Why did the late Roman empire have such trouble raising armies

Increasing reliance on mercenaries and barbarians.

Aswell as instability, corruption, etc.

File: hoplite.jpg (115KB, 664x1023px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 664x1023px

>>1147493
>Catalaunian Fields.jpg
Did they really used this huge Aspis-like shields at the time?

>>1147518
Yes.

>raise an army
>the general declares himself emperor
>raise another army
>the general declares himself king of the province he's assigned to

AYO HOL' UP!

SO WHAT YOU BE SAYIN' IS..

>>1147505
>Increasing reliance on mercenaries and barbarians.
But why?

File: 4612693861.swf.jpg (801KB, 1920x2880px) Image search: [Google]

801KB, 1920x2880px

>>1147520
Why? Aren't the oval ones superior? Did they use the phalanx tactic?

>>1147539
Rather than italian levees being raise to fight large scale wars of conquest, the late empire military forces were organized around the borders to defend against raids and fight small scale skirmishes.

A soldier is not a slave, and the only thing left in italy in the later years of the WRE were slaves.

Romans were not stupid and saw that the old opportunities for social and material advancement were gone in the later legions and thus were not willing to risk their lives as much.

Contemporaries called it the difference between disciplina, which native roman troops had, and virtus. Virtus is literally "manliness" but meant bloodlust basically and at the end only barbarians were seen as having it in sufficient quantities.

You also had a rise in the later empire of generals wanting to get back into combat. The glorious charge went from a thing that happened to low born centurions in Caesar's time to something that only happened to high-born generals, emperors, and dux. It is part of what gave rise to the knight.

>>1147493
The martial culture died. The republic had a strong martial culture, Roman men wanted to and were willing to fight for Rome, especially in defence. They saw it as their duty.

Whereas Late Rome is a huge empire governing millions of people who don't really give a shit, they don't want to leave their lives to fight and they're not very patriotic. You could say they were more like American 20s of Today compared to American 20s of 1780.

>>1147544
Too small and thin. Late Romans relied on the shield wall.

>>1147544
Also thats not a Roman its a Hellenic mercenary

the move to an oval shield and spear and due to the increase of cavalry and especially mounted archers the legions were fighting. they basically invented the tercio to deal with it. a spear wall would farm to ward of being charged and behind it would be archers.

They didn't need the giant shield anymore because they had superior chain mail. A smaller shield means they can move it around better and longer.

There were no people left to man an army.

The population of Western Europe declined continuously from the second century AD to the seventh, under the weight of chattel slavery, plagues, and crushing tax burdens.

>>1147493
When citizenship could be obtained or simply given without having to serve, there was a lot less incentive to join the military.

>>1147609
>the "we're living in a society just like that around the fall of rome, you guys" meme

>>1147778
Except you had to be a citizen in order to serve the legion. A better reason was that they weren't conquering anyone or fighting anyone with nice things to loot.

>>1147493
IIRC Republican Rome simply had conscription/levy for a significant chunk of the population like some Medieval kingdoms had.