Some questions on the Late Roman Empire

Zioneer

Banned
So I have a few questions about the Late Roman Empire, mostly meaning post-Diocletian, but I'll probably asks questions about the era directly before (the Crisis of the Third Century).

1) What were the common styles of dress throughout the 300s? How much did it differ from place to place within either the Eastern or Western Roman Empire?

2) What was the structure of the armies of the Western Roman Empire, as well as the armies operating in the western half of the Empire pre-Diocletian? How were they generally equipped, what kind of armor and weapons did the use, how did their command structure and ranks work?

3) Regarding the foederati, how were they armed, generally speaking? Of the most prominent foederati, what equipment or command structure did they have?

4) How secretive or public were the various non-Roman pantheon religions during the immediate pre-Christian era? I mean, Sol Invictus seems to have been fairly public, while the "mystery cults" seem to have been quite, well, mysterious. So how much of a public face did the various religious groups have? Specifically, would any of the "new" religions ever dispute each other in public and/or have generals, senators, or provincial governors openly or secretly in their pocket (pre-Constantine)?

5) This is a bit AH-y, but assuming Rome or Constantinople were not available as capitals, what cities would the East and Western halves of the Empire respectively consider as capitals?

6) How much power did the generals have over the last Western emperors? I get that they could remove an emperor from power and murder them fairly easily, but how much power or influence did the have over the population? Were there ever competing generals? And did the population generally acknowledge that the generals were the ones actually in power, or did they think the emperors were in charge?

7) Lastly, besides Wikipedia, what are some good sources on the Late Roman Empire/Late Antiquity?
 
5) This is a bit AH-y, but assuming Rome or Constantinople were not available as capitals, what cities would the East and Western halves of the Empire respectively consider as capitals?



7) Lastly, besides Wikipedia, what are some good sources on the Late Roman Empire/Late Antiquity?

I'm a bit tired at the moment (it's 3am) so I'm gonna just address these two question.

Alternative capitals that were used in the west would be Arles in southern Gual, Mediolanum (Milan) and Ravenna. Ravenna though is really only an option if the emperor needs protection. So, as per OTL, if the emperor is more or less a weak puppet with the magister militum really controlling affairs. This is because of it's great defensibly.

As for the east, before Constantine, Diocletian used Nicomedia as his main capital. For a Balkans based campaign, I assume, depending on if the east controls the Praefecture of Illyicum, Salona could be a good imperial capital for the duration of the stay. Otherwise for an eastern focused campaign, Antioch would be the imperial base/temporary capital of chose. On the whole though, Nicomedia is still likely to be the main capital.

As for sources, there's a ton. One of the best modern works is Peter Heather's The Fall of The Roman Empire. There's also the works of Ian Hughes, specifically, his biographies on Stilicho and Aetius. Otherwise, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire spends some time on the military strategy of the ERE in for this period. Another good book is Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD.
 
2) Basically the same organization as under Augustus or Trajan, but with some major differences: instead of the senatorial legati, former centurions named praefecti commanded the legions, at least since Gallienus.

Typicall comand structure under Gallienus (260 - 268):

- Emperor (comitatus + dux commanding the cavalry of the same)
- Legatus Augusti pro praetore: though, these senatorial governors of imperial provinces are commonly replaced by equestrian Vice praesidis or praeses; the same happens to the proconsuls of senatorial provinces
- The praefectus pro legato, the old primus pilus, commanding a single legion
- The other centurions commanding the cohorts and centuriae

The auxiliary units were still commanded by equestrians, often without a civilian career.

To protect themselves against rebellions, the Emperors created a personal army out of the Praetorian Guard, the Equites Singulares and some legions, the comitatus, with its cavallry under the command of a dux.

The differences between auxilia units and legions disappeared, both units consisting of Roman citizens. New units of barbarian allies appeared, the so called foederati, whereas legions were broken up in smaller units.
 
Last edited:
In regards to armor and weapons . . .

Adrian Goldsworthy actual covers this in some detail and it's definitely worth a look. Roman Army Talk (RAT) is a forum that's always got plenty of materiel.

There is a myth that the later Roman soldier was nowhere nearly as tough or as well-trained and equipped as his Principate predecessor (trying saying that five times fast :rolleyes:).

