The late Roman soldier: A degenerate and inferior shadow of his former self. Or was he?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ย. 2024
- 🔴 YOU WANT TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL? 🔴
🤗 Join our Patreon community: / maiorianus
Or become an official Maiorianus member on TH-cam: / maiorianus461
🤗 One-Time Donation?
- PayPal: paypal.me/Maio...
- Bitcoin: bc1qv4lsfsplvfecrrgvmfclhga28we7mvh9563xdj
🔗 Share the video with anyone who might be interested (it helps a ton!)
👍 Subscribe to our videos FOR FREE: www.youtube.co...
📚 My favorite novel about the late Roman Empire, "Julian" by Gore Vidal: amzn.to/3mZwOdJ
📚 BEST BOOKS ON ROMAN HISTORY: 📚
1. "History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages" by Ferdinand Gregorovius amzn.to/3yOvjEd
2. "Rome: Profile of a City, 312-1308" by Richard Krautheimer amzn.to/3yyChgp
3. "Rome: An Urban History from Antiquity to the Present" by Rabun Taylor amzn.to/322ClsZ
These are all excellent books if you are like me, absolutely fascinated by the transition of Rome from late antiquity to the early medieval period.
📚 One of our favorite books about the Fall of the Roman Empire, "The Fall of Rome" by Bryan Ward-Perkins: amzn.to/3FXeDNg
The wonderful background music is by Adrian von Ziegler: • Relaxing Roman Music -...
🎦 FILMING EQUIPMENT WE USE: 🎦
Webcam: amzn.to/3yFSFvu
Microphone: amzn.to/3e2ZFsW
Disclosures: Some links in the description are affiliate links which means that if you purchase something by clicking on one of them, your host Sebastian will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. In this way you will be supporting the channel to improve the video production quality at no extra cost to you.
📬 Contact us: maiorianus.sebastian@gmail.com
#Maiorianus
A special shout-out to all the people who recently donated to us via Super Thanks 🤗:
🧡 @Jose M. Garcia Riquelme
🧡 @Ann Williams
🧡 @Caro Sacramento
🧡 @Christian K
🧡 @delavalmilker
🧡 @Brian Callahan
🧡 @Mylan Olson
🧡 @Niels Nijmegen
🧡 @Richard Horne
🧡 @jceepf
🧡 @Xiang Chen
🧡 @Jason Cuculo
🧡 @julius williams
🧡 @Mauro Merali
🧡 @Rank of Master
🧡 @JeffTownUSA
🧡 @Eisenpfosten
🧡 @Squire Waldo
🧡 @Ruufus De Leon
🧡 @David Keane
🧡 @Kevin Gomez
🧡 @scrot
🧡 @Xina Marie Uhl
🧡 @Aaron Flynn
🧡 @Robert
🧡 @Gary Worthington
🧡 @howtorideahorse
🧡 @Franz Nowak
🧡 @(Ἰάσων) Sobek Lord of the Four Corners
🧡 @michael porzio
🧡 @David Batlle
Thank you so much for your generous support and for believing in us 🙏
Your host, Sebastian
You are not talking about the Late Roman soldiers, rather about the Late antiquity Roman soldiers. The Late Roman Army is about thousand years later.
From my point of view, the change in the equipment of the Roman legions began from the increase in the importance of cavalry. While the cavalry gained in sophistication of its equipment (the armor of the clibanarii and cataphractarii was impressive especially from the third to the sixth century, with achievements that the craftsmen did not replicate again until the Renaissance, a thousand years later), the equipment of the legions (except for the commanders and special escort units), was declining in quality. But I cannot leave aside that we can see the culminating point of the legionary armor in the 3rd century with the Niedermörmter-type helmets. Greetings from a latin country of the south of the world
Nicht so wirklich up to date, ich empfehle das Buch "Der römische Legionär"von B.Burandt, römische Soldaten waren nicht streng uniform ausgerüstet. Jeder musste sich seine Ausrüstung selbst zusammenstellen und bezahlen. Es ist stark anzunehmen, dass verschiedenste Loricas in einer Zenturie verwendet wurden, außerdem wurde gebrauchtes Equipment wiederverwendet. Das Scutum der augusteischen Zeit war eher fassförmig und noch nicht rechteckig. Ach und nebenbei wäre ein Englisch-Aussprache-Kurs recht angebracht, wenn man nicht dem furchtbaren Beispiel von "military visualized" folgen möchte... Sorry, aber Ihr habt auch schon in anderen Videos falsch dargestellt, da platzt einem glatt die Hutschnur.
Wish a Time-traveler Industrialized Ancient Persia and gave Gunpowder Weapons to them
As u know quite deeply about Romans. I wanna ask some questions to u which I want u to please clarify. :
1. Did later Roman soldiers wore helmets having crests like early ones ?
2. Did All Eastern Roman soldiers wore purple uniforms as we see in Total wat Attila. In Attila, mostly Eastern Roman soldiers have Purple clothes. But I think this is inaccurate. Bcoz I've read that only EMPORERS wore Purple.
3. How historically accurate is Total war Attila in terms of Romans ???
The late Roman army wasn't degenerate, they just had to adapt to worse circumstances. They had less money, more logistical problems (as the Empire was being destroyed), less manpower available (as it wasn't worth it to be a legionaire on those times), and more and more advanced enemies
yeah whoever says the western roman empire fell because of degenarcy shouldn't be taken seriously furthermore, why do people never take the east in account if they were also "degenerates".
