alternatehistory.com

Opinions of Late Roman Army?

Been reading in a number of books and articles on the late Roman Army and was interested in your thoughts. I'm eager to hear your opinions on anything ranging from strategy, tactics, equipment, organization....

Few topics I was thinking about:
Reduction of Roman Legions size
Increase in the size of entire military during late 3rd and 4th century
Military reforms of Diocletian and Constantine
Disbandment of the Praetorian Guard
Comitateses and Limitanei
Role of religion
Barbarisation
Overall issues that were and weren't improved

Frontal defence on the frontier to repel invasions vs mobile defence in depth, focusing on cities, to cut off penetrations/annihilate invaders:
The 5th-century historian Zosimus strongly criticised the establishment of the large comitatus, accusing Constantine of wrecking his predecessor Diocletian's work of strengthening the border defences: "By the foresight of Diocletian, the frontiers of the Roman empire were everywhere studded with cities and forts and towers... and the whole army was stationed along them, so it was impossible for the barbarians to break through... But Constantine ruined this defensive system by withdrawing the majority of the troops from the frontiers and stationing them in cities which did not require protection."[78] Zosimus' critique is probably excessive, both because thecomitatus already existed in Diocletian's time and because some new regiments were raised by Constantine for his expanded comitatus, as well as incorporating existing units.[79] Nevertheless, the majority of his comitatus was drawn from existing frontier units.[66]This drawdown of large numbers of the best units inevitably increased the risk of successful large-scale barbarian breaches of the frontier defences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Roman_army#Constantine

Interested in your thoughts, thanks in advance.:)
Top