Society, Finance and Recruitment

'The great flaw ..(of Vegetius) ..is that the army could not be treated in isolation from its social context.'[25]  By emphasising the societal difference between the late empire and the late republic/early empire Gordon highlights one aspect of Vegetius that is particularly striking.  Far from putting forward ways in which any shortage of recruits can be overcome, in the proposed legion there are five cohorts which are of standard, quingenary size and one which is of double, milliary strength.  All of these are 'picked troops': far from there being a shortage of recruits, Vegetius is concerned with the quality of the conscripts.[26]  That he fails to acknowledge any problems in obtaining enough troops for the army is surprising given that the theorem of manpower shortage is now entrenched in works on the period, almost entirely due to the repeated legislation of the emperors bearing on the raising of recruits.[27]

At first glance the situation appears to be a case of Vegetius ignoring the realities around him, but there is a way of explaining the conundrum.  The introduction of the legislation by Diocletian can be taken as being part of his reorganisation of the armed forces in which he enlarged the army.  This resulted in his needing large numbers of recruits in a short period of time, and consequently he enacted the law in order to raise the troops needed. 

The retention of the legislation is usually seen as a desperate measure by later emperors attempting to keep the army at the necessary strength to fulfil its duties.  On the other hand, it could be for different reasons entirely.  Due to the overwhelming and corrupt bureaucracy the later emperors are generally depicted as being short of revenue for the running of the empire, yet as Jones notes the levy was not recruited every year from every province: instead a tax (the aurum tironicum) was exacted.[28]  As a consequence, it is possible to hypothesise that the legislation became simply a way of gathering extra revenue.  If this was the case, then the failure of Vegetius to mention the problem is explained, as is the reasoning behind the decision by Valens to allow the Tervingi to settle in Roman territory:  they would supply troops and so 'instead of the levy of soldiers which was contributed annually by each province, there would accrue to the treasuries a vast amount of gold.'[29] 

Furthermore, a novel of Valentinian III dated to 444 in which he 'openly admits that his plans for a larger army are being frustrated by the fact that the revenues do not suffice to provide food and clothing for the existing forces, much less for the new recruits that are being enrolled' also adds weight to the idea that the problem was more one of finance than recruitment.[30]  The concept is reinforced by two further novels '...dated 440 and 443, [which] suggest that in the West a levy of recruits was by this time an emergency measure, specially decreed.'[31]  Consequently, rather than being a piece of legislation attempting to secure recruits for the army, its constant repetition may have been a cover used by emperors desperate to raise the revenues which they sorely needed.

When discussing the finances of the empire, the hypothesis that the epitoma was an attack upon the financial policy of the emperor can also be mooted.  Vegetius makes it clear that to his mind the hiring of mercenaries was an inferior policy to that of training recruits.[32]  Again, the theme running through the work at this point is seen as being that of reintroducing the old, legionary practices and of recruiting within the empire itself, yet it should not to be overlooked that Vegetius reaffirms the notion that there is no recruiting problem within the empire.  What is even more interesting is that the repetition of ideas on finance and cost-cutting fit in well with Sablayrolles idea (following Neumann) that 'Vegece etait .... sans doute comes sacrorum largitionem' (Vegetius was .. without a doubt the 'Comes Sacrorum Largitionem) and so in charge of Imperial finaces.  If this was the case, then it explains comments within Vegetius such as 'skills can achieve anything     as long as adequate funding is not spared', since Vegetius would be familiar with financial affairs and it is in these matters that he is most qualified to speak.[33]

Having postulated that one of the reasons behind the work was to criticise the economic policy of the emperor, with the perception by Vegetius that a 'bad and good army cost the same', we now move on to the one persistent and undeniable criticism of Vegetius; namely, the perceived lack of training within the army.[34]