The Army

Milner states in his introduction that the Epitoma is 'not a true Art of War, but a political and strategic tract.... a commentary on present day inadequacies.'[9]  There is no doubt that this is the case, yet Milner also claims that it is '..evident that the driving force behind Vegetius' reforms was to down-grade the role of all non-Roman ethnic forces.'[10]  The error here lies not in the overall effect that Vegetius' reforms would have had (as, if implemented, they would have placed the legions once again above the auxilia in status), but in the assumed motive behind the reforms.  I believe that the epitoma reveals that Vegetius does not want to down-grade the non-Romans, but to up-grade the role of the legions, which are to be once again manned solely by citizens.  At first glance, the idea may appear to be pedantry of the highest order, yet by looking at the epitoma from the different perspective a whole new interpretation of the work appears. 

Firstly, taking into account the idea that Vegetius is trying to raise the status and change the role of the legions rather than dismiss the auxilia, it is notable that there are many opportunities within the work to question the reliability of the auxilia that are ignored.  Although it may be postulated that saying them in a Germanic-oriented court would have been risky, there can be no doubt that it would have been possible to angle references so that the any powerful German's tribal loyalties could be circumvented and anger avoided.[11] 

This can be best illustrated when we look at where Milner states that the epitoma highlights the '..doubts cast on the reliability and training of foreign auxilia.'[12]  There is only one sentence in the entire work where Vegetius clearly and unequivocally states that the auxilia might be disloyal, and this is in III.9 where all matters relating to pre-battle preparations are covered.  The sentence, 'What is the loyalty and courage of our auxilia?', follows questions on the loyalty and bravery of the enemy's forces and precedes questions on the morale of the Roman army, and so should be seen as a comment within the context of the passage and not be taken in isolation as a criticism.  In addition, at II.3 Vegetius attacks the entry of Roman citizens into the auxilia, so if he is consistently questioning the loyalty of the auxilia, then he must de facto be seen as questioning the loyalty of the Roman citizens themselves, which hardly seems likely given the nature of the work.[13]

On the point of the upgrading of the legions it is also significant that in Book Three Vegetius uses the order legio, auxilia and vexillatio instead of the ranking order in his own time of auxilia, vexillatio and legio, and I believe this to be a crucial hint as to the real motive behind his reorganisation.[14]

On the matter of the loyalty of the auxilia one final statement needs clarification, as in this matter the dating of the text can be seen as crucial.  There is no mention by Ammianus of any cases of anti-barbarian feeling by the Romans except in the panic engendered by Adrianople, yet by the time of Valentinian III it appears that there is a large body of feeling against non-Roman troops.  It is feasible that the change of attitude was due to the defection of up to 30,000 barbarian troops to the Visigoths under Alaric following the execution of Stilicho in 408.  If this is the case, then it is likely that Vegetius' concern solely over the role of the non-Roman forces can be seen as reflecting the mood in the earlier reign of Theodosius.  Historians such as Milner are allocating later beliefs to a work for which it is not necessarily applicable.

Vegetius' repeated references to the loss of the ability to build marching camps can also be questioned.  A comparison with Ammianus Marcellinus shows that, far from reinforcing this view, Ammianus may be seen as giving evidence to the contrary.  There are frequent mentions of 'camps' in Ammianus, and although doubts remain as to whether Ammianus' camps were ‘traditional’ Roman marching camps, with one being invariably constructed at the end of a day's march, the evidence does appear to point to Vegetius being mistaken on this point.[15]