@trueblue23 Plus they were trying to defend from the outermost frontier, rather than having buffer zones of allied/subjugated peoples to absorb some of the impact.
the others just became better while the romans didnt improve much
"The late Roman army wasn't degenerate, they just had to adapt to worse circumstances. They had less money, more logistical problems (as the Empire was being destroyed),"-So they were degenerate.
@@pingu6028 "The late Roman army wasn't degenerate, they just had to adapt to worse circumstances. They had less money, more logistical problems (as the Empire was being destroyed),"-So they were degenerate.
The soldiers weren't the problem......the leaders were...
Aren't they always?
@@hemidas when nikephoros i was campaigning against the bulgarian khan krum, the soldiers refused to build a fortified encampment because "we are soldiers, not builders" and that lead to krum ambushing the army and making nikephoros's skull into a drinking cup.
so yeah, soldiers can be the problem
@@aetu35 a bit of a decimation would have solved that particular issue real quick. ah... Crassus... good times.
@@aetu35 This sound like an urban myth to me. If they were soldiers, they knew better than to hurt their own chances of survival, and have been "soldiers as well as builders" for a thousand years by then. Don't underestimate the amount of blame-game happening after huge losses, and the lack of unbiased sources available to us!
Both were a problem.
Too bad, that the late Roman soldier spend so much time fighting other late Roman soldiers.
Too bad that none of them were actually 'Romans'.
@@thadtuiol1717 Truly, the Roman army after the War against Pyrrhus of Epirus was no longer the noble town-militia it once was...
@@AGS363 Indeed. We are seeing this happen today with America's military: More and more of the people in it are no longer of the same ethnic background of the people who originally formed that military. You can get away with that for a while, but sooner or later people will resent having to serve in/ pay for/ possibly die for a military that no longer reflects them.
@@thadtuiol1717 That is not at all what happened, and Rome itself would not have lasted how as long as it did without the inclusion of other peoples in its armies. And as one Roman said, Rome was formed from the coming together of different ethnic or tribal groups and every group at one point was the other. What made Rome weaker at the end was a lack of proper integration or assimilation of colony people. Expecting them to fight for Rome while heavily discriminating against them.
@@thadtuiol1717 So you are going to pretend that non-White Americans did nothing to serve well fighting for the US military?
I should remind you that the most decorated unit of the US military is the 442nd Regiment, a unit that mostly compromised of Japanese Americans. Or the 369th Regiment that mostly consisted of African Americans and was the first allied unit to cross the Rhine during WW1. Then there's MSG Roy Benavidez, a half Mexican and Native American that is known as the real life Rambo.
2:07 Really feel bad for the fate of Marius. For those who don't know, Sulla had his nemesis' tomb sacked and his body desecrated in the most cruel and humiliating way possible. He even covered him with feces and gouged out his eyes and tongue before throwing what was left of him into a river. Then, fearing that Marius's supporters would do the same to his body when he died, Sulla ordered his remains to be cremated on the Campus Martius (the same place where King Romulus disappeared forever), something that became a tradition during the funerals of Emperors and other important members of the roman empire
It is clear who is the far better *Man* even if the wrong man was elevated to the heights of Tyrants.
Mario didn't deserve that
@@Shrek_es_mi_pastorIndeed, Miura deserved so much better..
@trueblue23 Yeah. Even in Antiquity, making something like that to an already dead body was disgusting as f*ck
@trueblue23 Sulla was a famously terrible person.
The question of taxation is too often overlooked, so thank you for having raised it on several occasions. I first came across tax as a consideration in John Julius Norwich's histories of the later Eastern Empire (which I'll thoroughly recommend after I've laid my hands on my own copies of the full trilogy!) , wherein comment was made that the lower taxes levied by the Ottoman invaders were preferred by the ordinary folk of Anatolia, hence greatly weakening the cause of the Romans.
which is smth i don't get: was the roman empire too expensive to upkeep? were the emperors and nobility too greedy and living too lavishly thus burning through money instead of using it to serve the greater good? how come the ottomans and generally the turks managed to build an empire with such seemingly cheaper prices?
@@ragael1024 Land consolidation by the late byzantinian nobility or patricans led to less able bodies to serve in the army along with tax revenue that could be generated by them, the Ottomans simply just redistributed the newly captured land to those that served them or strip the nobles land and give it to the new subjects of the Ottoman empire, the ottomans gave it's soldier incentives to fight for wealth and land but for the Romans it would be like another day being payed with barely anything and defending some rich asshole's plot of land. Rome's age of expansion is long gone it cannot simply give agriable land to it's soldier as payment anymore therefore their willingness to fight is greatly diminished.
You also need to take into account that the turks at the time were "building" an empire compared to the Romans who were just barely "maintaining" it's declining empire, conquering is simple but governing is on the other hand isn't just like Kublai khan once said "I have heard that one can conquer the empire on horseback, but one cannot govern it on horseback".
But remember?! He's writing about the later Byzantine Empire,( yes later Eastern Roman , morphed into a Greek speaking empire, mainly because Greek was everyday language no longer needed latin after loss of western Empire) And Ottomans were around as Eastern Empire declined! Much later when the theme system replaced legions.. Times Change. But taxation was a problem earlier especially west, rich paid none, free farmers,as such, were crushed by it! And with universal citizenship? No impetus to become a legionary! Even used Conscription ,barbarians, to try to maintain army. Money was tight! Average Joe was to say under great pressure, economy not so hot! Not much incentive to be a Roman, to support Empire.
