Where was the Roman army during the late invasions of its territory...

Where was the Roman army during the late invasions of its territory? We have evidence of hordes marching without meeting any kind of opposition for hundreds of miles. Where were they?

The defense of their provinces definitely changed over the violent course of the Third Century Crisis. Cavalry and light infantry units enjoyed increasing prominence in this chaotic decades, and emperors began to establish their seats of government at more strategic locations - Sirmium, Mediolanium, and Antioch, among others.

For Gaul, the Liminatei lost 2/3 of their soldiers during the Barbarian Invasion of the Goths, Alans, Suebi, and Burgundians, the remaining was then sent to protect Italy, leaving Gaul empty of actual Roman troops.

The remaining "army" was made-up of Gaulish and Barbarians feoderati, who cared more about protecting their cities, than anything else.

Limitanei*

Was their empire survivable or the problems were way too much? Could a Caesar like figure save Rome during the worst period of its history?

The theory is, Rome got powerful on conquering and looting, once it turned into a defensive mode, the wealth ran out, and it couldnt pay its barbarian soldiers anymore.

From that, the only way to save Rome would be an invasion of Persia, or China or Benin

>Was their empire survivable or the problems were way too much?
No
The Empire was far too corrupt to be saved.

>Could a Caesar like figure save Rome during the worst period of its history?
Aurelian did it, but he is one who allowed Barbarians into the Army and he settled a signifiant ammount of them in the Empire.

Late Roman military actions were very routine, any time you hear about something surprising happening in the sources it's recorded simply because it was exceptional. In some areas, Limitanei would defeat up to half a dozen attempted border incursions a day, and the only exceptional aspect is that eventually they were defeated and the Comitatenses had to be called in. 9 times out of ten when you ask "where was the army during x" the answer is "fighting elsewhere".

Foederati *were* "actual Roman troops", equipped, paid and trained by the Roman state, serving under Roman leadership, and integrated into Roman culture. You're confusing Foederati with what the Romans called "allies", who were non-citizens fighting on behalf of Roman interests. Foederati didn't guard cities either, that's what castelli were for.

Also, "Gaulish" hadn't been an independent identity for hundreds of years at this point, except for in Armorica.

Usually it was busy fighting itself. During the Visigothic invasion of Italy and when the Sueves, Vandals and various other tribes crossed the Rhine in 406 there were like four different usurpers running around. The Britons got so pissed at their legionary protection being recalled for some stupid civil war that they ended up throwing the Roman administrators out.

>Foederati *were* "actual Roman troops"
Nope

>Foederati didn't guard cities
Feoderati guarded their territory/cities

>Being conquered mean you do not exist anymore
retard le post

>Armorica
ULTIMATE RETARD le post

You mean Tractatus Amoricus, right, brainlet ?

>Tractatus Amoricus
Tractatus Armoricus

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say but the information in my post was mainly sourced from Hugh Elton's Warfare in Roman Europe and Penny MacGeorge's Late Roman Warlords, if you're interested.

>Feoderati guarded their territory/cities

If Britannia is anything to go by, they weren't even allowed into the cities, and had to be billeted at least several hundred metres away.

There were Caesar-like figures, maybe not as impressive in achievement, but great men who did their best for Rome and had the talent to do it. They were all killed before their time.

Stilicho and Aetius were two of these men toward the end. Stilicho was executed on orders of his emperor because he was of barbarian ancestry and the emperor feared his popularity and growing power. Aetius was killed by the emperor himself because again, he was too powerful and awesome. It didn't help that Aetius had pretty much bared his ambitions in an attempt to seize power before he was called to stop the Huns.

>Gaulish identity didin't exist
>Gaulish identity existed in Armorica

I say that you are a brainlet, even your original post doesn't make sense


Which is why i said; "For Gaul"

There was no "Roman army" during the last centuries of the empire. They relied on mercenaries and foreign auxiliaries to fight their wars and defend their borders. You ask how the Goths managed to depose the western Emperor and set themselves up as kings of Italy without having to fight the Roman armies of the west? It's because the Goths WERE the Roman armies of the west!

>There was no "Roman army" during the last centuries of the empire.

Fuck off /pol/. Even as late as the early 5th century AD the vast majority of the army was composed of Roman troops.

Calling them Roman doesn't make them Roman, they were barbarians.

>There was no "Roman army" during the last centuries of the empire. They relied on mercenaries and foreign auxiliaries to fight their wars and defend their borders.
This is an almost embarrassing misunderstanding of Late Roman military history and I encourage you to actually read a book on the subject.

>Even as late as the early 5th century AD
Name these romans

Please do explain how German and Gothic tribesmen were really Romans at heart.

>They relied on mercenaries and foreign auxiliaries to fight their wars and defend their borders
I wish I could bring that fuckface Gibbon forward in time and show him the absolute retardation he has caused.

Please name the battles these "Roman armies" fought in during the 4th and 5th centuries.

