The Reorganisation Of The Imperial Roman Army

Many ancient writers and modern scholars criticised Diocletion and Constantine,who reorganized the Roman army in the 4^th century, for they replaced the traditional legions with barbarian tribes, which made the effectiveness and discipline of the late Roman army not well as ever before, even though there's little evidence to support this prejudice. But in actual,the Roman army in the 4^th century was none the less effective and more loyalty than the tradional legions.The reorganisation in the 4^th century is the result of history and not the cause of the decline of the Roman army in the next century.The first, pressures had been increasing on the frontiers from the 3^rd century to the 4^th century; the second,the Roman Empire had to give up the aggressive strategy which coundn't resist enemies in both east and west simultaneously;the third,the late Roman Empire devised a new srtagtegy, "shallow defence-in-depth",thus reorganisation adpted the army to the change of the grand srtagtegy.As a result of the new grand srtagtegy,the Roman army had designed to provide a defence in depth: staic troops of reduced status manned the frontiers, while field army of new, smaller, more flexible units were held in reserve, ready to respond to sudden threats. Afer Diocletion and Constantine's reorganisation,the new army bore little resemblance to that which had preceded it and expaned in the number;professional officers had been dominant in evry commanding posts,and an new commanding systerm had completed;a new financial systerm had been constructed at the same time.The Roman army had succeeded greatly in protection of the peace and integrity of Roman Empire during the 4^th century, in spit of the financial burden which it caused.Finaly, the bankruptcy of the finance of the late Roman Empire in the 5^th centry had the late Roman army collapsed.