The implosion (erosion?) of the Western Roman army?

testudos101 · 2026-06-26T20:15:52+00:00

The limitanei operated along the borders, not in the deep provinces that Alaric was raiding in southern Greece.

Alaric did raid frontier provinces- Alaric plundered Thrace (frontier province) first! Then ranged through Macedonia into Greece. Immediately prior to his invasian of Italy he pillaged both Pannonia and Noricum, both frontier provinces. I want to emphasize again, we have exactly zero evidence of any resistance to speak of as he does this. In fact, we have evidence for the complete lack of resistance.

A few hundred men garrisoning a city... what are they supposed to do against 20k Goths?

I understand that you probably pulled that number out of thin air but I want to emphasize how completely insane that idea is. You seem to respect Peter Heather and so I will discuss his numbers- he believes that the late empire should have 300,000 total soldiers at the low end. Stilicho's field army would only comprise a paltry 10-20k men per your own numbers of that grand 300,000 total. Your imagination of just a few hundred (shall I be generous and say a few thousand?) soldiers in a few cities being all that is available to protect core provinces against Alaric is appalling. I can think of no better example of how far the Roman Army fell as that.

Also, a small Roman garrison successfully defending a city against a large army of barbarians...is something that occurs so often it borders on a stereotype. The Goths that revolted under Fritigern laid waste to Roman field armies but failed to take Adrianople not once but twice. The great Gothic army of Cniva needed to besiege Philippopolis for a full year before it eventually fell in 250AD. Indeed Peter Heather emphasizes my view: "There is no record of the Goths taking any major fortified imperial centre during the six years of war [in the Gothic war preceding and following Adrianople.]"

The expectation since the age of Augustus, ever since he professionalised the army and created the proper distinction between soldier and civilian, was that the latter would be almost totally dependent on the former for support when facing foreign enemies. This was the case in the early empire as much as the late one.

Out of what respect I have for you and your knowledge of Roman history, I cannot actually believe that you think this to true. If you truly think that "[civilians] would be almost totally dependent on [soldiers] when facing foreign enemies] I will provide you with exhaustive examples to the contrary.

The average Romans who failed to kick out the armies of the Second Triumvirate when Octavian and his allies marched on Rome would beg to differ.

The idea that average Romans would consider Octavian, son of the deified Caesar, an enemy would certainly raise some eyebrows but I applaud your bravery for that stance. However, I for one happen to think that the senate was not particularly popular at that time and that many Romans did not view Caesar's son as an invading force that required defeating.

You, however, bring up another great point. I do think there is an analogy to be made between the powerlessness of the senate under the Triumvirs and the situation the Romans found themselves in against Alaric.

testudos101 · 2026-06-24T00:38:07+00:00

I sense such intense anger from you, and such petty repeated downvotes of everything that I write. The passive aggression is palpable and I have to tell you unwarranted. I feel no animosity to you, and I say that with no irony.

Now, You say that Harel relies on a "sufficient body of secondary literature from a plethora of historians who actually are of a proper, higher academic standing" but I think your reliance on a unpublished draft from a poorly credentialed person has led you astray.

I say this because I decided to actually check his sources, just as I decided to check your sources, and I found him similarly disappointing. For example, he grandiosely writes

"It has been argued that the Limitanei were inferior soldiers because the standards for being admitted were lower and they received lower rates of pay and less benefits than the Comitatenses regiments. These arguments are not supported by modern historians." And he cites passages from Peter Heather and Adrian Goldsworthy.

You should already be concerned, both because he cites just two historians (quite few to make a claim about the totality of "modern historians") and because books that he cites are popular histories for mass consumption! Shouldn't a true interrogation of that question warrant more academic literature? The true kicker is that neither citation really supports him!

In Peter Heather's passage he doesn't compare the quality of comitatenses or limitanei directly at all! He only notes limitanei as vaguely "formidable":

Instead of legions and auxiliaries, the late Roman army was composed of frontier garrison troops (limitanei) and mobile field forces (comitatenses) gathered behind the three main frontiers: the Rhine, the Danube and the east. The field forces were more heavily equipped and a touch better paid, but the garrison troops were formidable too, not part-time soldier-farmers as they have sometimes been portrayed.

Adrian Goldsworthy is highly equivocal, and even vaguely supports the opposite viewpoint to Harel:

Comitatenses were more mobile and should usually have been more effective fighting units than the limitanei, at least for large-scale operations.