While some of that holds true (as far as training and morale anyways) towards the last few decades of the western half, the late Roman soldier was just as capable as his ancestors. Leadership, as always, tended to fluctuate over the years and depended largely on how was in charge of things at the time.

Equipment would look a bit this:

The pilum has been replaced by Martiobuboli (think I spelled that right), which about five-six lead-weighted darts carried in the hollow of the shield boss.

Infantry carry a long spear and an oval shield. The old testudo has been replaced with a formation called the Falum. Which actually provided the same amount of protection, but was more mobile.

Instead of the old Lorica, legionaries wore a scale or mail hauberk. Helmets went from the Intercisa pattern of Constantine's time to what we know as the Spangenhelm. There's evidence for a kind of scale coif in some cases.

The old gladius had been replaced with the spatha as the standard side-arm of both the cavalry and infantry arm.

Cavalry equipment looked about the same as far as armor goes. Although the four-horned saddle of the Principate era had been replaced with a high-seated one similar to what nomadic horsemen used at this time. Cataphracts were generally more heavily armored and, depending on the unit, had armor for the horse too. These cavalrymen would be armed with bow and/or lance depending on their units' intended purpose.
 
So I have a few questions about the Late Roman Empire, mostly meaning post-Diocletian, but I'll probably asks questions about the era directly before (the Crisis of the Third Century).

I am a bit perplexed on what you are actually after?
Post-Diocletian or the so-called Crisis of the 3rd Century?

6) How much power did the generals have over the last Western emperors? I get that they could remove an emperor from power and murder them fairly easily, but how much power or influence did the have over the population? Were there ever competing generals? And did the population generally acknowledge that the generals were the ones actually in power, or did they think the emperors were in charge?

I guess here you mean the so-called generalissimos mostly of (semi-)barbarian origin of the Late post-Diocletian Empire, who were usually power behind the throne and king-makers.

But during the Crisis of the 3rd Century the emperor (or more often emperors) was usually a general himself. And if there was another charismatic ambitious victorious general in the army, that usually meant that it was too many and one of them eventually ended up dead.
It was because during the Crisis of the 3rd Century the majority of the generals were 'ethnic Romans' (not necessarily of the Italian origin though) and had the right to become an emperor.
The situation changed in Late Empire (a century or so later) when many influential generals were not 'ethnic Romans' and couldn't claim the throne for themselves; but they could murder/change the emperors and even puppetise them. Which (in the West) broke a nice old Roman tradition of a successful general murdering his emperor and taking his place; and it seems that with this tradition the Roman statehood itself was broken as well...
 
The situation changed in Late Empire (a century or so later) when many influential generals were not 'ethnic Romans' and couldn't claim the throne for themselves; but they could murder/change the emperors and even puppetise them. Which (in the West) broke a nice old Roman tradition of a successful general murdering his emperor and taking his place; and it seems that with this tradition the Roman statehood itself was broken as well...

I'm not sure this entirely explains the trend of powerful generals preferring to control the emperor rather than be the emperor. Boniface, Aetius, and Felix all come to mind as completely ethnic Romans that had no design on the throne. Why though? Well, I think some of it has to do with the pageantry and inaccessibility that being a post-Diocletian emperor entailed, and Constantius in particular is known to have lamented the restrictions being emperor seemed to have placed on him. It was also far easier to control a child emperor with great legitimacy than to usurp the throne yourself with a very weak claim and many enemies.
 
In addition to what has already been said:

1) What were the common styles of dress throughout the 300s? How much did it differ from place to place within either the Eastern or Western Roman Empire?

Long-sleeved tunics and trousers. From what I can tell this was quite consistent across the Empire.

3) Regarding the foederati, how were they armed, generally speaking? Of the most prominent foederati, what equipment or command structure did they have?

Generally the foederati were under the command of their own tribal leaders, although they were often given/allowed to purchase equipment from the Roman state arms manufactories. Hence equipment-wise they'd generally be much the same as native Roman troops.

4) How secretive or public were the various non-Roman pantheon religions during the immediate pre-Christian era? I mean, Sol Invictus seems to have been fairly public, while the "mystery cults" seem to have been quite, well, mysterious. So how much of a public face did the various religious groups have? Specifically, would any of the "new" religions ever dispute each other in public and/or have generals, senators, or provincial governors openly or secretly in their pocket (pre-Constantine)?