Tax was a major issue. Italy had been exempt from tax. The reason why Caracalla made all free people citizens was that citizens paid a poll tax as well as a head tax (capitum). Coloni on farms, virtually slaves, had to pay the capitum. In the late Empire, even the Church paid tax, having previously wangled a tax exemption. There were tax revolts and sometimes when a city had been devastated by a natural disaster, the emperor had to suspend taxes. Hydatius says that Spain underwent a massive famine and tax was suspended for six years. But the money for the army had to come from somewhere. Tax collection by publicani (the publicans in the Bible) was wasteful as they collected every nummus and the surplus they kept. It was the liability on local councillors to pay for any shortfall, so there was a reluctance to serve. They had to forbid local nobles from becoming Christian priests so they couldn’t dodge tax liability.
There is a common theme between the decline of the Eastern Roman Empire with the decline of Rome, i.e. of the earlier Roman Empire and it is not just about taxation but about inflation, which was even worse than taxation :
So, in the 3rd BC century, Emperors desperate to sustain the burgeoning Roman bureaucracy and military from an overall declining Roman population (the latter mainly due to urbanisation and lifestyle - and the institution of marriage collapsing and women giving birth to fewer children - the indecency of women once again causing such), not only they added more and more taxes, but above all, they started inflating the currency which of course is a very direct "indirect taxation" that smashes the incomes of people. Both the Aureus (gold coin) and Denarius (silver coin) were massively inflated by means of decreasing their gold and silver percentage down to ridiculous levels, so that the soldiers and mercenaries refused to be paid in coins and demanded being paid in pure metal. This caused the tumultuous times of the 3rd century crisis which ended with Emperor Aurelian who literally saved the Empire from certain demise trying to re-establish some standards.
Eventually with Diocletian and Constantine moving the epicenter of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople provided the basis for a successful numismatic reform. As the Empire literarally "got rid of" the then troublesome Western regions and concentrated on the rich productive Eastern regions it managed to sustain a numismatic stability unheard in human history. For more than 600 years, the byzantine solidus (gold coins) and folli (silver) and nummi (bronze) maintained an admirable stability. The lessons of the 3rd century were deeply ingrained and hence even through thick and thin, under the most tumultuous times, of invasions, civil wars, economic downturns, the Empire never devalued its solidus which by the 8th century BC was the world's standardised coin accepted all over the known then planet from Iceland to China (oh yes...), and mimicked by Arabs and Franks.
And then? As the Empire reached its apex in the times of Basil II, something weird occurred : right after his death the ensuing Emperors, a line of incapable ones, started massively devaluing the currency. We need to note that while in the 3rd century Roman Emperors did indeed face financial challenges, this was NOT the case in the 11th century! Basil II had left a record high treasury, there was no need to devalue the currency nor to increase the taxes. What the ensuing Emperors did was really "incomprehensible" :
1) They devalued the solidus down to half in a very short time
2) In parallel they increased taxation on Roman citizens
3) But they gave tax-free allowances to Venetians!
3) And most remarkably : they spent zero, literally zero money for the militray!!!
The combination of that wrought havoc with plenty of generals leading revolts leading to the massive Civil War of the 1060s, only to be interrupted by the invasion of the Turks in 1071 and this only to be followed by a second round of Civil War throughout the 1070s until the rise of Alexios I the Comnenian who tried to re-affirm the Empire, also trying to re-establish some semblance of numismatic stability by replacing the devalued solidus with the hyperpyron.
It is said that when Emperor Romanos tried to re-assemble the armies of the Empire ahead of the clash with the Turks, there were remnants of the once proud cataphract units who appeared in front of the Emperor with armours half a century old, rusty and rugged with the scales hanging loose - a sight that would bring anyone to despair.
The question is thus why successors of Basil II mishandled so badly the situation when they had inherited a double treasury? The answer is simple : Greed! Basil II had taxed a lot the rich landowners, the businessmen and the bankers and all these formed a kind of political coalition against the populists and the generals. They started investing heavily outside the Empire, namely in Venice and other Italian cities all while they increased taxes and devalued the currency playing monetary games which are eerily similar to the ones played today in the West. They invested zero into the military to neutralise the threat from the generals thinking that the Empire would remain safe enough just by its prestige. It all came crumbling down in only a few decades. Alexios I tried to reform but by his time he could only do so by remaining even more entangled with Venice which rose literally as the arbiter of the Empire's economy, further alienating the Roman citizens (i.e. the Greeks - Venetians operating within the Empire were not seen as such, they were always seen as foreigners even more when they were Catholics not Orthodox in the post-Schism age). The perfect storm.
I read somewhere that a Roman garrison in Egypt was so unused to war due to a long period of peace the soldiers were unfamiliar with basic fighting techniques and so uncomfortable having to wear armour.
@trueblue23 apparently the officers were just as slack and perhaps signalled slackness was ok cause there was no fighting for a very long time.
@trueblue23 Drilling only gets you so far. Nothing will beat combat experience.
Never heard that one before. But I'm sure some drilling must have been done every so often.
I admire this scholar due to his so obvious love for Roman history. It is a rare and precious passion.
Not rare though.
He is a Neopagan propagandist who still pushes the dark ages myth.
What a ridiculous comment. Ancient Rome is arguably the most commonly loved historical period
What do you mean rare? Rome is over hyped as fuck😂
@@khanman9146it's not overhyped because the hype is well deserved, and every person with a decent historical knowledge would accept that
14:52 from my sources it was the contrary: the Lorica Hamata was the standard battle armour until 14AD but was heavy and very uncomfortable to wear during long marches in enemy territory. It was easy to adapt to any legionary physique and to repair, but the losses at Teutoburgh made more important to mass produce new armours then to repair old ones.
