Some illustrations

[Titus001]

The roman legion at 150AD would kill the army at 400AD in my opinion.The legions of old at 150AD had better armour and might of been better deciplined then the legion at 400AD.Constantine the so called great made in my opinion one of the worst decisions ever in war by making the roman army more defensive by using more cavarly to cover the vast distance of the empire instead of sticking with what worked in the past.And dont say heavy cavarly killed the legions of old b/c thats just a myth, just like the partians against the romans.Heavy cavarly for the most part would always lose to a deciplined heavy infantry with combined arms which the romans used very well.And constantine made the legions smaller in size for some odd reason.So constantine made the legions=infantry smaller and made the cavarly more of a focus and more funds for cavarly.Thats why some people think the legions at 150AD were better then the legions at 400AD b/c of more barbarians in the roman army which changed the style of the legion and made cavarly more of a focus.

[Northern Neil]

Constantine the so called great made in my opinion one of the worst decisions ever in war by making the roman army more defensive by using more cavarly to cover the vast distance of the empire instead of sticking with what worked in the past.And dont say heavy cavarly killed the legions of old b/c thats just a myth, just like the partians against the romans.Heavy cavarly for the most part would always lose to a deciplined heavy infantry with combined arms which the romans used very well.And constantine made the legions smaller in size for some odd reason.

 

The problem is, 'Sticking with what worked in the past' was precisely what was responsible for the massive third century defeats in the first place. Whole swathes of territory were lost, as the old legions consistantly lost their battles against a more mobile foe.The army wasn't just changed on the whim of Constantine, it underwent many changes from about 240 AD up to 320 AD, in order to meet continuing threats and developments from Persia and the Germans, which the old legions were unable to meet. The old army was too inflexible and tied to its frontiers to field an effective, mobile army which was capable of chasing raiding parties deep into imperial territory.

 

The practice of reducing legion strength from 5'000 to 1'000 simply confirmed a trend which had started with Trajan, whereby vexillations were moved from a quiet sector to a risky one, and often found themselves in permanent residence there. The administration of a legion spread out along a 1'000 mile frontier was unmanagable, which is why the Illyrian emperors of the late 3rd century compacted them into more manageable units. By the time Constantine came along, most of these changes had already taken place. Unfortunately, in my view a legion of 150 AD would not fare very well against a field army of 400AD. The later army would use precisely the same techniques as used against the old legions in the third century, and with the same result.

 

What I have written is not solely my opinion; many of these things are a matter of record, in some instances borne out by soures from the time. Those field armies came along in the first place to meet a threat the legions were incapable of dealing with. We all love them dearly, but the truth is by the third century the old legions had outlived their usefulness.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Northern Neil

[caldrail]

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.

 

What we see in the late empire is a decay of traditional roman arms and equipment toward a gothic-style dark-age army. The rise of cavalry is indeed a major trend, as they move away from being a light skirmishing force toward the predecessors of medieval knights.

[DecimusCaesar]

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.

 

 

While it's true that the size of the Legion decreased during the Dominate Period ( c.5,000 in the first century, 1,000 in the fifth) the actual size of the Roman military expanded - it would have been around 150,000 men during the first/second century and closer to 300,000 by Thedosius the Great's era. The correct term I should have used was 'military' and not 'army' as the majority of people usually associate the word with the 'legion'. I apologise if I didn't make myself clear at the beginning.

 

As for the quote about Gratian's army, I have searched in all sorts of books (Late Roman Army, Late Roman Infantryman - Cavalryman, Roman Military clothing, Romano-Byzantine Infantry equipment, Fall of the Roman Empire etc) and I couldn't find it. Just looked in Edwrad Gibbon's book a few minutes back and found the quote:

 

The effeminate luxury, which infected the manners of courts and cities, had instilled a secret and destructive poison into the camps of the legions; and their degeneracy has been marked by the pen of a military writer, who had accurately studied the genuine and ancient principles of Roman discipline. It is the just and important observation of Vegetius, that the infantry was invariably covered with defensive armour from the foundation of the city to the reign of the emperor Gratian. The relaxation of discipline and the disuse of exercise rendered the soldiers less able and less willing to support the fatigues of the service; they complained of the weight of the armour, which they seldom wore; and they successively obtained the permission of laying aside both their cuirasses and their helmets.

