TheEastern Roman army refers to the army of the eastern section of theRoman Empire, from the empire's definitive split in 395 AD to the army's reorganization bythemes after the permanent loss ofSyria,Palestine andEgypt to theArabs in the 7th century during theByzantine-Arab Wars. The East Roman army was the continuation of theLate Roman army of the 4th century, until it gradually transformed into what is now called theByzantine army from the 7th century onwards.

The East Roman army was a direct continuation of the eastern portion of thelate Roman army as it existed before the final division of the empire. The East Roman army initially maintained the same basic organization as the late Roman army and itsWest Roman counterpart, but gradually underwent significant structural changes between the 5th and 7th centuries.Cavalry became more important, mobile field armies took on a more prominent role, and the border armies were eventually transformed into local militias.

In the 6th century, EmperorJustinian I, (r. 527–565 AD), sent much of the East Roman military to participate in the partial reconquest of several portions of the formerWestern Roman Empire. In these wars, theEastern Roman Empire reconquered parts ofNorth Africa from theVandal Kingdom, most of Italy from theOstrogothic Kingdom, and parts of southern Spain. The strength of the East Roman army diminished greatly during Justinian's reign, due in large part to the severe demographic impact of thePlague of Justinian on the population of the Eastern empire. In the 7th century, the East Roman army fought a long and destructive war against theSasasian Empire under the leadership ofHeraclius. Heraclius temporarily regainedEgypt andSyria from the Sasanians, but almost immediately faced an invasion by the expandingRashidun Caliphate. His generals’ defeat at theBattle of Yarmuk lead directly to theIslamic conquest of Syria andEgypt, and ultimately caused the reorganization of the East Roman army into thethematic system of laterByzantine armies.

Much of the evidence for the East Roman army's deployments at the end of the 4th century is contained in a single document, theNotitia Dignitatum, compiled c. 395–420, a manual of all late Roman public offices, military and civil. The primary deficiency of theNotitia as a source is its lack of any personnel figures, making estimates of army size difficult or impossible. Despite this, theNotitia remains the central source on the late Army's structure due to the dearth of other evidence.

TheStrategikon of the EmperorMaurikios, from the end of the 6th century, describes the cavalry tactics, organization, and equipment of the East Roman army towards the end of this period.^[1] TheDe re militari ofVegetius, probably from the beginning of the 5th century, calls for reform of the West Roman army, which was similar to the East Roman army. However, theDe re militari emphasizes the revival of earlier Roman practices, and does not provide a clear view of the tactics, organization, and practices of any branch of thelate Roman army.

The histories ofAmmianus Marcellinus provide a glimpse of the late Roman army before the division of theRoman Empire. Those ofProcopius, especially hisWars and parts of hisBuildings, written while accompanying themagister militumBelisarius during the emperorJustinian's wars against theSassanid Empire and thebarbariansuccessor kingdoms, provide a view of the East Roman army in the period, and its campaigns.^[1] The histories ofAgathias andMenander continue those of Procopius.^[1]

Another major source for the East Roman army includes the legal codes published in the Eastern Roman Empire in the 5th and 6th centuries: theTheodosian code (438) and theCorpus Iuris Civilis (528-39). These compilations of Roman laws dating from the 4th century contain numerous imperial decrees relating to the regulation and administration of the late army.

In 395, the death of the last sole Roman emperor,Theodosius I (r. 379–395 AD), led to the final split of the empire into two political entities, the West (Occidentale) and the East (Orientale). A system of dual emperors (calledAugusti after the founder of the empire,Augustus), each ruling one half of the empire as nominal imperial partners, had been instituted a century earlier by the reforms of the emperorDiocletian (r. 284–305 AD). This had never been envisaged as a true political separation, but rather as an administrative and military necessity. Decrees issued by either emperor were valid in both halves of the empire, and the successor of eachAugustus required the recognition of the other. The empire was reunited under one emperor underConstantine I after 324, under Constantius II after 353, under Julian after 361, and under Theodosius himself after 394.