The level of secrecy varied from cult to cult. Talk of Emperors being "in the pocket" of pagan religious cults is generally misleading, because pagan worship tended to be less exclusivist than Christian. (There was no contradiction between worshipping, say, Jove and Mithras as there was between worshipping Christ and Jupiter.) That said, Elagabalus (3rd century) was widely reviled for being excessively attached to a weird (to the Romans) eastern sun cult.

5) This is a bit AH-y, but assuming Rome or Constantinople were not available as capitals, what cities would the East and Western halves of the Empire respectively consider as capitals?

IOTL the Western Emperors tended to rule from Trier or Milan, before moving to Ravenna during the early 5th century. Before Constantinople was founded (and occasionally afterwards as well) Emperors in the east tended to rule from Nicomedia or Antioch.

6) How much power did the generals have over the last Western emperors? I get that they could remove an emperor from power and murder them fairly easily, but how much power or influence did the have over the population? Were there ever competing generals? And did the population generally acknowledge that the generals were the ones actually in power, or did they think the emperors were in charge?

The generals controlled the army, and were often de facto rulers of the Empire. (The situation in Japan with the Shoguns and Emperors was kinda similar.) I'd imagine that most people at the time recognised this was the case, although court panegyrics and the like naturally tended to play this down.

7) Lastly, besides Wikipedia, what are some good sources on the Late Roman Empire/Late Antiquity?

Adrian Goldsworthy's Fall of the West is quite good. I'd also recommend Friell and Williams' The Rome That Did Not Fall, which is mostly concerned with why the East survived and the West didn't.

I'm not sure this entirely explains the trend of powerful generals preferring to control the emperor rather than be the emperor. Boniface, Aetius, and Felix all come to mind as completely ethnic Romans that had no design on the throne. Why though? Well, I think some of it has to do with the pageantry and inaccessibility that being a post-Diocletian emperor entailed, and Constantius in particular is known to have lamented the restrictions being emperor seemed to have placed on him. It was also far easier to control a child emperor with great legitimacy than to usurp the throne yourself with a very weak claim and many enemies.

By the mid-to-late fifth century the authority of the Western Emperors was pretty nominal. Being Magister Militum gave one practical control over the government, and from a PR standpoint was preferable to usurping the throne.
 

Zioneer

Banned
I am a bit perplexed on what you are actually after?
Post-Diocletian or the so-called Crisis of the 3rd Century?

Both, actually. I'm interested in both, and beyond my questions, I'm not actually sure what I want to know about both.


I guess here you mean the so-called generalissimos mostly of (semi-)barbarian origin of the Late post-Diocletian Empire, who were usually power behind the throne and king-makers.

But during the Crisis of the 3rd Century the emperor (or more often emperors) was usually a general himself. And if there was another charismatic ambitious victorious general in the army, that usually meant that it was too many and one of them eventually ended up dead.
It was because during the Crisis of the 3rd Century the majority of the generals were 'ethnic Romans' (not necessarily of the Italian origin though) and had the right to become an emperor.
The situation changed in Late Empire (a century or so later) when many influential generals were not 'ethnic Romans' and couldn't claim the throne for themselves; but they could murder/change the emperors and even puppetise them. Which (in the West) broke a nice old Roman tradition of a successful general murdering his emperor and taking his place; and it seems that with this tradition the Roman statehood itself was broken as well...

That is indeed what I meant, thank you. That explains it pretty well.

In addition to what has already been said:



Long-sleeved tunics and trousers. From what I can tell this was quite consistent across the Empire.

What about the aristocrats? Did they wear more ornate or "fancy" versions of the same thing, or did they have noticably different clothes?

The level of secrecy varied from cult to cult. Talk of Emperors being "in the pocket" of pagan religious cults is generally misleading, because pagan worship tended to be less exclusivist than Christian. (There was no contradiction between worshipping, say, Jove and Mithras as there was between worshipping Christ and Jupiter.) That said, Elagabalus (3rd century) was widely reviled for being excessively attached to a weird (to the Romans) eastern sun cult.

Eh, by "in the pocket" I meant more that emperors or generals were members of one cult or another, and asking if any any were exclusively members of a single cult.

Thanks for your answers, and thanks to everyone else for your input.
 
Top