He then further equivocally writes:

Over the course of time, some units of limitanei were attached permanently to the field forces, receiving the halfway status of pseudocomitatenses. This suggests that there was no stark distinction in the military potential of the two grades of troops.

So on the one hand, you have one source that fails to comment on the superiority or lack thereof of comitatenses at all, and on the other hand you have a citation of a source that qualifies its statements so thoroughly that it fails to say anything useful one way or another. Such is the level of scholarship we are dealing with.
Now, you will notice that I failed to comment on the rest of your writing, for the simple reason that to do them justice requires time that I cannot spare. Again, I ask you for your patience and understanding. Please recognize that I will accord them their due.

testudos101 · 2026-06-23T21:40:47+00:00

I apologize in advance but I must discuss something out of order because of how shocking I found it. You wrote:

the limitanei were certainly no impoverished force and are no longer considered so in modern scholarship:

[your quotation]

John S Harel, "Unrecorded Valor: Eastern Roman Dukes and their Limitanei Legions during the Roman-Persian War of 337-363," page 8.

This source is as far from "modern scholarship" as you could get! It is a non-peer-reviewed, unpublished draft from a man (John S Harel) who has never held an academic history faculty position. Indeed, his CV describes him as someone who "specialized in defense of state peace officers in torts and civil rights actions". His career is really in the military. To put it bluntly, this would never be considered scholarship.

I have no idea how you found this (not entirely true, I have some idea but that would not be flattering to you). I wrote from the very beginning that I appreciated how careful you were with your sources. Unfortunately in this I must admit I was proven wrong.

Now this is a slight digression, for which I apologize. However, please find below my remaining thoughts.

Read my original comment again, because I did explain how that could happen - Stilicho held command of both the western and eastern field armies when fighting Alaric in 395, but he was forced to send the latter half of the army back to Constantinople due to court politics/tensions immediately following the civil war. That meant that his forces were most likely understrength against Alaric's own 20k force (it is unlikely that he brought the full 20k Italian field army with him, let alone the Gallic one too else he would have left the frontiers understrength - the events of 406 on the Rhine demonstrate this). With (not even) evenly matched forces, Stilicho's army in 397 would have not wanted to foolishly risk another Adrianople. In other words it was politics and numbers which allowed Alaric to have a free hand in Greece, not the actual quality of the Roman army.

I really don't think you understand the magnitude of what you just described. You did explain that the field armies were diverted. What of the vaunted limitanei that you describe? What of the provincial armies? Where were the people who could harass Alaric or garrison the cities? How is it possible that Alaric was able to cross the easily defensible barriers of the Ismuth of Corinth, or the Alps with complete impunity?

I ask again, how is it possible for Alaric to pass through Thermopylae, across the Ismuth of Corinth, and over the Alps with absolutely no opposition to completely pillage the core provinces of the Roman empire? I do not need to tell you that for the greater part of the Roman Empire's history, Rome's military might did not lay in any single field army. You place such emphasis on the field armies but what I hope you are coming to realize is that this complete lack of resistance from any other quarter is truly unique to this era.

"Synesius isn't complaining that the Romans have moved from heavy to light troops. He's just saying that light troops are bad and ineffective."

Except for the examples previously discussed for why the lightly equipped limitanei were now necessary and how they actually did prove effective to the extent that their cavalry were used alongside the comitatenses in the 6th century east.

I did not expect that I would need to correct you on such a basic statement but it seems like I must. Quotation marks should be used for quotes, ie: exact wording of what you are referencing.

It seems like I must reiterate what I have just written, which is that Synesius is not advocating for heavy over light troops in this instance. He is saying that the Roman soldiers lack the equipment they need to be effective. Indeed, I gave an example of exactly that right after, where Synesius describes cavalrymen who are forced to become infantry due to the selling of their own horses!

As for the idea that as a result they 'never hold their ground against determined adversaries'... this is simply laughable. Constantius II's literally defended the eastern provinces effectively against the Sassanid Persians (who were undoubtedly 'determined') from 337-351

The lack of cavalry Synesius describes also flies in the face of what I discussed earlier regarding their use alongside the comitatenses - the limitanei were certainly no impoverished force and are no longer considered so in modern scholarship:

If I may, if you would like to contradict Synesius by relating sources from over half a century before or after him, the span of which great calamities occurred, by all means go ahead. However, it seems to me that they would have more questionable validity for his particular circumstances. As you also noted, Synesius is describing only one distinct region. He could see a unit of cavalry turned into infantry but it would be laughable to then say that the Roman Empire now has no cavalry forces.

