The demise of the legions

[nokhor]

When did the legions in the classical post-Marian reforms die out? By that i mean heavy infantry organized into cohorts and organized in the famous checkerboard fashion.

And if it is a separate question, When did the legion numbers die out such as the Tenth Legion or the Fifteenth?

[Hakonarson]

IIRC the last recorded legion was V Macedonia as a border garrison somewhere in Egypt in early Byzantine times.

The 10 cohorte legion started to break up in the 2nd century AD, with detatchments of a couple of cohortes often sent all around the place.

At the start of the 4th century AD I think it was Constantine who designed a new style legion of about 1200 men, possibly 1/3rd of them (400 men) being light missile troops. The size suggests that many of these new legions were based upon existing detachments that had never rejoined their "mother" units.

(that's all from memory so I'm perfectl willing to be corrected&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Shogun 144]

Hmmmm



I did an Article for the free ware game that I work for on the Late Roman Army. And accroding to my sources the "classical" Legionnaire died out in the mid-late 3rd century AD. I could be wrong though.

[The Wizard]

Apparently the Romans failed against, for instance, the Goths, because a large part of their army was now no longer Roman, and thus loyal to the Emperor, but Roman-barbarian from the former barbarian lands... who were not loyal and even joined the Goths/Germans/Huns http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

And the 100 men in a centurie, made up of 10 men in a decurie that shared a tent, was decreased to 8 men in a "decurie" and thus 80 men in a "centurie"... making the Legions slightly smaller. Don't ask me who thought that up... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kataphraktoi]

By the 6th century, the Byzantine army descended from the Roman legions gradually disappeared into mediocrity due to Justinian's poor set of priorities. The only argument of the legions surviving would be in the Thematic armies of the 7th century. The Thematic armies were reformed by combining or transferring armies from one location to another. Eg. THracesion theme - descended from the Army of Thrace or remnants of it. Armeniakon - Army of Armenia
Another link would be the Tagmata of the Scholae, Excubitores, etc - some of them were descended from the Praesantal armies with even more deeper links.

[Hakonarson]

There's no evidence that the Roman troops of the alter empire weer any worse than those of the earlier one - contrary to popular opinion the roman army did NOT degenerate - it continued to win battles more often than it lost.

The main problem was the social disintigration of Rome, not a military one.

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Oct. 16 2003,08:53)]Apparently the Romans failed against, for instance, the Goths, because a large part of their army was now no longer Roman, and thus loyal to the Emperor, but Roman-barbarian from the former barbarian lands... who were not loyal and even joined the Goths/Germans/Huns http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

And the 100 men in a centurie, made up of 10 men in a decurie that shared a tent, was decreased to 8 men in a "decurie" and thus 80 men in a "centurie"... making the Legions slightly smaller. Don't ask me who thought that up... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I tell you never elect arabs to run rome http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

if you did'nt get it,try www.roman-emperors.com and do a check on Phillip the Arab,apparently he lost to the goths and had to hand over the command to another roman general.

[Hurin_Rules]

I think the third century is a bit early.

Vegetius, who wrote on how the legion should be organized, wrote sometime in the late fourth or early fifth century. Now, granted, he was probably describing the legion as it had been/should be, rather than it how it was. But doesn't the Notitia Dignitatum still describe legions? Didn't it date from the late 3rd century?

[ShaiHulud]

Nokhor...

Here's a fantastic site where I'm certain you can find the answer (or answers) to your questions. It's run by a former member of this forum and there are several names there you might recognize. (Catilene, for one)

http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk

I read recently regarding the failure of the Roman army, enough to conclude that a lot of factors induced that failure. Greater inclusion of 'barbarians' that were unsuited to army discipline contributed. Aetius' Roman ranks were dismissed by Attila as unworthy of respect. The majority of Aetius' army consisted of allied nations forces, not Roman legions.

I was surprised to find that the Roman soldier then no longer wore much armor. A helm and a shield were the heaviest part of it. Considering that the armies that destroyed Western Rome were predominantly foot, the repeated defeats of the, once preeminent, Roman foot soldier reveal serious deterioration in skill and discipline.

Worse, shortly after Attila was defeated, Aetius was unable to even raise an army.

Various laws had been issued in the past which, at first, promised execution for citizens who CUT OFF THEIR THUMBS to avoid military service. Later revisions stated that even those who had done so must still serve. The collapse of the Roman army was, at least in part, from a broad lack of support for the Empire by its subjects.

[Hurin_Rules]

I have to disagree with what some of you are saying, specifically comments like this:

"Greater inclusion of 'barbarians' that were unsuited to army discipline contributed."

Why is a barbarian any less suited to discipline than a Roman? If they go throught the same training process, they come out more or less the same. Gauls were renowned for their size and prowess and produced some of the finest legionaires Rome ever had.

The real problem is that the system of training itself was given up. Why? Romans didn't want to enter the army any more. The empire was desperate for recruits. In the second and early third centuries, these recruites were still given the full training and equipment once given to legionarries. As Rome suffered civil war and military defeat in the later third and fourth centuries, the system was strained. By the time of the Visigothic invasion, the Romans in charge of the armies stopped putting all new recruits through the traditional legionary training process and simple accepted barbarians en masse, with their tribal organization, weaponry and tactics, as 'Roman' armies.

The point being: the legions didn't disappear because barbarians are undisciplined, they disappeared because the Romans themselves gave up the disciplining process in all their armies. Vegetius treatise, from precisely this time, states exactly that.

[ShaiHulud]

Hurin...

I don't see that we have any disagreement, at all

"The real problem is that the system of training itself was given up. Why? Romans didn't want to enter the army any more. The empire was desperate for recruits."

The Roman empire changed its grand strategy and opted for minimal coverage of the borders and large, mobile, forces in the interior to react to an invasion. Perforce, those mobile armies greatly consisted of cavalry. Again, perforce, those armies consisted of mainly of Gallic, German, and British recruits. The training of Roman foot soldiers, as in the past, was de-emphasized. Legions actually were reduced to 1000 in total complement. The border forces were neglected and, in the end, were virtually useless.

The 'en masse' armies were actually now independent forces belonging to autonomous nations within Rome. They had access to Roman arms but they were distinct in their training. They fought as their national character bade them fight, with their own training and tactics, not as Roman legions of old.

If our difference is what caused the legions to deteriorate, then we have little to argue about. Whether the egg or the chicken came first, the final result is the same.

[Hurin_Rules]

Yes, i agree with you Shai. I just get a bit annoyed sometimes with the suggestion that the barbarians were genetically less disciplined than the Romans. That's sure how the Romans liked to think of things, but really, the differences between the two peoples were more social than anything else.

[Pindar]

From what I have read, organized disciplined infantry remained a mainstay of the East Roman military up through the Seventh Century. Even with German troops representing a larger portion of Imperial forces, many comentators reference the discipline of Roman infantry as the key distinction between themselves and their opponents. After the initial defeats incurred during the first phase of the Arab expansion the Byzantine strategic situation vastly changed. A growing percentage of cavalry was relied upon to counter the raiding parties of Arabs along the borders. The Theme system was also counter to allowing the necessary training to maintain a legion infantry approach.

[Scipio]

Well despite what you would think they are not the elite fighting force on its own it needs good generals and such and that for when they where on the rise they really didnt have to go to far to fight In italy very easily and they just couldnt cope with having to defend place 100000's miles away from home also expansion went to fast making the army more spread out and after a while You would think that enemies of rome would fine certain flaws in the roman army and exploit them. all in all they should of just stayed to the west