative of the average human intellect. I must hope that many brilliant people contribute to Wikipedia too. I'm not taking any side. I'm just reading a text as it is. You keep on quoting Jones and Elton – whose nuances you don't seem to understand at all – but the text of the Notitia is there and won't change dramatically with any new edition. Your statement that "it is clear from Title I, where the 13 duces are listed under the known eastern magisterial commands that they reported to the relevant magister militum" is the most surprising – I'm being very kind – thing I've ever heard about the Notitia Dignitatum and shows how little first hand experience you have with hard sources. Your evidence from Ammianus is indeed interesting, but I still stand by my reading, which is no doubt, as you would realize if you only read them really carefully, that of Jones and Elton as well as of most common Wikipedia users. That is: the Eastern Notitia does not formally subordinate duces to magistri militum as does the Western list. Whatever happens later, well, happens later. Anyone can check the text, which is my only reference. This is Cartesian. The context provided by the (illustrious) authorities you quote, is of course also important. But, as they surely recognize, an official document is an official document is an official document. Details cannot be overlooked. You are the one who is (over)interpreting a text which almost anyone can see and understand without your preachings. I think you should revert the article to my changes yourself. At least, I won't do it. Intelligent readers will form their own opinions. fm Fredmont (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed they will. And I am confident that all intelligent readers will conclude that I am right. In one pan of the balance, they will see User Fredmont's personal interpretation of the Notitia. In the opposite pan, they will see the views of two of the most distinguished scholars of late Roman affairs, plus the evidence from sources outside the Notitia that the duces reported to their diocesan magister militum in the periods both before AND after the Eastern Notitia was compiled in AD 395. It's no contest. EraNavigator (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

By 460, the western army had largely dissolved?

There is no citation allongside this dramatic statement. can anyone tell where this information is taken from?79.180.118.223 (talk)

Vegetius

The article claims that Vegetius had no military experience whatsoever - yet Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus states that practically nothing is known about Vegetius' life other than what he tells us in his writings. I somehow have my doubts that he would write in a military treatise that he had no military experience (though strictly speaking, it's not necessary for a theoretical study). So is there any basis for this statement? --84.46.60.45 (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As G. R. Watson observes, Vegetius' Epitoma "is the only ancient manual of Roman military institutions to have survived intact." Despite this, Watson is dubious of its value, for he [Vegetius] "was neither a historian nor a soldier: his work is a compilation carelessly constructed from material of all ages, a congeries of inconsistencies." Watson, The Roman Soldier, p. 25f. Apparently at least one expert author seems to think "Vege" was no soldier.Urselius (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Vegetius seems to have been one of the first armchair generals. He is typical of the kind of moralizing author who advocates return to hallowed old practice, even if it has nothing to do with contemporary realities. Compare Vegetius eulogy to the infantry legion with the attitude of a man who had seen actual warfare like Procopius: "Still there are those who take into consideration none of these things, who reverence and worship the ancient times, and give no credit to modern improvements". Constantine ✍ 20:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It is hard for people today, with ingrained ideas of "progress," to understand how powerful the concept of a bygone "Golden Age" was to the ancients. Most people considered that what was done in their father's day was better than the present - more moral, better organised, of superior workmanship etc. - and what was done in their grandfather's day was even finer.Urselius (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So do people today... From statements like "They don't build them like this any more", "Kids in my day were respectful" and "Today's music is horrible", to ideological concepts like Fascism, the paradigm of a decadent present versus a golden past is always present, especially in moments of crisis or rapid change (and in Vegetius' case, the 4th century was both). Just have a look at the present-day political discourse in the US, references to a better, "purer" past are everywhere. Constantine ✍ 10:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Tetrarchic Bromance

Somebody should really elaborate on the porphyric statue pictured at the beginning of this article. Look at the intense, bromantic hugging action! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronSheep ([[User talk:IronSheep|talk]] • contribs) 02:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a symbolical thing, you know... they aren't 'hugging' in a 'intense' way,it's a representation of the shared power and bonds of fealty they had. Simply look at this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_the_Four_Tetrarchs 80.183.56.101 (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ioannes Lydos' figure is the only one for the Tetrarchan army?

What about Agathias' figure and Zosimus' immediately post-Tetrarchan figures? 96.231.17.131 (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Picture used twice

As interesting as it is, I don't think that we need the picture of the shields from the Notitia Dignitatum to be displayed twice in the same article.--172.190.46.146 (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I would agree, I will delete one, but the Notitia figure showing shields and armour should be kept. Urselius (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Size of the Late Roman Army

The site lists the size of the late Roman Army as over 400,000 when in actuality it was much lower. In fact, for both empires it couldn't have been much larger than 250,000 men. The Italian Field Army and Limitanei only numbered less than 40,000 at its height, and looking at the army listings for Gaul and Spain+Africa were the same that gives a max of about 90,000 men. The ERE had a slightly larger force, probably more in the vicinity of 120,000 men. Both Goldsworthy and Heather state this with sources to back it up. MMFA (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Treadgold estimates 645,000. Even Strobel, a relative low-counter, estimates 450,000 in the reign of Constantine I. Are you only counting the field armies? Ananiujitha (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Why stop at 395?