The division of the Roman state into two sections accompanied a growing cultural divergence between east and west. The common language of the East had always beenGreek, while that of the West wasLatin. This was notper se a significant division, as the empire had long been a fusion of Greek and Roman cultures (classical civilisation) and the Roman ruling class was entirely bilingual. But the rise ofChristianity strained that unity, as the religion was always much more widespread in the East than in the West, which was still largely pagan in 395.^{[citation needed]} Constantine's massive reconstruction of the city ofByzantium intoConstantinople, a second capital to rival Rome, led to the establishment of a separate eastern court, senate and administrative bureaucracy.

The political split became institutionally formalized over the course of thecollapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, during which the central authority of the Western emperor was gradually supplanted by the local rule of a number of barbarian Germanic chieftains. Following the deposition of Western emperor Romulus Augustulus by Ostrogothic leader Odoacer in 476, the senate in Rome sent the Western imperial insignia to Constantinople, along with a message recognizing Eastern emperor Zeno as soleAugustus. In response, and in tacit acceptance of the new political order, Zeno declined to nominate an imperial colleague in the West, breaking with the dual-emperor system enacted by Diocletian more than 150 years prior.^[2] Zeno instead recognized Odoacer as a nominally-subordinate imperial viceroy in Italy, although in practice, both Odoacer and his Germanic contemporaries ruling other areas of the former Western empire were independent from Roman rule.

By this time, the Western Roman army consisted primarily offoederati, non-Roman barbarian troops operating under the command of their own chieftains, functionally independent from the Western imperial court in Ravenna. As these chieftains asserted their independence from imperial authority, simultaneously removing their troops from imperial command, the Western Roman army also therefore ceased to exist as an institution.

The Eastern Roman army, on the other hand, maintained a structure that was administratively continuous with the Late Roman military of the 4th century AD, undergoing gradual changes until experiencing radical reform in the wake of the Persian and Arab invasions of the 7th century. On the eve of these invasions, at the end of the 6th century, the East Roman army still adhered to the same basic division between mobile field armies (comitatenses) and frontier troops (limitanei) that existed in the 4th century. Despite this high-level structural continuity, throughout the 5th and 6th centuries, several important changes took place, including an erosion of previously strict organizational boundaries between Roman troops and non-Romanfoederati allies, as well as an increasing reliance onbucellarii, the household guard units of high-ranking Eastern Roman officers and officials.^[3]

Following Eastern empire's loss of its dominions in the Near East and North Africa, especially Egypt, to the Arab invasions of the 7th century, the East Roman military underwent a dramatic structural re-organization into thetheme system. Mobile field armies were settled in military-administrative districts within the empire's remaining territories in Asia Minor, Greece and the Balkan peninsula, eliminating the longstanding distinction between the field armies and frontier troops. This is generally understood as the transition point between the East Roman army of Late Antiquity, and the Byzantine army of the early medieval period.^[2]

Warren Treadgold estimates that the Eastern Roman army had about 3,500scolae or guards, 104,000 field army soldiers, with an uncertain number of sailors, and 195,500 border army soldiers, again with an uncertain number of sailors, in 395.^[4]

Treadgold also estimates that the Eastern Roman army had about 150,000 field army soldiers, with an uncertain number of sailors, in 559, late in the period ofJustinian.^[5]

Treadgold also estimates that the Eastern Roman army had about 80,000 field army soldiers, with an uncertain number of sailors, in 641, after the Islamic conquest of Syria and Egypt.^[6]

The size of the Eastern army in 395 is controversial because the size of individual regiments is not known with any certainty. Plausible estimates of the size of the whole 4th-century army (excluding fleets) range from c. 400,000^[7] to c. 600,000.^[8] This would place the Eastern army in the rough range 200,000 to 300,000, since the army of each division of the empire was roughly equal.^[9]

The higher end of the range is provided by the late 6th-century military historianAgathias, who gives a global total of 645,000 effectives for the army "in the old days", presumed to mean when the empire was united.^[10] This figure probably includes fleets, giving a total of c. 600,000 for the army alone. Agathias is supported byA.H.M. Jones'Later Roman Empire (1964), which contains the fundamental study of the late Roman army. Jones calculated a similar total of 600,000 (exc. fleets) by applying his own estimates of unit strength to the units listed in theNotitia Dignitatum.^[8] Following Jones, Treadgold suggests 300,000 for the East in 395.^[11]

