Ovidius

But see that cannot be a reason because during the late 4th and early 5th century the Eastern Army was nothing... it barely had troops to fight brigands and bandits... it did not repeal any barbarian or Persian incursion until the 6th century well after the West was gone... the East survived because it used diplomacy and because the civic administration controlled the army unlike the west where the generalissmos control the army and not the emperor. Besides, the West had a better army which for a time had most of what remained of the Eastern Army as well. The West continued to grow in force of arms, while the East followed a policy of culling thier ranks, killing successful generals etc, because they feared a strong army under one man who would dominate Constantinople... when the Huns invaded, the East sat behind their high walls... when Isasurians went on rampages in Asia Minor... they sent little forces barely capable of doing the job to stop them and half the time they could not contain it. So... if the East survived by added abilities, it was surely not the military... not until the very late 5th early 6th did that army become a potent force. Wait, how did thw West supposedly grow in force of arms when in fact it crumbled to nothing?

So, they're barbarians too? I heard Harold Hardrada was a member of the Varangian gurad, but for which emperor? Could somebody answer this great mystery for me?

Perhaps all our answers are right, woudn't you say?

I recommend Adrian Goldsworthy's book: "Roman Warfare". I think it would really help.

I think the Romans had a good siege cadre, but what made them so different was that they added a whole new relentlessness to the art of seigecraft. Take the Siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The Romans took every opportunity to terrorize the Jewish defenders by crucifying prisoners within sight of the defenders or by lobbing their severed heads into the air.

My bet would be Adrianople. From that time on, The Western Empire would slowly be overrun by barbarians, and that plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. The Eastern Empire survived, but by only its ability to produce a well led army with heavy cavalry as its main warrior

I have his book titled, "Roman Warfare". Could you suggest some other reading material related to the roman army?

If you are going to state a fact make sure you know what you are talking about. A legionare didnt need any space to through his speer as it was through from above its head therfore needing no room laterally to through it. The romans had this thought about before you and I were even born and besides i dont think they would have not thought about this before sending an entire army out to fight. I have not seen or heard of a document from ancient roman times stating, "The romans lost the battle of '''''''''' because they forgot they couldnt throw there spears in a thightly packed formation. Actually, in the Legionnary formation (triplex acies or quincunx) there was some space to bash your opponent with the shield. That was the standard operating procedure of the Roman Legionnaries: Bash your opponent in the face with the shield boss, then stab him in the stomach with the gladius. Yet the pilum was gradually abandoned from the 3rd century. Outlived its usefulness? The romans abandoned the pilum because it became impractical. They replaced it with the lancea, a lighter spear, and the plumbatae of mattiobarbuli (lead weighted darts, clipped into the hollos of their shields). They also abandoned the use of the scutum, but in later times.

I would like to meet Hannibal, shake his hand, and kill him again. I hate him, not just he massacred 50000 legionaries at Cannae, but I just hate him, because he fought for the wrong side.

Roman Warfare by Smithsonian Books

My favorites: 1. Gladius Hispaniensis (gladius) 2. Scutum (the semi-cylindrical, rectangular roman shield, Imagine bashing your opponent with its shield-boss!) 3. Pilum (I like it's penetrating power!)

Hello there. In my book "Roman Warfare", the aggressive, sword armed legionary was a distant memory. Roman infantry were considered to be low quality at this stage, and the Romans did not always show their relentlessness in battle, and their armies were better suited to low level operation like counter raiding