The Lorica Segmentata was a stopgap solution after Varo lost 2 entire legions and all the equipment in a few days. It was much faster to produce as it did not need the chain to be riveted and quilted together one by one. It was discovered it was quite mobile and comfortable to wear as it had its own leather padding instead of being weared on heavy cloth padding, but it needed more skill to produce as it had to be made on a specific design. After Caracalla, the Roman army reverted to the Hamata because especially the Limitanei were local units who never really moved from the area they were protecting and local artisans may not have the skill required to produce proper Segmentata. Being less prone to leave their fortification, the advantages in weight and wearability of the Segmentata became less important compared to easy of maintenance (just put it on a coarse sand barrel and roll it for a while to get rid of rust) and repairability when damaged.
The Comitatenses were usually better equipped, but in time the Segmentata fell out of fashion, especially as the lamellar army from the Huns took over as easier to produce, more mobile and with less gaps against the powerful composite bows introduced by the nomads. This is also why the Hamata was slowly abandoned in favour of the Squamata for foot soldiers, usually fighting against horsemen and for this reason better protected from blows from above and from the parabolic arches of enemy arrows. The helmet became more conformal as it had to protect from blows from above, while the fighting in a shieldwall made peripheral vision less important for the Roman footman. In the same way, the oval Scutum was easier to produce, lighter, as the corners were shaved off, and it allowed for a better shieldwall, not being cylindrical, as the widespread use if the heavy cavalry by the Ostrogoth the Huns and the Sassanians made the pilum less valuable in comparison with the Lancia. The Ostrogoth and the Visigoth themselves were most probably indistinguishable from their Roman counterparts after they took over the western empire. And so we're the Gallo-Romans under the Franks.
In the end, it's the enemy you face that shape your army, and the Huns were Game changers. Gone was the time of massed Celtic and german assaults on foot and Cavalry was becoming the real menace on the battlefield: the Segmentata was the armour if choice against the Dacians and the early Germans, while the Squamata was better suited against missile troops and chivalries.
And yet, the Augustinian Legions performed very well even against cavalry archer armies (see the successful conquest of Babylon by the Romans). I think it really just comes down to the simple fact, that the late roman army was just cheaper to raise and maintain. Also, the lack of combat experienced roman generals made it necessary to reform the army out of desperation, because you can't afford losing your more expensive troops regularly.
Imho the main problem was, that Rome just stopped doing offensive campaigns outside of their border (for example, to form vassal states as buffer zones). This lead to all the problems: Lack of combat experienced troops and generals, less wealth over long term, less people willing to enlist in the army... which made all the late military reforms simply necessary out of economic and demographic situations, not so much because it was militarily more effective (which it simply wasn't).
@@LegioXXI The Romans didn't stop campaigns of conquest out of the goodness of their heart, but rather they ran out of profitable neighbors to conquer and loot. It's also extremely odd you would bring up Babylon when by the time of Augustus it was a deserted wasteland. What cavalry archer "armies" were those?
@@gamesguy The Parthians who controled the area used Cavalry archers. Also there are several cases of romans vs numidians, who also used cavalry archers and skurmishers.
Also most of the original neibours of Rome wherent profitable in fact they raided Rome because Rome was more profitable and that was the reason Rome started coqnuering them.
Gaul, Spain, Germany and Brithan are the biggest examples, where they wherent rich at all and yet Rome conquered them ( afcrose they later became profitable exept for Britan ).
Rome stoped coquering because the maitanance of the Empire became too big and they codnt affort long term campaings or the cost of controling new territories.
I will disagree with the comfort and weight aspect. Chainmail is form fitting and is more comfortable to wear than laminar/segmented armor. The weight of chainmail can also be partially distributed on the waist through a belt...something that can't be done with segmented armor. The weight of chainmail or segmented armor also depends on the thickness of the metal and coverage of the armor. If you have less armor coverage or more thin armor (thus sacrificing protection), then the armor will be lighter. If you're trying to achieve similar armor coverage and similar levels of protection, you're going to need a heavier set of armor. Furthermore, there is no evidence that chainmail was abandoned in favor of scale (squamata is scale, not lamellar). Scale and chainmail had both been use since the Roman Republic centuries before the Huns, and both were used into the medieval era.
@@LegioXXI those early cavalry archers had bows which were quite weak. even into late antiquity the Romans had stronger bows than the Persians, and the Romans were a western power where composite bow technology was underdeveloped
mesopotamia is also a desert crisscrossed by rivers; the cavalry armies have nowhere to go. it's almost like a corridor. the seleucids did quite well in the field therefore, although they used pikes, archers, and cavalry early on.
the arab use of camels would change this
The soldiers of late Rome deserve much more respect. It was much more dificult to keep troop morale up during times of struggle, civil war and bad pay than in times of constant roman superiority, victories and good pay. They still did their duty and scored many victories which are just far less known than the ones during roman rise and peak. And even after defeats they kept on holding the Empire together for its final 150 years.
The weak and bad armies in history were the ones which collapsed after defeat. If the late roman soldiers would ve been bad, the Empire wouldnt ve endured that long after the crisis of the 3rd century. Defeats without collapse tells of toughness. Just like their forefathers in the punic wars.
The late army was army of conscripts while the early army was an army of volunteers, no way conscripts are on par with seasoned volunteers
Tell that to the Chinese dinasties and the Roman Republic. Most of their armies were conscripted militia, yet they eventually became so experienced they were as good as a professional army.
Don't underestimate conscripts.