But there are strong reasons to view 200,000 as more likely:

1. Jones' assumptions about unit strengths, based onpapyri evidence from Egypt, are probably too high. A rigorous reassessment of the evidence by R. Duncan-Jones concluded that Jones had overestimated unit sizes by 2-5 times.^[12]
2. The evidence is that regiments were typically one-third understrength in the 4th century.^[13] Thus Agathias' 600,000 on paper (if it is based on official figures at all) may in reality have translated into only 400,000 actual troops on the ground.
3. Agathias gives a figure of 150,000 for the army in his own time (late 6th century) which is more likely to be accurate than his figures for the 4th century. If Agathias' 4th- and 6th-century figures are taken together, they would imply that Justinian's empire was defended by only half the troops that supposedly defended the earlier empire, despite having to cover even more territory (the reconquered provinces of Italy, Africa and S. Spain), which seems inherently unlikely.

The discrepancy in army size estimates is mainly due to uncertainty about the size oflimitanei regiments, as can be seen by the wide range of estimates in the table below. Jones suggestslimitanei regiments had a similar size to Principate auxilia regiments, averaging 500 men each.^[14] More recent work, which includes new archaeological evidence, tends to the view that units were much smaller, perhaps averaging 250.^[12][15]

There is less dispute aboutcomitatus regiments, because of more evidence. Treadgold estimates the 5comitatus armies of the East as containing c. 20,000 men each, for a total of c. 100,000, which constitutes either one-third or one-half of the total army.^[11]

About one third of the army units in theNotitia are cavalry, but cavalry numbers were less than that proportion of the total because cavalry unit sizes were smaller.^[16] The available evidence suggests that the proportion of cavalry was about one-fifth of the total effectives: in 478, acomitatus of 38,000 men contained 8,000 cavalry (21%).^[17]

The later 4th-century army contained three types of army group: (1) Imperial escort armies (comitatus praesentales). These were ordinarily based near Constantinople, but often accompanied the emperors on campaign. (2) Regional armies (comitatus). These were based in strategic regions, on or near the frontiers. (3) Border armies (exercitus limitanei). These were based on the frontiers themselves.

The command structure of the Eastern army, as recorded in theNotitia Dignitatum, is represented diagrammatically in the organisation chart (above).

By the end of the 4th century, there were twocomitatus praesentales in the East. They wintered near Constantinople at Nicaea and Nicomedia. Each was commanded by amagister militum ("master of soldiers", the highest military rank) Eachmagister was assisted by a deputy called avicarius.^[18]

There were three major regionalcomitatus, also with apparently settled winter bases: Oriens (based atAntioch), Thraciae (Marcianopolis), Illyricum (Sirmium) plus two smaller forces in Aegyptus (Alexandria) andIsauria. The largecomitatus were commanded bymagistri, the smaller ones bycomites. All five reported direct to the easternAugustus. This structure remained essentially intact until the 6th century.^[18]

Units were classified according to whether they were attached to the guard (excubitores andscholae), the field armies (palatini andcomitatenses) or the border armies (limitanei).

The strength of these units is very uncertain and may have varied over the 5th and 6th centuries. Size may also have varied depending on the status of the regiment. The table below gives some recent estimates of unit strength, by unit type and grade:

The overall picture is thatcomitatenses units were either c. 1,000 or c. 500 strong.Limitanei units would appear to average about 250 effectives. But much uncertainty remains, especially regarding the size oflimitanei regiments, as can be seen by the wide ranges of the size estimates.

The emperorLeo I created theExcubitores as an elite bodyguard of about 300 soldiers.^[20] However, the intrigues and political ambitions of their commanders (The Counts of the Excubitors, rendered in Latin ascomes excubitorum) such asPriscus during the reigns of the emperorsMaurice,Phocas andHeraclius and theCount Valentinus during the reign of EmperorConstans II, doomed Leo I's formerly famed Isaurian unit to obscurity.

