This summer I have grown an interest for Roman history, especially anything regarding the Late Empire(s) and ERE after the fall of the WRE.
From what I have gathered the Late Empire (both halves) increasingly became dependent on "barbarians" manning their armies, either as auxilia/legionaries or foederati and that in addition it had a hard time recruiting ordinary citizens (especially those from the "heartlands") to serve.
Am I correct here? In that case why was it so? It seems that this trend was reversed around Justinian, is this correct?
Plus a small bonus question, as you can see I separated auxilia/legionaries and foederati as I am under the impression that foederati was more or less armed by themselves and the others was armed by the Roman state. Correct?
Thanks in advance for any answers!
They didn't. Throughout the fourth century in the West, and well into the seventh in the East, the vast majority of military recruits were Roman-born. Non-Romans only constituted roughly a quarter of field army recruits in the West. Although centuries of contact with non-Romans influenced Roman military slang, dress, equipment, and customs, wholesale "barbarization", along with a supposed decline in training, discipline, and combat efficacy, has been rejected by modern scholarship.
As this question is asked frequently, and I am at work, I will link several previous responses of mine. [Here] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4p3gcy/were_the_barbarians_of_the_late_roman_empire/d4jipid) is my most recent response to the idea of barbarization, and [here] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/30h8qg/at_the_decline_of_the_western_roman_empire_did/cpsga1n) I discuss the use of the term foederati. Please feel free to ask any follow ups.