Edited February 22, 2007 by DecimusCaesar

[Northern Neil]

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.

 

This is not entirely true. The late period legion formed up thus: First two ranks, heavy infantry. Next five ranks: Medium to lightly armoured troops. Eighth rank: Heavy infantry, to 'maintain the morale' of the five ranks of lighter armed troops. Behind the eight ranks of infantry were assorted archers and slingers to provide a covering barrage. The heavy infantry componant of the formation wore mail shirts, sometimes with long sleeves, large oval shields and ridge helmets. Sometimes they had a cache of lead weighted darts kept in a hollow behind the shield. Thus, it can be seen that the late period heavy infantry was just as well equipped as the trajanic legionary, albeit differently. The quality of the army of course took a dip after 400, due to many factors we are all aware of, and declined with the fortunes of the Western Empire. However, my point here is that the late period army as emerged at the time of Diocletian was every bit as efficient as the imperial period army, even though its make up was different. As I have stated a few times on various posts, I believe that the concept of an inferior dominate period army has more to do with modern commentators' love of the old legions, rather than reality.

Edited February 23, 2007 by Northern Neil

[CiceroD]

The late period legion formed up thus: First two ranks, heavy infantry. Next five ranks: Medium to lightly armoured troops. Eighth rank: Heavy infantry, to 'maintain the morale' of the five ranks of lighter armed troops. Behind the eight ranks of infantry were assorted archers and slingers to provide a covering barrage. The heavy infantry componant of the formation wore mail shirts, sometimes with long sleeves, large oval shields and ridge helmets. Sometimes they had a cache of lead weighted darts kept in a hollow behind the shield. Thus, it can be seen that the late period heavy infantry was just as well equipped as the trajanic legionary, albeit differently. .............. my point here is that the late period army as emerged at the time of Diocletian was every bit as efficient as the imperial period army, even though its make up was different. As I have stated a few times on various posts, I believe that the concept of an inferior dominate period army has more to do with modern commentators' love of the old legions, rather than reality.

 

But this begs the Question N.N. In an earlier age would they need to keep heavy infantry "To maintain morale" of the spatha fodder?

 

The way your description strikes me N.N. I picture the Battle of Stalingrad where the Russians killed their own retreating men. Now I admit that might not be the case. One can even draw parallels of this policy to that of Triarii in the Pre Marian legions. But still discipline had suffered. So much so that they needed to 'mark' legionaries, Right?

 

As to the material strength Ive heard that they adopted the Lorica Hamata instead of Segmentata (or more properly returned to it). On the picture of the "Late Legionary" at Roman-empire.net it appears that he is wearing a Lorica Squamata.

 

They also adopted the Spatha in place of the Gladius

 

They also adopted Martiobarbuli in place of Pila (These look to me as much more primitive)

 

Did this alone weaken them?

Edited March 4, 2007 by CiceroD

[CiceroD]

well someone ought to have an opinion

[DecimusCaesar]

The way your description strikes me N.N. I picture the Battle of Stalingrad where the Russians killed their own retreating men. Now I admit that might not be the case. One can even draw parallels of this policy to that of Triarii in the Pre Marian legions. But still discipline had suffered. So much so that they needed to 'mark' legionaries, Right?

 

This is no different to the role of an Optio in a Republican or Imperial era legion. They would butt wary legionary's back into battle with their staffs, and their primary function seems to have been to stop the army from disintegrating . The Tesserarii (officers of the Watchword) also served a similar purpose in the Imperial Legion. Even the Hoplites of Greece had veterans at the back to make sure the newer recruits would not attempt to retreat in battle. It seems that these officers were an integral part of numerous armies of the ancient World, and not a sign that the Field armies of the Later Empire were poorly disciplined.

 

It would also seem that the comitatenses recieved a good standard of training, which is displayed in their flexibility and discipline in the field. Other units were not so good. We hear of some units of limitanei who would have tend to farms, weave baskets etc instead of training for combat. Vegetius argues against them in some of his works. Even so, several other units of limitanei were exceptionally well trained and were always ready for combat, especially those posted among the Danube - where the Romans faced some of their largest threats.

 

As to the material strength Ive heard that they adopted the Lorica Hamata instead of Segmentata (or more properly returned to it). On the picture of the "Late Legionary" at Roman-empire.net it appears that he is wearing a Lorica Squamata.