The emperorConstantine I created theScholae Palatinae as an elite guards unit of about 6,000 soldiers,^[21] and to replace thePraetorian Guard of about 10,000 soldiers.^[22] 40 select troops from thescholae, calledcandidati from their white uniforms, acted as the emperor's personal bodyguards.^[23] Apart from theAgentes in Rebus, theScholae were originally organized as cavalry units to accompany the emperors on campaign, although later, individual members of theScholae could have non-military missions.^[24] Eventually,Justinian auctioned off positions in what was still a prestigious ceremonial unit, but no longer a fighting force.^[24]

They were outside the normal military chain of command as they did not belong to thecomitatus praesentales and reported to themagister officiorum, a civilian official.^[25] However, this was probably only for administrative purposes: on campaign, the tribunes commanding eachschola probably reported direct to the emperor himself.

TheNotitia Dignitatum lists 7 scolae of cavalry and 1 of agents in the East Roman empire, as well as 5 of cavalry and 1 of agents in the West Roman empire.^[26]

Comitatenses cavalry units were known asvexillationes, infantry units as eitherlegiones orauxilia.^[27] About half the units in thecomitatus, both cavalry and infantry, were classified aspalatini. The palatini were the majority of thecomitatus praesentales (80% of regiments) and constituted a minority of the regionalcomitatus (14%).^[28] Thepalatini were an elite group with higher status and probably pay.^[29]

The majority of cavalry units in thecomitatus were traditional melee formations (61%). These units were denotedscutarii,stablesiani orpromoti, probably honorific titles rather than descriptions of function. 24% of regiments were light cavalry:equitesDalmatae,Mauri andsagittarii (mounted archers). 15% were heavily armoured shock charge cavalry:cataphracti andclibanarii^[16]

The limitanei garrisoned fortifications along the borders of the Roman Empire. They were lower-status and lower-paid than the comitatenses and palatini.^[30] The nature of the limitanei changed considerably between their introduction in the 3rd or 4th century and their disappearance in the 6th or 7th century. In the 4th century, the limitanei were professional soldiers,^[31][32][33] and included both infantry and cavalry as well as river flotillas,^[26][34] but after the 5th century they were part-time soldiers,^[31] and after the 6th century they were unpaid militia.^[35][36] The limitanei between the 4th and 6th centuries were commanded by a duke (duces). Dukes essentially controlled private armies which operated separately from the imperial army. However, during the 6th century the power wielded by these dukes diminished meaning that many of the limitanei became part-time soldiers who supported their income usually through agricultural labour.^[37] The role of the limitanei appears to have included garrisoning frontier fortifications, operating as border guards and customs police, and preventing small-scale raids.^[38][39]

Although the Eastern Roman army sometimes turned to conscription it usually relied on volunteer soldiers.^[40] Shortages of money, rather than of manpower, usually limited recruitment.^[40]

In 395, the army used Latin as its operating language. This continued to be the case into the late 6th century, despite the fact that Greek was the common language of the Eastern empire.^{[41][unreliable source?]} This was not simply due to tradition, but also to the fact that about half the Eastern army continued to be recruited in the Latin-speaking Danubian regions of the Eastern empire. An analysis of known origins ofcomitatenses in the period 350-476 shows that in the Eastern army, the Danubian regions provided 54% of the total sample, despite constituting just 2 of the 7 easterndioceses (administrative divisions): Dacia and Thracia.^[42] These regions continued to be the prime recruiting grounds for the Eastern Roman army e.g. the emperorJustin I (r. 518-27), uncle of Justinian I, was a Latin-speaking peasant who never learnt to speak more than rudimentary Greek. The RomanizedThracian andIllyrian inhabitants of those regions, who came to be known asVlachs by foreigners in theMiddle Ages, retained the Roman name (Romanians) and the Latin tongue.^{[citation needed]}

This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding missing information.(September 2013)

The Eastern Roman heavy infantry relied on their spears and shields in close combat.^[43] These weapons were most effective when the soldiers fought in formation.^[44]

TheStrategikon is the earliest surviving Roman/Byzantine cavalry manual, and directly influenced later Byzantine military manuals. The Strategikon describes the organization, equipment, and tactics of the east Roman army at the end of this period.

