Anyways, I was reading about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, and I happened to look at the Legionary reforms in the Late Empire, and I was wondering: would the Roman Legion of it's glory days of the Pax Romana, decked it all it's segmentica lorica finery, would have been able to actually repel the Germanic and Hun invasions? I mean, I was looking at the late Imperial legionary, and I noticed they had switched from banded to chain; is there a reason for that? Or is it just part of Rome's economic weakenings? Anyways, I wanted to hear your guy's thoughts on it.
Roman Legionary ponderings...
- Thread starter Almalexia
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
MidnightWolf
Regular
they always had chain. they took the idea from the celts of Europe I'd say in the late third to early 2nd century BC. now what they did do is incorporate the spatha and rounder shields rather than the short gladius and scutum door shields. helmets are much simpler as well. spangenhelms and ridge helms are the norm replacing raised bronze or iron. it seems that the entire system starts breaking down with the watering down of the peoples
brasidus
Sergeant at Arms
Yup. Maille was always in use. The plates for the segmentata took a higher industrial base to make. I have always felt it was due to economic pressure that the segentata declined, and I believe from the correspondence I have had wioth M.C. Bishop that he agrees, but it was a while ago. As already mentioned by that time the culture had been pretty watered down by the influx of non-Romans and a variety of other issues ect.
Now the economic issue referred to earlier is merely a indicator of other issues as well though. To answer your question yes, I think the Legions at thier peak would have smashed the Germanic and Hun invasions.
<-Spurius Brasidus Caledonicus
II CONT
I COH
I CEN
LEG IX
A long long time ago.
Now the economic issue referred to earlier is merely a indicator of other issues as well though. To answer your question yes, I think the Legions at thier peak would have smashed the Germanic and Hun invasions.
<-Spurius Brasidus Caledonicus
II CONT
I COH
I CEN
LEG IX
A long long time ago.
This discussion comes up everywhere and all the time. It's like a particularly annoying cockroach.
The idea of the Late Roman army being absolutely useless is to put it bluntly wrong. And the whole segmentata is better than maille argument is pointless. Both had their good points and bad points. Maille was used just as much as segmentata by the Legionaries and provides just as good a defence.
And the use of the spatha and smaller shield is not "less effective" than the scutum/gladius combination. It's simply different. It uses a shieldwall formation as opposed to large shields protecting individuals. Both formations still require a large amount of discipline and cooperation between troops.
Not sure about the Germanic tribes, but i doubt that the Roman army, even in its prime would have faired any better against the Huns. The Huns relied on the same tactics and methods of fighting as the Persians and Parthians. And look how that went for Rome. Heavy infantry always had troubles against light cavalry archers.
And the 4th to 5th Century Germans may have given the Legions a battering too. They were more organised, better led and better equipped than they had been when the mighty Legions. in addition their methods of fighting had changed.
I find that the whole Late Roman Empire = utter suckage idea is a little outdated and simplistic. The Late Roman Empire was just as culturally rich as it had been 200 years earlier and though it substantially different the army was still effective for its time.
Just my 2c. If anyone knows more and can show me I'm wrong, I'm all eyes.
The idea of the Late Roman army being absolutely useless is to put it bluntly wrong. And the whole segmentata is better than maille argument is pointless. Both had their good points and bad points. Maille was used just as much as segmentata by the Legionaries and provides just as good a defence.
And the use of the spatha and smaller shield is not "less effective" than the scutum/gladius combination. It's simply different. It uses a shieldwall formation as opposed to large shields protecting individuals. Both formations still require a large amount of discipline and cooperation between troops.
Not sure about the Germanic tribes, but i doubt that the Roman army, even in its prime would have faired any better against the Huns. The Huns relied on the same tactics and methods of fighting as the Persians and Parthians. And look how that went for Rome. Heavy infantry always had troubles against light cavalry archers.
And the 4th to 5th Century Germans may have given the Legions a battering too. They were more organised, better led and better equipped than they had been when the mighty Legions. in addition their methods of fighting had changed.
I find that the whole Late Roman Empire = utter suckage idea is a little outdated and simplistic. The Late Roman Empire was just as culturally rich as it had been 200 years earlier and though it substantially different the army was still effective for its time.
Just my 2c. If anyone knows more and can show me I'm wrong, I'm all eyes.
Merlkir
Thanks Kvedulf, I was about to write the same thing.
One recent book argues that the fall of the western Empire wasn't so much related to its internal decline as it was to the strengthening of the barbarians through prolonged contact with the empire -- they became more numerous, better organized, etc. That, plus pressure from the Huns, plus a lot of debilitating wars with the Persians, led to the crisis of the fourth century.
Merlkir
Exactly, even one of my university teachers tried to convince me the Romans became decadent and degenerate and that's what caused the fall of the Roman empire.
It's naive. There wasn't a simple reason you could point at, more like a combined effect of many complex changes - as nijis mentioned, Romans got their asses kicked by Parthians and Sassanids more than once (dammit, just google Shapur who defeated THREE roman emperors), the Huns were definitely quite a tough bunch and of course, the many barbarian tribes living IN the Roman empire helped too (like Vandals and their famous journey to North Africa - probalby the richest roman province that supplied Rome with grain). People often point at barbarians sacking Rome, but that was just a minor side effect.