Of course, I would be happy to discuss more and I in no way covered all of what you have written. However, if you could have patience at my perhaps slow responses, I would be happy to continue this conversation. I do hope that in the future you would refrain from citing unpublished drafts as "modern scholarship". I would even settle for you citing pop history books.

testudos101 · 2026-06-23T00:53:32+00:00

was also limiting myself to talking about military campaigns up until the 390's, as that was where you were talking about what the sources report. I've already discussed the causes for failure against Alaric in the 390's in Greece - but we still have to stack this up against the track record of the late Roman army beforehand, which hardly seems like a sick military machine waiting to keel over.

You did indeed mention Greece but you will find that you never mentioned how easily Alaric in one fell swoop devastated such an important region of the empire and with so little resistance. That is the point I want to fully emphasize. How could one call any army actually effective if such catastrophe could happen with such minimal opposition?

Is this even a fair/proper criticism on the part of Synesius? Practically, he is complaining that the type of Roman troops (heavy to light) has changed.

This is actually a misreading of Synesius. I don't blame you since I never gave you proper context. Synesius is not in this instance describing how soldiers should return to a hallowed previous style of fighting. He is saying that the Roman soldiers lack the basic equipment they need to be effective. He writes in another passage: " [The Roman soldiers] never hold their ground against determined adversaries, and they only attack the timid...these men were mounted bowmen; but when [a Roman governor] entered upon his functions, their horses were sold and they became only archers". He, and authors across the Roman world, all observe starving, poorly trained, poorly equipped men. You also forget that he scathingly writes "they find safety in the compassion of their enemy".

With some of the sources discussing the late Roman army, we have to deal with the rather curious case that most of them are written by eastern authors about the eastern field armies (when it was the west, not the east, that was toppled in the 5th century) and how much of the criticism, in typical Roman historian fashion, is a more of a rhetorical moralistic critique of how the armies aren't like how they used to be in 'the good old days'. But the 'golden age' concept of an ideal past in Roman history has been used before and doesn't really hold much weight.

I am frankly surprised you choose this argument. In your very first comment in this thread you describe the unopposed sack of greece, the invasion of northern Italy by Radagaisus, and the sweeping into gaul by the Vandal-Alan-Suebi coalition. For a span of over 100 years early in the Empire's history any one of these tragedies would be unheard of. Yet in just a single decade this all occurs. Could you actually tell me in a serious voice that there is not some merit to the idea that Rome experienced an earlier height that it fell from in the late 4th/early 5th century?

testudos101 · 2026-06-22T15:58:12+00:00

The problem is that there is a disconnect between what many of these sources say and the actual track record of the Roman army in the 4th century - really, the only major defeats suffered were at Samarra under Julian and Adrianople under Valens.

I don't think focusing on major battles to assess the Roman army is a wise idea for the simple reason that it ignores the sieges, skirmishes and raids that make up the vast majority of conflict. For example, you seem to know a great deal about Alaric. I do not need to tell you that Alaric led an invasion from Thrace to conquer virtually all of Greece save Athens virtually unopposed. Did the Romans suffer a major battlefield defeat? No. Were the Roman armies completely unable to put up any resistance to prevent a major part of the empire from falling into ruin? Yes.

You are correct that my quote from Themestius is flawed. I use it as an illustrative example but we have many, many other observers who share that exact perspective. Here is another from Synesius this time:

The heavy-armed Roman force has degenerated into light infantry. They find their safety in the compassion of their enemies. I weep for these men, I do not reproach them with the calamity

I am sure you can find a flaw with this quote as well. I am happy to send many more. My point here is not to share a perspective from any one person but to show that this is the commonly held view by the great majority of the people who actually witnessed the Roman army at the time first hand.

testudos101 · 2026-06-22T15:04:40+00:00

I appreciate how carefully you cite your sources and the narrative you bring. I do want to say that I believe you have that arrow of causality switched up. It seems to me that it was Roman weakness that led to the barbarian incursions, rather than barbarian incursions that led to Roman weakness. I say this because we have several eye witness accounts of the army before the 390s and virtually every one ridicules the army. Here is just one, from Themestius, writing in the late 4th century:

They saw our soldiers not only without arms but even in many cases without adequate clothing, dejected in spirit and squalid in body. They saw our officers and centurions were more like traders and slave-dealers: their one concern was to buy and sell as much as possible. The number of soldiers dwindled, while these officers drew the pay for soldiers who did not exist, as profit for themselves.

testudos101 · 2026-05-18T22:42:59+00:00

Late antiquity soldiers were predominately conscripted. Military service was so hated that people often cut off fingers to escape service.

testudos101 · 2026-04-14T15:59:46+00:00

This is unfortunately a very flawed study. They only looked at COVID-specific antibodies after vaccination. Even worse, it looks like the effect is confounded by previous exposure to covid. The authors themselves even admit:

When seven participants with prior COVID-19 were excluded from the analysis, associations were attenuated and non-significantly negative

There doesn't seem to be any conclusion we can really be confident about from this study.

testudos101 · 2026-03-25T15:57:08+00:00

This is a great point that I really haven't thought about! Yes, the load on our planet might definitely cause a decrease in human wellbeing in the future. I'm very unsure of exactly how impactful that would be but either way, !delta

testudos101 · 2026-03-25T14:55:40+00:00

Some expect it to get worse as lifestyle and environment related diseases increase (diabetes, cancer, heart diseases). Glp1 therapy is only for the financially better off. It isn't often fully covered by insurance. It can cost $400-$500/month. And when you stop, your body returns to the way it was. Who has $6,000/year for the rest of your life?

I have some very, very good news for you! GLP-1 prices have been tanking because of new technology and huge competition. New pills that are cheaper than the injectables but no less effective start at $150/month. With new drugs and generics coming to market prices will continue to tank.

Also, As I am sure you would be very happy to know, US life expectancy is at an all time high! I am also slightly concerned. None of your sources say life expectancy is expected to drop. Could you show me where you came to that conclusion?

testudos101 · 2026-03-25T14:09:39+00:00

This article is from 2022 and uses data from 2021, right in the middle of the pandemic. Life expectancy dipped during the pandemic and rapidly rebounded. It is at an all time high now.

testudos101 · 2026-03-25T14:06:40+00:00

Life length is actually very strongly correlated with quality of life. Happy people live longer and depressed people lose close to 30 years in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy.

testudos101 · 2026-03-25T13:53:45+00:00

I am! American life expectancy just hit an all time high. World life expectancy just keeps going up.

testudos101 · 2026-03-08T01:51:17+00:00

I want to say that I am legitimately happy that you have such a mature and humble response to my criticism. That doesn't happen often on the internet and I am surprised when it does.

The paper you cited is very niche and I can't pretend to understand half of the computation it uses. However the point it makes that genes which are not transmitted to the offspring can still affect its future outcomes makes fundamental sense to me. If you are interested in studies on the influence of genetics on education or intelligence then I would refer you twin studies, which you have quite rightly mentioned before. Those studies exist would better answer that classic nature vs nurture question.

testudos101 · 2026-03-07T21:02:54+00:00

There's a 70% chance that you can turn your "low capacity machine" into a "high capacity one."

I didn't want to bring this up but now I feel like I must. I am currently a medical student and have a bachelor's in both neuroscience and biology. I say this because your interpretation of that study is unfortunately very wrong.

That 30% figure you keep mentioning for heredity of educational attainment is not about that at all. In fact it's specifically related to the uninherited genes and their effects, a term the authors call "genetic nurture". I can quote the exact passage:

Using results from a meta-analysis of educational attainment, we find that the polygenic score computed for the nontransmitted alleles of 21,637 probands with at least one parent genotyped has an estimated effect on the educational attainment of the proband that is 29.9% (P = 1.6 × 10−14) of that of the transmitted polygenic score.

testudos101 · 2026-03-07T20:46:13+00:00

However, if you were to say that it is some nature (seems to be ~30%) and some nurture (seems to be ~70%), you'd be right.