The Eastern Roman army included both light and heavy infantry,^[45] as well as light and heavy cavalry.^[46][47]

The equipment of the Eastern Roman army changed considerably between the 4th and 7th Centuries. By the end of the period, the cavalry had armor andhorse armor, with both bows and lances as weapons. The heavy infantry still had armor, with large shields, spears, and swords. The light infantry had bows.

M.C. Bishop and J.C.M. Coulston, in a major work on Roman military equipment, do not distinguish the equipment of the various branches of the Roman military.^[48] It is doubtful whether there were any universal differences between the equipment of the palatini, comitatenses, and limitanei.

The late Roman Empire had centralized fabricae, introduced by Diocletian, to provide arms and armor for the army.^{[48][49][50][51]} The introduction of the centralized fabricae, where earlier armies had relied on legionary workshops, may reflect the needs of the field armies.^{[citation needed]}

This Equipment and Tactics mayrequirecleanup to meet Wikipedia'squality standards. The specific problem is:Copied this section fromLate Roman army as a template. We need to cut out everything specific to an earlier period and add everything specific to this period. Please helpimprove this Equipment and Tactics if you can.(September 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The basic equipment of a 4th-century foot soldier was essentially the same as in the 2nd century: metal armour cuirass, metal helmet, shield and sword.^[52] Some evolution took place during the 3rd century. Trends included the adoption of warmer clothing; the disappearance of distinctive legionary armour and weapons; the adoption by the infantry of equipment used by the cavalry in the earlier period; and the greater use of heavily armoured cavalry calledcataphracts.

According to theStrategikon, the cavalry soldiers should have long "Avar" tunics reaching past the knees, and large cloaks with sleeves.^[53]

According to theStrategikon, the infantry soldiers should have long "Gothic" tunics reaching the knees, or short ones with split sides, as well as "Gothic" shoes with thick hobnailed soles, and "Bulgarian" cloaks.^[54]

In the 1st and 2nd centuries, a Roman soldier's clothes consisted of a single-piece, short-sleeved tunic whose hem reached the knees and special hobnailed sandals (caligae). This attire, which left the arms and legs bare, had evolved in a Mediterranean climate and was not suitable for northern Europe in cold weather. In northern Europe, long-sleeved tunics, trousers (bracae), socks (worn inside thecaligae) and laced boots were commonly worn in winter from the 1st century. During the 3rd century, these items of clothing became much more widespread, apparently common in Mediterranean provinces also.^[55] However, it is likely that in warmer weather, trousers were dispensed with andcaligae worn instead of socks and boots.^[56] Late Roman clothing was often highly decorated, with woven or embroidered strips,clavi, and circular roundels,orbiculi, added to tunics and cloaks. These decorative elements usually consisted of geometrical patterns and stylised plant motifs, but could include human or animal figures.^[57] A distinctive part of a soldier's costume, though it seems to have also been worn by non-military bureaucrats, was a type of round, brimless hat known as the pannonian cap (pileus pannonicus).^[58]

In the 3rd century, troops are depicted wearingmail orscale armour. The artistic record shows that most late soldiers wore metal armour, despite Vegetius' statement to the contrary. For example, illustrations in theNotitia show that the army'sfabricae (arms factories) were producing mail armour at the end of the 4th century.^[59] Actual examples of both scale armour and quite large sections of mail have been recovered, at Trier and Weiler-La-Tour respectively, within 4th-century contexts.^[60] Officers generally seem to have worn bronze or iron cuirasses, as in the days of the Principate, together with traditionalpteruges.^[61] The cataphract andclibanarii cavalry, from limited pictorial evidence and especially from the description of these troops by Ammianus, seem to have worn specialist forms of armour. In particular their limbs were protected by laminated defences, made up of curved and overlapping metal segments:"Laminarum circuli tenues apti corporis flexibus ambiebant per omnia membra diducti" (Thin circles of iron plates, fitted to the curves of their bodies, completely covered their limbs).^[62]