It's naive. There wasn't a simple reason you could point at, more like a combined effect of many complex changes - as nijis mentioned, Romans got their asses kicked by Parthians and Sassanids more than once (dammit, just google Shapur who defeated THREE roman emperors), the Huns were definitely quite a tough bunch and of course, the many barbarian tribes living IN the Roman empire helped too (like Vandals and their famous journey to North Africa - probalby the richest roman province that supplied Rome with grain). People often point at barbarians sacking Rome, but that was just a minor side effect.
Bullethead
Regular
Merlkir said:
As I understand things, the Western Empire didn't so much fall as have a change of management, which took the thing in a different direction. For instance, when the Franks moved into Gaul, they mostly just took over running the Roman province with most of its institutions still intact instead of restructuring everything on their native Germanic model. IIRC, they in effect to Rome that even though they were now running the province, it was still part of the Roman Empire, and they even sent along the taxes to Rome. And so well did they blend in to the Roman system that their descendants today speak a Romance instead of a Germanic language.
Dudro
Knight at Arms
Guess I'll put in my two cents, more about the equipment.
It's true, both segmentata and mail had strong and weak points, which I'll talk about here.
The segmentata, while still very flexible considering it's design, was not as flexible as mail, and both were very heavy.
They both were very hard to keep up, the difficulty arising in the mail with the problem of cleaning rust, and with the segmentata, the cleaning and constant oiling of leather joints and straps. It also had lots of small metal links and joints.
I think in the long run the segmentata was better protection, though it had a higher cost to manufacture and took more effort to take care of.
As for weapons, I can't anything about shields, though I can talk about swords.
The basic fighting style and arrangement of an early 3rd century legion was pretty simple. I believe it remained the same setup throughout most of Rome's later life, but it could have been slightly different in late antiquity.
The idea was similar to a Greek phalanx, in the sense that you fought as a tight knit unit, rather than a warrior to himself, yet it remained more versatile than the latter. I believe it went "block, parry, thrust", and with those three words, the small, speedy, and incredible deadly gladius was put to work at what it does best, stabbing. But later in the army, the spatha began to come into use. The problem with it was that it left the wielder with much less space to maneuver his weapon. That, coupled with the famous "barbarianizing" of Rome's legions led to a much less effective fighting force.
I got this information from Adrian Goldsworthy's "The Complete Roman Army", a fantastic book.
Please feel free to add to that there.
It's true, both segmentata and mail had strong and weak points, which I'll talk about here.
The segmentata, while still very flexible considering it's design, was not as flexible as mail, and both were very heavy.
They both were very hard to keep up, the difficulty arising in the mail with the problem of cleaning rust, and with the segmentata, the cleaning and constant oiling of leather joints and straps. It also had lots of small metal links and joints.
I think in the long run the segmentata was better protection, though it had a higher cost to manufacture and took more effort to take care of.
As for weapons, I can't anything about shields, though I can talk about swords.
The basic fighting style and arrangement of an early 3rd century legion was pretty simple. I believe it remained the same setup throughout most of Rome's later life, but it could have been slightly different in late antiquity.
The idea was similar to a Greek phalanx, in the sense that you fought as a tight knit unit, rather than a warrior to himself, yet it remained more versatile than the latter. I believe it went "block, parry, thrust", and with those three words, the small, speedy, and incredible deadly gladius was put to work at what it does best, stabbing. But later in the army, the spatha began to come into use. The problem with it was that it left the wielder with much less space to maneuver his weapon. That, coupled with the famous "barbarianizing" of Rome's legions led to a much less effective fighting force.
I got this information from Adrian Goldsworthy's "The Complete Roman Army", a fantastic book.
Please feel free to add to that there.
Captain Pyjama Shark
Grandmaster Knight
In another Goldworthy book, The Punic Wars, he details how the professional army led to the fall of Rome, as well, in the long run. Originally, as in said Punic Wars, it was a citizen's army of mandatory service. In the first century B.C., though, it became a force of professionals, and while this was of course more effective, and the archetypical Roman legion often depicted today, it led to soldiers becoming loyal to generals, not Rome, and through this destroyed what had kept the Romans together.
Merlkir
Dudro said:
Somehow I doubt the soldiers would choose something less effective to fight with just because. The equipment changed for a reason and so did tactics. The roman line was much looser than people think, no interlocked or tightly packed shields. Ironically, shieldwall was used more in the late empire than in the republic.
The Romans didn't just abandon tactics or various formations with the change to spathas and rounder shields - they simply used new tactics to fight new enemies. I think someone here wrote about this before - Parthians and Sassanids were quite hard nuts to crack even for Romans.
Dudro
Knight at Arms
Agreed, legionaries indeed had lots of space around them. In the book it talks about 1.2-1.6 meters back and 0.8-1.2 meters to the side, which is a fair amount. I'm not saying that the spatha was useless, but the common legionary probably saw it as a superior weapon without realizing that it took away from the tactics used before.
Read the book, he explains it a lot better than I can!
Read the book, he explains it a lot better than I can!
Merlkir
I read it some time ago. Not a bad book, but it's just one man's opinon. My favourite book on the subject is an Osprey one, can't remember the name from the top of my head. Something about tactics.
Merlkir
Dudro said:
Well, obviously. But historical evidence can be interpreted in many ways.