What a great channel. It tackles serious questions, specific questions, and answers them in a long-form, scholarly style. I love this.
One thing to note is that the barbarians also evolved with time. During the late Republic and early Empire the legions were highly organized and equipped with state-of-the-art tech, employing revolutionary tactics, while the germanic barbarians they faced were ill-equipped and lacked the tactical sense or leadership of a Roman general. However, through centuries of contact with Rome and mercenary work, much of the Roman knowledge passed on to the barbarians, to the point that germanic armies in the 5th century were quite similar to the Roman ones. So of course the edge Rome had disappeared with time.
Same thing can be said about the Greeks, Macedonians and Eastern Romans when facing the Persians. Alexander the Great completely steamrolled Achaemenid Persia thanks to its revolutionary phalanx system combined with heavy cavalry charge; however, centuries passed and the Persian tactics evolved to a point that the Roman armies couldn't match the macedonian performance despite employing arguably better gear and tactics.
The Persians excelled against the Roman incursion since its mostly desert plain. NOt to mention, not much settlement here and there. Romans managed to topple Macedon by mostly avoiding pitch battles and raiding Macedonian settlements which kneecaps Macedon's warchests. Plus, the Roman's panoply of using large shield gives them alot of edge from most Macedonian response forces(Macedonian pikemen, when outside pitch battles, employs spears and swords). Not to mention, Romans avoid fighting Macedonian phalanx if they think they don;t have a chance.
As for Parthians and Persians, I never knew much aside from Carrhae and I don't want to bring Total War since I don't have a clear picture. So far, the ones I knew from wikipedia is they mostly employ armoured cavalry due to their mobility and they have spearmen recruited via land allotment system called sparsbara aka apple bearers and they mostly protect the archers.
But if they did copy Alexander's tactics, well, its hard to outmanuever a Parthian phalanx unless you overpower their cavalry and flanked them to Kingdom come.
One word about flexibilty: One major task of the late Roman army were skirmishes. The soldiers were supposed to defend fortified positions and chase barbarian warbands, which affected equipment and organisation.
Flexibility and decentralization is a must in warfare once the technology catches up. For example, during the Franco-Prussian War, the Prussian infantry formed looser skirmish-like lines while the French still had their infantry tightly packed even though gone were the days of the muzzleloader.
@@imgvillasrc1608 You really see it in the difference between World War I and World War II. World War I had large infantry formations, centrally controlled by Division and Army headquarters, attacking along vast fronts all at once. And the result was a force lacking in any sort of mobility or initiative, and ultimately falling prey to poorly planned offensives which failed to take into account any of the local battlefield conditions or tactical situation.
But World War II saw a far more decentralized command structure, with brigade, regiment and battalion level commanders pursuing local objectives on their own initiative, often times in unison with one another with Divisional and Army headquarters merely putting an overarching strategy in place and ultimately dealing with the logistics for frontline soldiers.
Very nice video, synthetic yet very articulated and complete, reflecting the complexity of the Roman army in different times. Maioranus is getting better and better!
One important aspect related to the army of "Principatum" (i.e. from Augustus to III century AC) is the issue of seeking the most appropriate type of armour in different combat situations: the lorica segmentata was adopted as a measure to ensure better protection when opposed to large number of archers (it appeared after the battle of Charrae). It offered a much better protection than any other armour of the time vs. arrows, but NOT vs heavy cutting weapons, such as the double-handed Dacian "falx". In fact, during the Dacian campaigns, the legionnaires discovered that the lorica segmentata was not the best option and anyhow was not enough to protect from the falx, for which the other types of armour were more appropriate.
Once said this, the equipment of a legion was never fully standardized, so that in the same unit there were different types of lorica, galea etc. However, the legionnaires tried to get for themselves the most appropriate gears for the specific battlefield, so it is witnessed that, for example, in the Dacian campaign the legionnaires tried to adapt to the situation looking for other types of armours if supplied with a lorica segmentata.
The Romans under Trajan actually added new armour in response to the Dacian weapons. They had a reinforced helmet and a manica giving their sword arm a coat of metal.
Late Rome faced cavalry focused enemy armies. The traditional sexy legionary with the shield and gladius was rendered absolete, because it kept getting bashed to pieces. Rome focused more on agile heavy cavalry forces, cataphracts, horse archers, and jack of all trades infantry units wielding spears, swords and javelins/bows. Late Rome faced far more advanced and diverse enemies than it did before.
Basically the Romans were fighting people who could fight back.
@@view1st Rome faced many formidable enemies during its expansion. Carthage, the Greek Kingdoms, Parthians, Northern Barbarians. When you expand you loot, and you have lots of money to throw towards army. Often established empires have economic problems. Rome didnt loose because its armies were shit, but because it didnt have enough money to have enough of them.
Thank you for finally dissect late roman army that still retain formidable forces since Republic era
Maiorianus, your previous video raised the issue of Roman craftsmanship declining when it came to producing sculpture and coins. Can the same be said for military equipment? Was the lack of skilled armor, sword, shields etc. manufacturers as critical as the lack of skilled soldiers? Great channel!
Lack of skilled soldiers?They didn't lacked skilled soldiers.Shields,armour and weapon was also not some dramatic decline.
On the contrary, metallurgy kept improving almost non stop well into the Medieval peripd and beyond. Fine arts declined because they were not essential for Rome to survive. Troops, arms and armor, on the other hand, became more necessary than ever.
The output of the state-owned Roman weapon factories must have been immense as much of the production ended up in the barbaricum.
