Civilian and Military Division

Within the text there are two major criticisms of the conduct of the citizens with regard to armed service.  The first of these states that a proportion of the populace are diverted 'partly to the enjoyment of private leisure, partly to civilian careers.'[51]  In part at least this was the result of a continuation of the policy of Diocletian, in that there was a distinctive split between civilian and military careers, the result of which was the funnelling of individuals into one sphere or the other, with very little cross-career moves allowed.  As a consequence, many individuals that may have been militarily gifted entered the civilian sector and were lost to the army.  Vegetius appears to have recognised this, and to have further noted that to many the lure of a civilian career was that they would remain civilians and avoid the tough regime of the army camp.  A further jibe at the idleness of the modern citizen was that when they could be induced to join the military, many joined the auxilia and not the legions;  '… the labour of serving in them (the legions) is great, the arms are heavier, the duties more frequent, the discipline more severe.  To avoid this many flock to the auxilia, where the sweat is less and the rewards come sooner.'[52]

As a measure to restore things to their rightful place, Vegetius proposes throughout the work that the citizens be allowed to serve only in the legions.  Furthermore, Vegetius criticises the use of literate troops for both 'special services' and for 'private business', especially in regard to their being retained at public expense to serve private interests.  Apart from being a practice he dislikes - since it is linked to his financial post and here we return to the idea of expenses being paid for no return to the state - it again reinforces Vegetius' dislike for idleness within and disdain for the main body of the citizenry.[53]

The Empire of Valentinian III

So far the main thrust of the argument has been directed towards the assumption that the work was written in the reign of Theodosius I, and I have attempted to highlight in the course of the investigation where reassessment is needed to relate the piece to the later period, but there is one area where this has not yet been attempted, and this concerns the main difference between the two periods.  In the time of Theodosius the empire was whole and united, but by Valentinian's reign the Germans held most of Gaul, Spain and North Africa, and the Empire had been irrevocably split between East and West.

As a final note, throughout the work the promotion of the antiqua legio is prominent.  In Book 1 (at I.1) Vegetius compares the ‘modern’ Romans with the Gauls, Germans, Spaniards , Africans and Greeks of antiquity.  This can be interpreted simply as being a direct comparison with the great enemies of the past.  Yet the territories these ancient enemies occupied were by Vegetius' day mainly occupied by Germanic forces, or were part of the separate Eastern Empire.  It may be possible, therefore, to see in Vegetius' proposals a desire to return to the form of army which had conquered these areas in previous centuries.  In this way, the West would reconquer lost territory, regain her previous majesty, and provide a lesson in the use of armed force to the East.