The Last Wars of the Western Empire

[nikgaukroger]

A series of blog pieces by Guy Halsall that may be of interest to late antiquity fans. Just over 10 years old now but I don't think they have been overtaken much by more recent work. IMO Halsall is one of the best writers on the period.

https://darkagewargaming.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/301/

https://darkagewargaming.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/the-last-wars-of-the-western-empire-part-2-rethinking-the-fifth-century/

https://darkagewargaming.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/the-last-wars-of-the-western-empire-part-3-barbarians-and-barbarization/

https://darkagewargaming.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/the-last-wars-of-the-western-empire-part-4a-fifth-century-armies-basic-aspects/

[Rittervonbek]

Thanks Nik. I remember reading his stuff in Miniature Wargames many years ago.

[lionheartrjc]

These are excellent pieces that are well worth reading.

Here are my thoughts on the first article:

Halsall prefers the lower estimates of the size of the Late Roman army (i.e. 400,000 rather than 600,000 men).  I share this preference for similar reasons.

On the size of barbarian forces, there is one point which Halsall doesn't mention.  A warrior eats a similar amount of food when in the village or on campaign.  Campaign logistics is therefore influenced by how much food you can transport.  If you are carrying your own supplies it is limited to a few days (try it!).  Once you are in enemy territory, the main way to support your army is by plundering the local countryside.  This is why a lot of Late Roman defensive strategy is about storing grain and other foodstuffs in forts and fortified towns as Halsall points out.  I think he overemphasises the issues, but it does have the effect of spreading the enemy army out.  If you can pick off foraging parties and force the army to stay closer together it will get hungrier.  Were the Alammani at Strasbourg less than the estimated 13,000 in Julian's force as Halsall suggests.  I am sceptical, but they certainly weren't much greater.

One point I am less certain on is how many warriors would have been involved in bringing in the harvest.  This is important factor in whether a barbarian army can campaign during the harvest season.  This is the same time as when you can gather the most food in a raiding party.  Germanic society becomes more stratified and less egalitarian, certainly comparing the 1st century and the 4th century.  The amount of land under arable agriculture increases substantially during this period.

If you want an alternative view, Ilkkya Syvanne in his Military History of Late Rome accepts Ammianus's claim that there were 35,000 Alammani warriors.

Halsall's suggestion is that the balance of power was hugely in the favour of the Roman Empire and that it was internal politics that was the balancing factor. Unlike the Early Imperial period when there was much more political unity behind the Emperor, or at least the concept of Empire, after the anarchy of the third century.

He points out the wargames implications, i.e. that if reproducing a historical battle, the Romans might outnumber the barbarian enemy.  Roman elite troops are substantially better drilled and equipped than barbarian forces, but the Roman army was facing for the most part hardened warriors with combat experience.  I think Halsall ought to have mentioned that at least some of the Late Roman army recruits were the same barbarian warriors.

Richard

[nikgaukroger]

If you want an alternative view, Ilkkya Syvanne in his Military History of Late Rome accepts Ammianus's claim that there were 35,000 Alammani warriors.

Syvanne is wholly uncritical of numbers in ancient sources. This review of one of the books in his Late Rome series shows just how problematic his approach is - https://deremilitari.org/2021/02/ilkka-syvanne-military-history-of-late-rome-425-457-haggai-olshanetsky/

[Rittervonbek]

I have been trying to read Syvannes book on Post Roman Britain.  I am struggling to get my head round some of his ideas e. g. Early Saxon raiders carried small shields because they fought in pike phalanxes to counter Romano British cavalry armies. Shield sizes increased over time as the Pike dropped out of use due to the decline of the cavalry threat. I am intrigued, gobsmacked and disbelieving in equal measure.
Disclaimer: I know little about the period at the moment.

[nikgaukroger]

There is some truth in the change of shield size. This is usually attributed to a change from somewhat individualistic fighting style to a "shieldwall" style - the former benefitting from a more manoeuvrable shield, the latter on a larger one.

I'm afraid that whilst I once read Syvanne's stuff because it was thought provoking even where I felt it (at best) stretched the evidence and plausibility, these days I think his recent work is in Lala-Land 

[lionheartrjc]

There is some evidence for the Picts using longer spears (not really Pikes) to face off British cavalry.  I am unaware of any evidence for the Anglo-Saxons doing the same thing.

I agree with Nik, too much of Syvanne's work either takes sources literally without considering the context in which they were written, or develops elaborate theories based on the minutest of evidence.

Richard

[nikgaukroger]

Were the Alammani at Strasbourg less than the estimated 13,000 in Julian's force as Halsall suggests.  I am sceptical, but they certainly weren't much greater.

I tend to agree, I think Halsall overplays it in this case - this was quite a major campaigning year for both the Romans and Alamanni and both appear to have put significant numbers into the field so an Alamanni army around the size of Julian's (or a bit bigger) is not implausible IMO. It appears to me that the Alamanni were willing to face Julian's army in the field but had previously not done so against the larger forces sent against them further east, this suggests to me that they felt they had a chance (although there is an element of them being caught by the Romans in a position they couldn't quickly extract themselves from).