Well, given how many skilled workers died in some nasty plagues in the late Empire, this surely would've compromised Army 's capability to build armours, such as the plague that struck the empire in the mid of the 3rd century, amidst Gallus' reign.
@@alessiodecarolis Centrally-planned economies have shortages, but central planners shift shortages where they are supposed to be acceptable. BTW, the fabricae (arms factories) did not belong to the army but to the civilian administration.
"...And once we conquer Sicily, we'll go after the Roman tribes. They're such good fighters. We'll have a hard time beating them, but I'm sure they'll serve us well in the future..."
*Alexander explaining his plans of conquest to the dying Hephaestion*
Where is this quote from?
@@worganfreeman2694 I took it from the movie "Alexander" made by Oliver Stone. However, parts of this quote were modified by me to give them more depth.
@@TetsuShima AH the one with colin ferrell aye? I remember the movie but I don't quite remember the line. Thanks~
He never said that.
Man I remember the drama when u had with thunderfeet I’m glad your out of that and find your new passion successful! Welcome to the historical community
Had to stop my work to watch this. Very fascinating topic. Thank you for covering it. Make sure to do the same for byzantine army like you mentioned at the end of the video.
Go back to work! And stop stealing jobs! Get your own!
The later army became more a phalanx because their primary enemies were warband and cavalry. The earlier army was a legion because their primary enemies were phalanx.
The heavy infantry of the classical period with the heavy curved shields weren't so great against fast moving enemies. In the classical period Rome was invading other nations and the legions were the hammer to be used against enemy troops and infrastructure. After the 3rd century ad the legions aren't invading anymore, they're reacting to invaders along their frontier. The legions are too slow to met these invaders so the equipment of the legions becomes the same as the auxiliaries. The emphasis is on cavalry and mixed units of cavalry and faster moving infantry.
The only way to fight with flat oval shields is as a phalanx, the classic Roman legion fought in a looser formation because they had curved shields that covered more of the body.
This implies that the legions are a phalanx killer, which they are not.
Realife doesnt work like Rock paper sissors for most
Bro why you roasting him leave him alone
"He's already dead!"
Who?
@@ajavierb2078 James
@@BlackMasterRoshi Who?
@@ajavierb2078
Afrojack.
Another issue might be "The Barbarians are stronger". The prime legions may have fought weaker opponents?
Turns out, the "Barbarian kingdom getting better at war" problem was a massive problem for all of civilizational history until guns came. I think the late Roman empire is the prime example of this problem.
And the same germanic barbarians but also other ones, like the nomads.
True, they were facing more enemies at once that were not only more advanced but many of the Germanic soldiers were trained by or learned from Roman armies over the generations. Even employed in the service of Rome then betrayed them. Basically everything that could go wrong, did go wrong all at once. Luckily, as pointed out before, many people did not intend to destroy Rome but instead control it or settle in it.
@@canadious6933 Yep. Another huge problem was that trade with Rome enriched formerly marginal borderlands. In Germania there was little agriculture other than subsistence in the small thorps there at first. The population of Caesar's time could not have sustained a war of attrition. Cut to 300 years later, different story. Rome didn't just train them in war, it trained their expectations and ambitions away from subsistence towards enrichment/expansion, especially in those borders where trade occurred. More powerful leaders enriched by trade now had the resources to form coalitions of people groups. Ironic that the economic machine of Rome also powered-up its future foes.
@@AF-tv6uf Pretty much. In a sense it would be like comparing the British Empire in the 18th and 19th century conquering a large amount of land with a highly trained and advanced army for the time. But then comparing the same thing to the 21st century. It is a smaller army but still would beat the older soldiers any day. However the world Britain lives in is very much different than today. If that is a reasonable analogy
I have an Osprey book on the Late Roman Army. Vegetius says that in his time, the Legions still existed, but the substance and meaning of the term were gone. The book points to howJulian's army mutinied when Constantius II ordered it to move east, and then proclaimed Julian emperor. There was also a near mutiny later on when his soldiers complained about leaving their families behind when moving East, which forced Julian to allow them come with them. The book concludes from this that the Late Roman army was less willing to fight far away from home. It also expresses the view that Aetius's army probably had few or no native Romans in it. In the 5th century this was an almost entirely barbarian army in my opinion, especially in the West. Ammianus Marcellinus also mentions Italians being more resistant to military service than Gauls.
And later the same mutinous soldiers followed Julian to Persia. According to sources, Rome has been in steady decline since the late republic.
Yes. It has great illustrations too. Some have been used in this vid. It was also part of the inspiration for firming my 15mm Late Roman wargame army.
@@doppelwaffen the republic was degenerate thats why it failed, augustus was the peak of rome and he had laws implemented to combat the societal degradation ie degeneracy
And now history repeats itself, see Ukraine and the rising Chinese threat. The people in the west rather just enjoy their materialistic wealth instead of making sure to actually being able to defend it.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
And no that doesn't need we need to wage war everywhere and against anyone, but we should always be *able* to do so, especially mentally.
Otherwise some enemies will always see it as weakness and exploit it.
We should learn from Rome's mistakes, not repeat them.
@@LegioXXI aye every civilization reaches its hedonistic phase and inevitable downfall , probably why we will never have space exploration
The ever changing art of war, a never ceasing chain of adaptions and counteradaptions. The Lorica Squamata is really beautiful I think.
The Late Roman Empire just has more soul to it. The Roman Empire of the Principate is like Ivan Drago all doped up and winning fights with all of the high tech shit. Dominate Rome is Rocky Balboa eating the punches from strong opponents and winning anyway. If you think the Late Roman Empire was weak, then my one word to you is Heraclius.
