Late Roman army Puns

I'm under the impression that Belasarius was still creating fortified camps during his campaigns. So when did this actually stop?

There are many the pictures of the late Roman army From those that defend the border to the scholae palatina the army of the Roman Empire is foggy as pea stew but chunks surface helmets uniforms weapons shields and text but can we piece together the image of the army

Note that I'm talking about the Roman Empire before the fall of the Western half. This is also a more general version of my previous question regarding the Battle of Adrianople. I'm also aware that similiar questions have been answered before but they didn't really address my main confusion, unfortunately.

Essentially, what I'm wondering is this:

- all common estimates say that the late Roman Army was actually bigger than at any time during the early Principate or Republic, numbering some 400.000-650.000 men

- yet this doesn't really seem to fit together/add up with the knowledge we have of the battles fought in the late Roman time around the late 4th and early 5th century

Consider this:

- During the Republican times, even Senators like Crassus and of course also Caesar could field armies of incredible size: 35.000 men (Carrhae), 60.000+ men (Alesia), 80.000+ men (Cannae- despite losing tends of thousands just shortly before), or even 100.-200.000+ in total (Philippi).

- Yet in almost all battles the Romans fought in the 4th and 5th against various invaders from the north, their army was considerably smaller: Adrianople (15.-30.000), Faesulae (15.-20.000), even at the Catalaunian Plains (hard to tell, maybe 20.-40.000 Romans)

Now of course many common explanations are brought up: logistics prevented too large armies; the numbers might be sometimes exaggerated; the Romans were weakened by infighting; later on, they lost the African provinces; they had to defend their borders etc.

But even then, it seems hard to justify the really small size of the Roman Armies fielded in these battles when compared to two things: (1) the supposed absolute size of the Roman army (400-650k) and (2) the Roman armies during the Republic.

Especially when you also consider the following factors: the Roman Empire had much larger territories than the Roman Republic with more manpower reserves; many of these (North Africa, Spain e.g.) were also only barely threatened by invaders until the 5th century, meaning they didn't need many standing troops; the respective battles were really important (core provinces were attacked, plundered and threatened by the Goths at Adrianople or by Radagaius in Italy); the Romans often prepared for these major battles for many months (so it wasn't just an unprepared small force somewhere); the numbers availabe were already suppleman

Is it due to inaccuarcy of some of the illustrations, or were they both used? If the latter, were they used simultanously or did the army gradually evolve to use one more than the other?

I alway wonder why the late Roman Empire had to rely Barbarians for soldiers. When they had a population many time larger than the one they had during the Punic wars and they were pumping soldiers out of Italy like it was nothing.

First I'd like to lay out my understanding of the context leading to my question. My question will then follow:

In my reading on the topic of the man shortage problem for the late imperial army, it is said that the following is true of the 4th and 5th centuries:

1. Volunteer recruits among the citizenry had plummeted since the high empire period or the Republican periods --> fewer volunteers

2. Centuries (particularly the Crisis of the 3rd Century) of internal wars, as well as back-to-back devastating bouts of plague, as well as food shortages from climate change (cooling of temperatures) all led to massive declines in total population of the empire --> fewer total potential recruits

3. The end to imperial expansion and wars of conquest meant an end to the supply of new slaves. Moreover, the practice of owners emancipating slaves after their death and eventual laws preventing slavery from being entirely hereditary meant that over time, the slave proportion of the population declined steadily over time, reaching a point of about 10-15% of the empire's people by the 4th century. Slaves were not eligible for armed service so on top of fewer volunteers, an already reduced population size, an additional 10-15% of the populace was excluded from recruitment. --> 10-15% of male population were slaves and ineligible for service

4. City-dwellers constituted 20% of the remaining citizen population and they too were excluded from military service. (Fact check - is this true?) --> urban population excluded?

With the aforementioned economic and environmental factors causing a decline in the economic vitality of cities, unemployed and impoverished city dwellers flocked to the countryside to make up for agrarian labor shortages, gradually supplanting the slaves' roles as the dominant source of workers on large agricultural estates. These rural peasants ("coloni") were tenant farmers who leased land from the owners.

