Some illustrations

[Lucius Vorenus]

Ave....i'm new here,i'm italian..and yesterday i saw this forum and it's very very good and you all are well informed about the roman empire...and i love roman empire.Well...Have you got some illustration of the late roman empire?Also entire roman empire illustration....thank you help me please....

thanks

Vorenus

[Titus001]

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/legionary-late.html Here is a pic from the late 3rd century of the legion.

 

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/centurion-late.html

Edited February 11, 2007 by Titus001

[DecimusCaesar]

It's good to see The Roman empire.net is still up and running. I remember having some problems with it a few months back.

[Titus001]

One thing i dont get about the late roman army is that the infantry, i mean the legions to me looked like they had less armour and less equipped like the legions at 150AD.Is it just me or do you guys agree?Not saying the legions in 350AD at the time of constantine were bad soldiers or not deciplined they just dont look well armed as the legions at 150AD.I think the legions at 150AD were better armed,armoured and might have been better deciplined in the infantry department.I do think the cavarly at 350AD were more advanced then the cavarly at 150AD.But i just think the army of ROME at 150AD was superior to the army at 350AD and beyond all the way when the western empire fell.

[Lucius Vorenus]

One thing i dont get about the late roman army is that the infantry, i mean the legions to me looked like they had less armour and less equipped like the legions at 150AD.Is it just me or do you guys agree?Not saying the legions in 350AD at the time of constantine were bad soldiers or not deciplined they just dont look well armed as the legions at 150AD.I think the legions at 150AD were better armed,armoured and might have been better deciplined in the infantry department.I do think the cavarly at 350AD were more advanced then the cavarly at 150AD.But i just think the army of ROME at 150AD was superior to the army at 350AD and beyond all the way when the western empire fell.

yes i agree titus.

the late roman army was less armoured than the army at 150AD...it's true i mean the infantry.....(first there was the lorica segmenta) but the cavarly of the late roman empire were more advanced and well armoured than the cavarly of 150 AD

[Titus001]

Voruenus if want great pictures of the legion and maps i would try Roman empire.net.

[Ludovicus]

There may be information in the Notitia Dignitatum, a very late Roman document, showing illustrations of shields and listings of the officers, among other things. Somewhere in the resources of UNRV there should be a link to the ND.

[CiceroD]

One thing i dont get about the late roman army is that the infantry, i mean the legions to me looked like they had less armour and less equipped like the legions at 150AD.Is it just me or do you guys agree?Not saying the legions in 350AD at the time of constantine were bad soldiers or not deciplined they just dont look well armed as the legions at 150AD.I think the legions at 150AD were better armed,armoured and might have been better deciplined in the infantry department.I do think the cavarly at 350AD were more advanced then the cavarly at 150AD.But i just think the army of ROME at 150AD was superior to the army at 350AD and beyond all the way when the western empire fell.

 

It is important to realize that advanced weapons and armor cost money somthing the Later Roman Empire did not have.

[DecimusCaesar]

One thing i dont get about the late roman army is that the infantry, i mean the legions to me looked like they had less armour and less equipped like the legions at 150AD.Is it just me or do you guys agree?

 

The sheer size of the Late Roman army would have made it difficult to equip. After all it had doubled in number since the reforms of Diocletian and Constantine. Usually the best pickings for the armour and helmets would go to the Scholae Palatine, as well as the field army, the Comitatus. The Limitanei or the border troops would usually have to make do with inferior equipment. Even so, they were not the useless fighters that many people believe they were. By these time the lorica segmentata had gone out fashion (towards the end of the third century) and the lorica hamata became dominant, although lorica squamata was still popular (especially with the Cavalry Vexilliantones) .

According to one source by AD 383 (during Gratian's reign) the Roman troops were refusing to wear armour and helmets, leading to some people to argue about the discipline of the army. Even so, this was still the era of the Cataphracts and the Clibinarii who were more heavily armoured than any troop type of the early Principate.

[Gaius Octavius]

According to one source by AD 383 (during Gratian's reign) the Roman troops were refusing to wear armour and helmets, leading to some people to argue about the discipline of the army. era .

 

Why?

[DecimusCaesar]

They said that the armour and the helmets were too heavy and hot. I will try to find the source for this claim.

[Gaius Octavius]

Your word here is good enough for me.

[Titus001]

One thing i dont get about the late roman army is that the infantry, i mean the legions to me looked like they had less armour and less equipped like the legions at 150AD.Is it just me or do you guys agree?

 

Decimus Caesar-------The sheer size of the Late Roman army would have made it difficult to equip. After all it had doubled in number since the reforms of Diocletian and Constantine. Usually the best pickings for the armour and helmets would go to the Scholae. Titus001------ I think you are wrong about constantine making the army of rome bigger,i think he made the infantry smaller and he made cavarly more of a focus.So he made the infantry smaller made the cavarly bigger=more funding training and armour for cavarly in which b/c of this strategy which i think is more of a defensive mind of thinking made the legions of old with less training and armour and also funding b/c more money was going to cavarly.I think this was a big mistake by rome.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Titus001

[Titus001]

Constantine the great made the infantry smaller compared to the legions of 150AD.I dont know why you say constantine made the army bigger,infact he made the infantry smaller and more defensive by using and making cavarly more of a role in war then before.Just compare the pics by the legion at 150AD and 400AD.

[Northern Neil]

Lucius, there are some good images of late Roman troops in the GALLERY section of this website, in Decimus' 'Miscellany' album. Enjoy!

 

Often the Imperial period army is compared to the later army, and most people seem to agree that the earlier army was better in many ways. Unfortunately, the evidence does not support this - in the third century a series of reforms changed the nature of the army because it had suffered repeated setbacks at the hands of the Persians and Goths. It had failed to change in over 300 years, and an army adept at defeating other mediterranean infantry was no longer required. As early as the Augustan Vorenus debacle, the legions had shown their weaknesses when forced to fight the kind of battle for which they were not trained. The new model army may not have looked as pretty, or have had short haircuts and lorica segmentata, but they far better at meeting the barbarian threat than the earlier army.

 

A modern analogy would be the defeat of the British army in ( Red coats, iron discipline, marching in lines and files ) at the hand of the Boers ( Irregular troops, khaki clad, guerilla warfare) in 1903. Shortly after this, the army remodelled itself to meet modern threats. Would anyone now say that the British 'Imperial Period' army was superior to the modern day one?

 

Just as a footnote: David Potter (The Roman Empire at Bay, 180 - 395 ) states that the empire of the 4th century wasn't much bigger than the pre-crisis army.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Northern Neil