I also think Late Roman philosophy and theology have underrated lasting power today. We like to talk about Marcus Aurelius and whatnot, but unless we all become Muslim, nothing will ever top the Church Fathers, especially St. Augustine if we're talking in the West. His Just War Theory is huge even today, as is "City of God". He also answered the Problem of Evil, which the Classics couldn't.
The army as a collection of soldiers wasn’t degenerate, the army as an institution was. Ever since pertinax, the Roman Empire was stuck in a cycle of civil war, outside invasion, and incomplete restoration, with the Imperium Romanum shrinking every time.
Early Roman Soldier: "I am Fighter, not a Lover."
Late Roman Soldier: "I am Lover, not a Fighter."
It was not only about the skills and equipment of the troops, but also about the organization. Before the Battle of Adrianopole in 395, the border troops were few and little trained. On the other hand, when the imperial army arrived, they had "all their eggs in one basket", most of the elite troops, officers and generals accompanied the emperor. |
In the early empire, military power was distributed, and when the emperor traveled with military purpose, there were many support points, not just one army to face the enemy. Military science seems to have declined, not the weaponry.
Maiorianus, thank you so much for putting so much effort on these videos. I always really enjoy watching these videos and learning more about an empire I have always been passionate about. I have been struggling a bit with burnout in university with my history major and your videos always help reinvigorate my interest for a subject I have been passionate about. I am not in a position to donate but I hope when I get a job, I can give back to such a worthwhile and enjoyable channel!
Are soldiers who are paid less, have less to look forward to in retirement, by default, in some ways, inferior to ones who are paid more and have a better retirement? Does the difficulty of finding men willing to be soldiers in the late Roman Empire mean that those that did join, on the whole, were more negative compared to earlier Roman soldiers in their attitude toward life as soldier? It is impossible to know at this point in time but its seems less pay and rewards would have an effect on morale overall.
A labour market did not exist in the late Roman empire. You had to hold the same occupation as your father. If he was a carpenter, you became a carpenter. If he was a farmer, you became a farmer. If he was a soldier, you became a soldier. Period. Volunteering may have been one of the few options to evade your father's profession.
@@doppelwaffen Thanks! You are right. It must of really sucked, plus you had to compete with slaves.
@@doppelwaffen not really true, soldiers were a profession sure, but for their retirement they got land to farm, making them and their sons farmers, sure its easier to pick up a trade from your father, but its not true they had a caste-like system
@@poki580 This is beeing discussed by scholars. Some argue that only a fraction of professions was compulsory, which is correct, but misses the numbers of people working in these trades. I'd conclude that every vital profession was regulated and compulsory for one single reason: A centrally-planned economy cannot control production if it doesn't control the workforce. A free labour market means that people won't work in the trades you need for the wages you set.
@@doppelwaffen Soldiering was the exception. Soldiering was not a family business because Roman soldiers technically could not have families. Now of course many did, but the central draw to serving in the military was not that your family did it. It was the fact that it offered ready employment as well as the prospect of considerable loot and land.
Throughout Roman history, soldiers that were not on campaign would mutiny against their officers for the opportunity to be sent campaigning. Germanicus' entire expedition into Germany was essentially him handling a Roman mutiny by taking his soldiers to plunder across the Rhine.
Thank you and Much Love from the Philippines.
Fantastic, as always! Thank you for the work you put in on these videos!
I haven't managed to trudge through all that 'optimisation' nonsense. It's like saying that sleeping in a box under a bridge after you lost your house because of bankruptcy is 'optimisation'. Yep, sort of.
Great stuff! I just discovered your channel. This era is my favorite of Roman history. 👍
The last part basically proves your point by themselves. If the classic Roman legion was just better compared to the late Roman legion.. with all the trappings Hollywood depicts them as, the Eastern Roman empire would have kept using them beyond that date. TBH, considering how many warfare innovations were happening in the Late Imperial period, if the Western would stuck with the early imperial model..... they probably a worse sucess record.... warfare had essentially changed to much to make it viabile.
The "Eastern Roman Empire" was a bunch of all but broke, constantly bickering and notoriously disunited backstabbing bunch of Greeks. There's no way they could have afforded or organised the Imperial Legions of old. Warfare changed BECAUSE the levels of logistics, organisation, armament and recruitment dropped significantly to essentially feudal levels. The army sizes speak volumes to this, they go from armies of 100'000 well supplied healthy soldiers to mere thousands living of the land and starting to die of dysentery after three days on campaign.
@@mnk9073 Bullshit. The Eastern Roman lasted thousand after the fall of the West while fighting enemies that fucking sending early Roman legions to thier graves like the Sassinids, Parthians, etc and the reason the East didn'tis becuase it was the extremely well off and more organied half of the empire, it was flipping described as a city of gold by voyagers there. I was rerfering to the bucket saddle, stirrups and better understanding of horse breeding, all of where brought of from other around the time the western Empire fell. Also, hilarous your bring up backstabing when Western Emperors and politicians had civil war and backstabing as a flipping art form. Just compare the list of murdered emperors by the praetorian guard to the Varangian guardsmen..... the former list is a fuck ton longer.
The late legions were also lesser in troops, some were about 1000 men strong, with the financiary constraints of late empire, expecially in the west, most of the soldiers didn't have any armour, having to rely only to the great oval shield and an helmet for defence. Add also the fact that most, if not all of the men were mercenaries/barbarians or both, with no interest in the well being of the State, it's logical that EVERYTHING went down the tube from the late 4th century onward.