 

By the mid third century, the lorica segmentata was fallling out of popularity. One of the reasons was that the armour was being manufactured in fabricae (factories) and it was difficult to mass produce segmentata, although much easier to make hamata, which was the main armour for the infantryman of the period. As the authour of the De Rebus Bellicis tells us, as a far as an infantryman is concerened as long as he is wearing his helmet, a thoracomachus, iron greaves and his shield, he is ready to enter into battle. The Departmet of Archaeology at Reading University conducted tests on the effectiveness of hamata and squamata armour, and they came to the conclusion that it afforded 'very effective' protection to the wearer, even without under-armour padding on some ocassions.

Even so, segmented and plate armour found its way into the cavalry, and was among the main equipment of the Catapractoii and Clibanarii.

 

They also adopted the Spatha in place of the Gladius

 

This is true. The infantrymen carried the semi-spatha into battle. The spatha had been the chosen sword of the cavalrymen since earlier times (perhaps as far back as the early first century AD) as it was much longer than the gladius, and therefore much easier to wield on horseback. The spatha was not of a poorer quality in comparison to the gladius. If anything it was it was better-It was an excellent stabbing and hacking weapon.

According to I.P Stephenson: "While in in open, or skirmish, order on the extra blade length of the spatha gave it an edge over its predecessor (the gladius)."

 

They also adopted Martiobarbuli in place of Pila (These look to me as much more primitive)

 

The abandoment of the pilum is understandable. The plumbatae, the lead darts carried on the inside of the shield became the primary missile weapons of the age. Several of them could be carried into battle, unlike the pila, of which there were two. During these times, the opening of a battle would sometimes start with a prolonged barge of missiles - like that at the Battle of Strasbourg in AD 357. As a result a large number of missiles would be needed, and the plumbatae would have been useful in situations like these. The late Roman infantryman also had other types of spear and javelin at his disposal, including the spiculum, a heavy javelin that was similar to the pilum. A lancea was a light spear that could be thrown in battle or used for hand to hand combat. This was particuarly useful in an era when cavalry charges were frequent.

Edited March 7, 2007 by DecimusCaesar

[CiceroD]

With the small size of plumbatae, It seems that they wouldn't be able to de-shield opponents as with Pila

 

I understand the advantage of more projectiles, but wouldn't a corps of bowmen be even more effective?

[DecimusCaesar]

With the small size of plumbatae, It seems that they wouldn't be able to de-shield opponents as with Pila

 

I understand the advantage of more projectiles, but wouldn't a corps of bowmen be even more effective?

 

According to Vegetius the plumbatae were very effective, he states:

 

" If soldiers throw them at the right moment, it seems as if shield-bearing infantry were almost to imitate the role of archers. For to wound the enemy and his horses before they could get not merely to close quarters, but even within range of javelins."

 

The plumbatae also had the advantage of being easier to throw in a tight formation. The Romans had other effective spears and javelins at their disposal which would have done the job, such as the 'gaesum', which is sometimes referred to as a 'angon'.

 

As for bowmen, they were employed much more frequently than in earlier times and in greater numbers. Vegetius says that a "third or fourth of recruits, those with talent, should be excercised at the post with wooden bows and training arrows..." It should also be noted that infantrymen of this period began using primitive crossbows called 'arcubalistae' by Vegetius.

 

As well as having large detachments of archers in the military, the later Legions also made use of fundiotres (slingers) and cavalry archers.

 

This illustration by Gerry Embleton should give you an idea of the destructiveness of missile barages in late Roman warfare: The Battle of Strasbourg, AD 357

[Northern Neil]

With the small size of plumbatae, It seems that they wouldn't be able to de-shield opponents as with Pila

 

I understand the advantage of more projectiles, but wouldn't a corps of bowmen be even more effective?

 

Indeed. The archers and slingers formed up behind the eight ranks of infantry to give a covering barrage, in addition to the plumbatae thrown by the legionaries. Regarding the courage of late period legionaries, Ammianus Marcellinus states that in Julian's Persian war, the Gallic legions had a very 'gung ho' (my words, of course) attitude, and often launched attacks on their own initiative. They were even rebuked on occasion for taking too many casualties in this way.