Although that's true, the latter part of what you said is a blatant lie... There were a million areas that Rome could have invaded other that Persia, China, or Africa. In 117 when Trajan invaded Dacia, a relatively small and insignificant region compared to Persia, it launched Rome into one of its finest golden ages for a couple of decades.

If Rome had slowly eaten away at Germania and more of Eastern Europe, we could have easily had a self sufficient machine until the Empire could build up industry back home.

The only problem was the Emperors like Adrianus or Augusts didn't see the bigger picture. Although on short term, defensive strategies are easy to maintain and better, when it comes down to it, you need to keep expanding.

Is not the same true for any Empire? Even America today. If you're not 'expanding', i.e., bringing new countries into your sphere, you're moving down in terms of power.

?

>Romans at heart.
I see you're unable to read a book, I recommend the podcast "The Fall of Rome", a guy who did his PhD in the subject hosted it.

>Huuuurrr duuurrrrr let project my political beliefs wrongly to historical subjects I obviously have no idea of.

People keep throwing around terms like "barbarian mercenaries" and "foreign auxiliaries" which just shows they really don't understand how the Roman army worked.

The Romans did have foreign contingents that they called "allies" who operated within their own military structures and only answered to the Roman state executively. These would fit the common trope of "barbarian foreigners fighting on behalf of a cowardly Empire", only allies were not paid. They fought for the Romans out of political obligations, or out of fear, or respect, or loyalty, or common cause, or whatever else, but they weren't paid.

The other misunderstood term is "Foederati", which people often mistake as meaning what "allies" actually means. Foederati were for the most part indistinguishable from other Roman soldiers. They were trained, equipped and paid by the Roman state and fought under the command of Roman officers using Roman tactics. They bore Roman names and engaged in Roman politics, though their forebears might not have. According to tombs, sarcophagi, panegyrics and so on, serving in the Roman army as Foederati seems to have pretty universally been considered a great honor.

Foederati were used only in very small numbers. Synesius, in describing an army of several thousand Roman troops, accounts for a Foederati force of 40 men. Zosimus describes the Foederati under the command of one Olympius as numbering around 300, again in an army of several thousand. In some cases they seemed to have functioned as specialist troops, like Hun horse archers or Frankish sappers, never numbering more than a few dozen in either case.

I'm not sure where the notion that the Late army comprised entirely of foederati comes from but I wish it would go away.

>Foederati were for the most part indistinguishable from other Roman soldiers
how about them rebelling to secede and doing nothing to honor their agreements to defend the Roman empire in pereptuity in return for their shit-tribes having exclusive power over swathes of western roman land?

They are just as Roman as we are, you filthy racistus !

Alot of the "roman" commanders in the late empire were barberians, suggesting the bulk of their troops were also foederati

Posting some potentially interdasting graphs which will hopefully settle some arguments

...

...

ive read this excerpt about some barbarian army terrorizing the roman countryside in cisalpine gaul and people were wondering where the hell was the guys whose supposed to protect us
after some legion came and kicked the barbarian asses and they were wondering why they took so long and that they were supposed to defend them
than the general said something like those barbarians were supposed to be your protectors

your graph doesn't mean shit when roman blood is on every germscum hand's to this day, dripping, from hudnreds of years of wearing an emperors' title like a murderer wear's his victim's skins

>someone posts actual statistics and all discussion stops
Typical Veeky Forums

Thanks for the informative reply written in perfect english you fucking brainlet

We didn't even get a Late Roman art dump out of it baka

Shameful indeed

>they were barbarians.

No. They were literally Romans. They were Roman citizens from Gaul, Syria, Italy, Germania, Dacia, Moesia, Thrace, Dalmatia and Numidia. It was the brutal civil wars of the 410s and the Aetius-Felix-Boniface wars of the 420s-430s that led to a shit load of the army disintegrating.

>Alot of the "roman" commanders in the late empire were barberians, suggesting the bulk of their troops were also foederati

Not really. In the middle of the 4th century you had a bunch of highly respected third generation Romans who were of Frankish ancestry. Men like Silvanus, Bauto and Arbogast. They were never actually the norm however. It's like how people seem to be under the impression that Aetius was a barbarian because he had a contingent of Hunnic foederati that fought under him and allowed him to tear apart his rivals to become supreme commander in the mid-5th century. In actual fact, he was as Roman as they come, and his Hunnic allies stem from the fact that he had spent years living beyond the frontier as a hostage and had earned the respect of Hunnic warriors.

>forgetting to include the absolute die-hard loyalty to Rome, Half-Vandal ancestry general Stilicho
Stilicho is probably the best example of a Roman being accused of being a barbarian due to his ancestry.

ye boi

Yeah I immediately thought i'd been neglectful in not mentioning him. Guy got absolutely shat on for it. Claudian's gushing couldn't save him.

...

...

I bet you're commie leftists

>GOMMUNISMS!