QUESTION(1): How did the land tax ("indictio") which required the rich latifundia owners to pay both their tenant farmers' land tax AND recruits for the army work in practice? I understand the long term economic conditions that led to most of the provincial population effectively becoming peasant share-croppers cum serfs, tied to the land and the owners of the land. That explains why the landowners had to collect taxes from all their sharecroppers and pay the taxes on their behalf. **But how did that give th

https://preview.redd.it/7ber8jb9yk861.png?width=193&format=png&auto=webp&s=3d72faa34dd03adc7773e28267f50679f65c506c

https://preview.redd.it/y5ihpzpqyk861.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=cbc51b021444f0f7413b9f30c7532d9fc0d863dd

https://preview.redd.it/7gz7e6ktyk861.png?width=492&format=png&auto=webp&s=20a8b7a101e445d9a8a8a6d227e92dbc7da3d7d5

https://preview.redd.it/3t449bduyk861.png?width=563&format=png&auto=webp&s=157585908c6870e89bd3ea9b8247d8cd28125704

to be frank to say the late roman are weak is an understatement

there simply a chip off the old block

Edit: see bottom for case updates as of Jan 14, 2022

This story is one in a series I hope to do about mysterious deaths in and around Fort Bragg, North Carolina. I'm starting with Specialist Roman-Martinez's death because I find his case particularly infuriating.

Specialist Roman-Martinez was 17 when he enlisted in the United States army in September of 2016. After basic and advanced training, he was stationed in Fort Bragg, North Carolina as a human resources specialist. According to his sister, Griselda, he joined the Army because he thought it would teach him discipline and responsibility.

Specialist Roman-Martinez went missing in North Carolina sometime between May 22nd and 23rd in 2020. After he was reported missing, there was a ten-day search of the area in and around the Cape Lookout National Seashore. The search was called off on May 29th when his decapitated head was found with a “somewhat crescent-shaped, incised vs. chop wound” on the shore of Shackleford Banks Island, NC. His body has never been recovered.

During the Memorial Day weekend of 2020, Specialist Roman-Martinez traveled the four hours from Fort Bragg to the Cape Lookout National seashore with seven other soldiers- six men and one woman, all of whom remain unnamed.

There's very little information about what happened the night of the 22nd. The group made camp somewhere near marker 46 on South Core Banks, one of the islands in the park. According to the group Specialist Roman-Martinez was with, they went to bed around midnight on the 22nd, and around that time they saw him walking away from the campsite wearing only blue shorts. When they got up around 8:30 the next morning they realized Specialist Roman-Martinez was still gone. His phone, wallet, and desperately need glasses were left at the campsite. The group then spent most of the 23rd looking for him, eventually calling 911 sometime around 7:30 p.m.

What information we know comes from the 911 call placed on the 23rd, and it's fairly garbled. The still unidentified caller claims that they've been looking for Specialist Roman-Martinez all day, and that they were afraid he might of hurt himself because he had "suicidal tendencies". The caller further claims that they've been all over the island, looking for Park Rangers, before eventually reaching the ferry and realizing they needed to call 911.

Griselda, Specialist Roman-Martinez's sister, claims that he was not suicidal in the slightest, and that they

What was the salary for the typical legionary in the Roman army during the following periods?

• Mid Republic (eg. Second Punic Wars in the late 3rd century BC)
• Late Republic (eg. Marius-Sulla Civil Wars)
• Early Empire (under Augustus)

I understand that Caesar doubled the pay of his legionaries to 225 Silver Denarri a year, so I presume this means troops were paid 112-113 Denarii during the time of Marius & Sulla?

Other related questions:

1. How does the mid Republican salary compare to other professions such as farming or skilled tradesman/craftsmen? I've read many articles stating how conscripts went bankrupt or lost their farms after they returned home from military service.

2. I understand the later auxiliaries were paid less, but were the Alae (allied troops who were conscripted by the Romans) paid anything?

Salve folks,

I'm curious and intrigued to know the general opinion of people in the forum about the effectiveness of the Late Roman Army in its offensive and defensive capabilities, its purposes and its resemblance to the Army of the Principate, and especially the "barbarization" theory of Edward Gibbons.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Late Roman Army was as effective as the Army of the Principate. And thus it continued to remain superior to the Empire's main enemies, namely the German barbarians crossing the Rhine and the Danube in drove, and even the Sassanids to the East.

Its many new tactical adoptions and engagements methods i.e. favoring ambushes, avoiding pitch battles when necessary, carrying out punitive raids and expeditions deep into enemies' territories, were a result of strategic rigidity and limitations rather its diminished prowess on the battlefields. As devastating plagues decimated Roman populace and legions coupled with mismanagement and endless strife of the 3rd century seriously damaged the Empire's economy and administration, ultimately alienating potential volunteers and forcing later Emperors to rely heavily on conscription to swell the ranks of the army.

I'm also interested to know your opinions on the Late Roman Calvary, since Ammianus wasn't particularly fond of it and spoke often of its cowardice and incompetence.