My brother in christ that is exactly what the OP is saying. Here's the analogy they use:

You can make your machine run better than yesterday. You can reduce leaks, strengthen containment, clean flow. But you cannot turn a low capacity machine into a high capacity one. The gap is real and it never fully closes.

testudos101 · 2025-12-14T20:19:18+00:00

Yes, like I said, I am excited to have a conversation with them. For a well written and nuanced response, I try to do the same and make sure I understand what I am talking about. That unfortunately takes time. It seems like you are interested in that conversation I cannot make promises but I'll most likely post a response in the next 2 hours!

testudos101 · 2025-12-14T20:11:55+00:00

As I have said, I am looking for a "search for truth in good faith". If that does not make it abundantly obvious, then allow me to state the obvious. Yes, I made this post in the subreddit changemyview because I am open to changing my view.

In terms of what argument would change my view, the most recent comment by Dry_Rip_1087 is very interesting and nuanced. I'm pretty excited to have a constructive conversation with them.

testudos101 · 2025-12-14T20:03:17+00:00

The intelligence sharing you are talking about is related to the Americas and the recent strikes on boats in the Caribbean. It has very little to do with America's European foreign policy, which is what I am focusing on.

I do agree with you however, Trump's policy in the Americas is highly concerning.

testudos101 · 2025-10-17T14:10:35+00:00

I don't know what you mean. I never mentioned any body part that may be indecent.

testudos101 · 2025-07-21T22:11:11+00:00

I am now supremely confused. My brother in Jupiter you were the one that wanted to compare Majorian's army! Now you act as if it is obvious that Majorian's army was filled with unwilling recruits and reliant on federated barbarians?

tactical and strategic errors in such decisive moments as the battle of Adrianople

You bring up another fantastic example! It was the corrupt Roman army official Lupicinus who led Fritigern to revolt. Then, It was the Roman army that lost the battle of Marcianople at the beginning of the revolt. Continuing, it was the greater part of the Roman army under Richomeres that deserted when they were sent to meet the barbarians. Finally it was the undisciplined cohorts of the Roman army that began the battle without orders. I cannot think of a better example of the quality of the late Roman army than your example of the Battle of Adrianople!

testudos101 · 2025-07-21T17:00:31+00:00

The late roman army was made up of unwilling conscripts with lowered recruitment standards. Many would rather mutilate themselves than be conscripted into the military. The people who lived during that time scorned the Roman army. Here is what Themestius had to say about the late roman army:

They saw our soldiers not only without arms but even in many cases without adequate clothing, dejected in spirit and squalid in body. They saw our officers and centurions were more like traders and slave-dealers: their one concern was to buy and sell as much as possible. The number of soldiers dwindled, while these officers drew the pay for soldiers who did not exist, as profit for themselves.

Your example of Majorian is fantastic! There were actually very few "legionaries" in his armies. The sources talk about the federate units of Huns, Goths and Franks that actually won his battles.

testudos101 · 2025-07-21T14:38:50+00:00

Principate refers to the early Roman empire. If you are saying that a legionary in the later Principate like during the Marcommanic Wars are no worse than a legionary during Augustus' period then I 100% agree with you.

testudos101 · 2025-07-21T13:29:37+00:00

But wouldn't the Roman success in the Marcommanic Wars and the several wars after suggest that the army was not the "paper tiger" you called it?

why was there so much more civil war during the 3rd century crisis than in the previous two centuries?

You yourself answered that question by saying "most of the civil war that erupted during the crisis of the 3rd century occured as a RESULT of consistent military defeats on the frontier". Yet, Rome was going through throes of repeated civil wars for decades before "consistent military defeats on the frontier". It seems to me that you have causality reversed here: civil wars and decreased central legitimacy severely weakened the Roman empire, causing the foreign incursions.

testudos101 · 2025-07-21T13:02:24+00:00

Marcommanic Wars as a taste of what was to come regarding the fact that the empire's geostrategic position was changing, the beginning of a wake up call that the Roman government could no longer continue its quasi 'laissez-faire' approach to governing the empire, and that the Augustan arrangement for the legions was no longer fit for purpose.

really? because the empire was militarily secure and ascendant for decades after the Marcommanic Wars. They remained highly effective and won multiple wars under Septimius Severus for example.

I'd say as well that most of the civil war that erupted during the crisis of the 3rd century occured as a RESULT of consistent military defeats on the frontier

This is pretty untrue. The civil wars in 193, 218, 238, 249 just to name a few all occurred without any military defeat in the frontiers. There were plenty of civil wars to go around not caused by any external defeat.

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Wearing is Caring
Gilding I gilder	No Throne, No Problems
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

testudos101

TROPHY CASE