I don't understand why the "late Roman army" would only go to 395. I for one, would keep using the term for the western army until, say, the defeat of Odovacer, and for the eastern army at least until the reorgnizations which Treadgold attributes to Anastasius. Ananiujitha (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Length of the Article

Am I the only one having trouble with this article? Its size makes it hard to follow, and hard to find individual sections. I think it would help to break out some of the sections into their own articles, or to use these sections to update/expand sister-articles, and then retain an extended summary in the main article. Ananiujitha (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

One possible solution would be to devote one article to the reorganizations traditionally associated to Diocletian and/or Constantine I, and another article running to the collapse in the west and either the reorganizations of Anastasius [leaving the armies known through Procopius and Mauricius to another article], or run straight through to the reorganizations of Constans II. Ananiujitha (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I am thinking of forking the "Barbarisation" theory into its own article, and trimming the section here. However, I'm not sure I want to deal with expanding the forked article. Just an idea that may help with the length issues. Ananiujitha (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A large undertaking, you will also need to create a box of some sort in which all the Late Roman military articles can be contained, for ease of use of the reader.

Thinking about it, I suppose you could make an argument for a time division at, say, 376. That's a major landmark in the history of the army, when the Empire started to lose control over its best recruiting grounds and seems generally to have stopped bothering to give recruits effective training or officers any central encouragement to present a disciplined fighting force. We do have the Notitia Dignitatum for the later period, and there are various post-376 comments about commanders who couldn't find enough actual Roman troops to command. But, on balance, I wouldn't personally bother to split the article. If you want to try, good luck. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about creating boxes, but that's already an issue. Ananiujitha (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As the original author of this article, I oppose splitting it up. It is long, but that's because it's a big subject. The period covered is 284-ca. 420. This is appropriate, as the latter date is when the Western Army started to disintegrate. Clearly it is nonsensical to choose an arbitrary cut-off date of say 376, as this exludes the period when the Notitia Dig was drafted (395-420). This document constitutes our main evidence for the Late army.EraNavigator (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The term ... has been used in modern scholarship to denote

What is the reason for this weasely redundancy in the lead? It also goes against WP:REFERS. 14:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the soldiers of the Roman army thought of themselves as just that, they were soldiers of the Roman army. Modern scholarship sees a difference between the Roman Republican army, the army of the Roman Principate and the late Roman army. It is a label of convenience slapped on to an institution with an uninterrupted history from the legendary foundation of Rome c. 700BC to 1453AD, when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks. Consider a soldier who joined the Roman army in the reign of Aurelian, as a veteran when Diocletian was elevated to the rank of emperor, did he say "Damn, I've just left the Imperial Roman army and joined the Late Roman army"? Of course not, he was in the same army. There are no weasels, just reality - some things are not simple, they are equivocal and this has to be flagged - WP:REFERS notwithstanding. Urselius (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"Modern scholarship" is redundant. Everything in wikipedia is modern scholarship unless explicitly stated otherwise. The article also is not about the term, it is about a topic. It is absurdly obvious that someone in the Roman army doesn't use a modern English term. "Has been used" implies that now some other term is used. I still stand by my edit. Bhny (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

'Late Roman army' is not the only term used, 'later Roman army' and 'army of the Dominate' have also been used. Also the article is not about a thing in the way that an elephant is a thing, it is about an artificial construct recognised by scholarship, the thing involved is 'the Roman army'. Unlike an elephant, which starts at a trunk and ends with a tail, the late Roman army has no universally accepted beginning and end - it could be interpreted at its widest as from the end of the Severan dynasty to the reign of Heraclius, or as narrowly as from the accession of Constantine the Great to 476 when Romulus Augustulus was deposed by Odovacar. To speak of it as if it were cut-and-dried and neatly tied up in ribbons is not encyclopaedic, encyclopaedias should include equivocal language where certainty is missing. Urselius (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Using language like "term used to denote" has nothing to do with showing that it is an artificial construct with debatable beginning and end. It is not equivocal, it is just redundant. Does the article on Ancient Rome begin with "The term"? We could also say "The term elephant has been used by modern scholarship to denote a large mammal of the family Elephantidae". It adds nothing. Bhny (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope that this diff addresses the concerns you have both expressed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is better. thanks Bhny (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I made some further minor alterations, chiefly adding links to the two post-295 halves, and removing the "unchanged" from the infobox re the East Roman army, as the army of Justinian, let alone of Maurice or Heraclius, was certainly not the same as that of Theodosius. In addition, shouldn't there be some mention in the lede that the "Late Roman army" is essentially the army of the Dominate, and/or that this period coincides with Late Antiquity, to tie this in the wider socio-political and historical context? Constantine ✍ 21:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

We should all remember that, if the exact period needs to be debated, we need sources, not our own ideas. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Late Roman army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130813062403/http://2.rgzm.de/ to http://www.2.rgzm.de/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)