This Helmets mayrequirecleanup to meet Wikipedia'squality standards. The specific problem is:So far this relies on the Late Roman army article. We need to delete the out-of-date sections and include good info on the Byzantine types. Stephenson refers to ridge helmets, spangenhelms, lamellar helmets, coifs (done), and kettle helmets, along with anomalous finds, and imho we should try to touch on each except the anomalous finds. Please helpimprove this Helmets if you can.(September 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

In general, Roman cavalry helmets had enhanced protection, in the form of wider cheek-guards and deeper neck-guards, for the sides and back of the head than infantry helmets. Infantry were less vulnerable in those parts due to their tighter formation when fighting.^[63] During the 3rd century, infantry helmets tended to adopt the more protective features of cavalry helmets of the Principate. Cheek-guards could often be fastened together over the chin to protect the face, and covered the ears save for a slit to permit hearing e.g. the "Auxiliary E" type or its Niederbieber variant. Cavalry helmets became even more enclosed e.g. the "Heddernheim" type, which is close to the medievalgreat helm, but at the cost much reduced vision and hearing.^[64]

In contrast, some infantry helmets in the 4th century reverted to the more open features of the main Principate type, the "Imperial Gallic". The "Intercisa" design left the face unobstructed and had ear-holes in the join between cheek-guards and bowl to allow good hearing. In a radical change from the earlier single-bowl design, the Intercisa bowl was made of two separate pieces joined by a riveted ridge in the middle (hence the term "ridge helmet"). It was simpler and cheaper to manufacture, and therefore probably by far the most common type, but structurally weaker and therefore offered less effective protection.^[65] The "Berkasovo" type was a more sturdy and protective ridge helmet. This type of helmet usually has 4 to 6 skull elements (and the characteristic median ridge), a nasal (nose-guard), a deep brow piece riveted inside the skull elements and large cheekpieces. This was probably the cavalry version, as the cheekpieces lack ear-holes. Unusually the helmet discovered atBurgh Castle, in England, is of the Berkasovo method of construction, but has cheekpieces with earholes. Face-guards of mail or in the form of metal 'anthropomorphic masks,' with eye-holes, were often added to the helmets of the heaviest forms of cavalry, especiallycataphracti.^[66][67]

Despite the apparent cheapness of manufacture of their basic components, many surviving examples of Late Roman helmets, including the Intercisa type, show evidence of expensive decoration in the form of silver orsilver-gilt sheathing.^[68][69] A possible explanation is that most of the surviving exemplars may have belonged to officers and that silver- or gold-plating denoted rank; and, in the case of mounted gemstones, high rank e.g. the ornateDeurne helmet, believed by some historians to have belonged to a senior officer.^[70] Other academics, in contrast, consider that silver-sheathed helmets may have been widely worn bycomitatus soldiers, given as a form of pay or reward.^[71]

Some Eastern Roman soldiers wore mail or scale hoods for head protection; these could be part of mail coats or could be separatecoifs.^{[dead link][72][73]} Similar armoured hoods appear in an illustration in the Vergilius Vaticanus.^[74]

Shields were both protective equipment for the soldiers and insignia for their units.^[75] Both Vegetius, inDe re Militari, and Mauricius, in theStrategikon, emphasize that each unit should have distinctive shields.^[76]

Lance-armed cavalry carried shields, although bow-armed cavalry generally did not.^[77]

All troops adopted the auxiliary oval (or sometimes round) shield (clipeus).^[78] Shields, from examples found at Dura and Nydam, were of vertical plank construction, the planks glued, and faced inside and out with painted leather. The edges of the shield were bound with stitched rawhide, which shrank as it dried improving structural cohesion. It was also lighter than the edging of copper alloy used in earlier Roman shields.^[79]

The Eastern Roman heavy infantry relied on the spear in close combat.^[43] No late Roman or Eastern Roman spear shafts survive, but I.P. Stephenson suggests that Eastern Roman spears may have been as long as northern European spears discovered in the bog deposits at Illerup and Nydam, between 2.23 meters and 3.54 meters long.^[80]

The infantry adopted thespatha, a longer (median length: 760 mm/30 in) sword that during the earlier centuries was used by the cavalry only.^[81] In addition, Vegetius mentions the use of a shorter-bladed sword termed asemispatha.^[82] At the same time, infantry acquired a heavy thrusting-spear (hasta) which became the main close order combat weapon to replace thegladius, as thespatha was too long to be swung comfortably in tight formation (although it could be used to stab). These trends imply a greater emphasis on fighting the enemy "at arm's length".^[83]

Short, single-edged knives were also used, although probably as tools rather than weapons.^[84] These appear in 4th-century graves with military belt fittings,^[85] and similar tools appear in 4th through 7th-century contexts.^[86]

In addition to his thrusting-spear, a late foot soldier might also carry a throwing-spear (verutum) or aspiculum, a kind of heavy, longpilum, similar to anangon. Alternatively, a couple of short javelins (lanceae). Late infantrymen often carried half a dozen lead-weighted throwing-darts calledplumbatae (fromplumbum = "lead"), with an effective range of c. 30 m (98 ft), well beyond that of a javelin. The darts were carried clipped to the back of the shield.^[87] The late foot soldier thus had greater missile capability than his Principate predecessor, who was usually limited to just twopila.^[88] Late Roman archers continued to use the recurvedcomposite bow as their principal weapon. This was a sophisticated, compact and powerful weapon, suitable for mounted and foot archers alike (the cavalry version being more compact than the infantry's). A small number of archers may have been armed withcrossbows (manuballistae).^{[89][dubious –discuss]}

This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding missing information.(September 2013)

In the 6th century, the emperorJustinian I, who reigned from 527 to 565, sent much of the East Roman army to try to reconquer the formerWestern Roman Empire. In these wars, the East Roman empire reconquered parts of North Africa from theVandal kingdom and Italy from theOstrogothic kingdom, as well as parts of southernSpain. Initially, Justinian was not trying to reconquer former Western Roman territories however, the successes of Belisarius' campaigns against the Vandals in 533-534 would lead Justinian into undertaking further military campaigns by launching a war against the Ostrogoths of Italy in 535.^[90] In the 7th century, the emperorHeraclius led the east Roman army against theSassanid Empire, temporarily regainingEgypt andSyria, and then against theRashidun Caliphate. His generals’ defeat at theBattle of Yarmuk would lead to the Islamic conquest of Syria and Egypt, and would force the reorganization of the East Roman army, leading to thethematic system of laterByzantine armies.

• Duncan-Jones, Richard (1990).Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy.
• Duncan-Jones, Richard (1994).Money and Government in the Roman Empire.
• Elton, Hugh (1996).Warfare in Roman Europe, AD 350-425.Oxford University Press.ISBN 978-0-19-815241-5.
• Goldsworthy, Adrian (2000).Roman Warfare.
• Goldsworthy, Adrian (2005).Complete Roman Army.
• Heather, Peter (2005).Fall of the Roman Empire.
• Isaac, B. (1992).Limits of Empire.
• Jones, A.H.M. (1964).Later Roman Empire.
• Kaldellis, Anthony; Kruse, Marion (11 May 2023).The Field Armies of the East Roman Empire, 361–630. Cambridge University Press.ISBN 978-1-009-29694-6.
• Luttwak, Edward (1976).Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. Johns Hopkins University Press.ISBN 978-0-8018-1863-9.
• Treadgold, Warren (1995).Byzantium and its Army (284-1081).
• Wacher, John (1988).The Roman World.

• Military history of ancient Rome
• Byzantine army
• Late Roman military

• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Pages using sidebar with the child parameter
• All articles with unsourced statements
• Articles with unsourced statements from September 2013
• All articles lacking reliable references
• Articles lacking reliable references from September 2013
• Articles to be expanded from September 2013
• All articles to be expanded
• Articles needing cleanup from September 2013
• All pages needing cleanup
• Cleanup tagged articles with a reason field from September 2013
• Wikipedia pages needing cleanup from September 2013
• All articles with dead external links
• Articles with dead external links from September 2013
• All accuracy disputes
• Articles with disputed statements from September 2013