The late Roman empire military was not optimised for direct combat power.
It was optimised to be cheap, able to live off the land with low logistics requirement, highly mobile, capable of incorporating different groups, and making best use of lower trained, less well equipped manpower.
It was good at patrolling, putting down serfs, skirmishing and reconnaisance. Pitched battles? not so much.
The transition from early to late Roman army was forced on them, not really a choice or reflecting better understanding of combat.
The highly disciplined, well trained, tight order, sophisticated formations of Augustan Rome would likely have demolished a similar number of the polygot, mercenary, lightly armed loose formation-if-any late empire troops.
They simply couldnt make 'em like they used to!
Dont discount the effect of citizen troops all having the same language and culture vs a mixed bag of disparate people thrown together. There was a military tradition in ancient Italy that was mostly lacking in the late Empire.
@@coffeebreakchat2450 Did ya'll watch this or any of his videos? The late Roman won quite a number of battles it is just like a Roman drawing youtuber showed, the late Roman army was brittle and fighting highly organized states and equaly equipped opponents more of the time. The Romans debased their own currency, several plagues and civil and the disincentives of being in the Roman army meant every loss hurt more. The case in point. The Eastern Roman Empire didn't decide to reintroduce segmentata, Javelin,short sword infrantymen and classic focused calvary ratios cus that loadout and army set up basically fucking sucks against with skirminshing and heavy calvary corps. Stirrups and bucket saddles help out a calvarymen allot more that a point pointed seat. Also,case in point. The Battle of Carnae and all the Emperor Roman lost to Persia. Another case in point.Machavalli actually suggested reviving short sword, javelin and scutum infrantymen during the reinssence and basically no commander during that time took his suggestion seriously.
Excellent video. Many good points were made.
First, the Roman army didn't become a mostly professional volunteer army until the early empire in the 1st century AD. For most of the Roman Republic, the Roman army was a non-professional conscripted milita (ie. "levy") that was raised during times of crisis and mostly disbanded when the crisis ended. With the reforms dubbed the Marian reforms of the end of the 2nd century BC to early 1st century BC, the Roman army was transitioning to a more-professional standing army and starting favoring volunteering, but conscription was still heavily used. Though the Marian reforms can't take all the credit, as the transition towards longer military service times started during the 2nd Punic Wars when conscripts were continually redrafted or had their service lengthened. You can read about Caesar and Pompey "levying" (conscripting) troops from certain provinces for their campaigns and civil wars. Most troops wouldn't become both professional and volunteers until the imperial era.
Second, The laminar armors (eg. segmentata) wasn't invented until around the early 1st century AD. The laminar/segmentata was actually used by both legions and auxillary alike, as segmented armors are found in auxillary bases along the frontiers. Chainmail and scale was also used by both legions and auxillary alike.
Lorica Segmentata also known to have superior protection against maces and axes.
Scaled armor is also ridiculously expensive to make.
According to which sources or tests? Its segmented armor, not plate.
Soooooo happy to have come across this channel!
Been binge watching ever since.
I agree, the late Roman period is the most interesting, and consequential to what Europe would become.
Don't know why that transition isn't more widely delt with by scholors.
Your channel has really filled in a lot of hazy patches, in my sense of European history.
Yes, this channel is a gold mine.
The Eastern and Western Roman militaries diverged significantly after about 350AD.
Most historians rate the Eastern military as superior, and especially less reliant on barbarians to make up the numbers.
The East was richer and had shorter more defensible borders too.
the late roman army was built around defending its existing territories. It was more or less the constant civil wars that destroyed the army through in fighting and the regions which paid for its upkeep
I like how the video length is 1453
This isn't a video about the late Roman soldier, this is a video about the late WESTERN Roman soldier.
The real Rhoman empire survived as you mentioned, for far longer.
So yeah, bad title
its not about equipment only but overall about soldiers themselves because good soldiers having discipline and fencing skills is very valuable. Like in medieval times, they had similar equipment according to roman counterpartments but were successful too.
PS : roma invicta
The late Roman army was highly effective. People just presume it wasn't because the empire fell...
My guess is that the army became cheaper - currency debasement shows this was likely required. One reason as an exsmple was lorica being replaced by cheaper armours.
Also for legionaries I think the earlier were better individually but the later roman army made up for this at the tactical level by adopting close formed fighting formations backed by various missile weapons.
The later Roman army couldnt adopt the elaborate formations of the past, and certainly couldnt match its density of combat power.
Why? The spaatha is a slashing weapons, requiring loads of room to use. Also the different people press ganged into later armies hadnt trained together enough to maneouver together. Generally they just formed lines and blocks.
The later Roman army was "barbarianised".
The civil wars of the 3rd and 4th century massively harmed the institution of Roman military professionalism. When legions fought each other the casualties on both sides were horrendous. It took 2 years to train an effective swordsman in the Legion, and the loss of so many good swordsman so quickly led to emperor's coming to rely on feoderatii (barbarian tribal allies settled in Roman provinces in exchange for military service). These barbarian allies were not trained in the Roman ways of warfare and were not drilled, disciplined troops but rather fought in their own custom and had their own commanders. The over reliance on foederatii to supplement the empires domestic legionnaires reduced the empires odds of winning pitched battles as they were able to easily do so in the generations prior.
Except they quickly rebulided army from native Roman recruits and professionalism,discipline and drill continued to be essential.In fact basic military training remained unaltered.
@@paprskomet not exactly. It took 2 years to train an effective swordsman in the legion. Rebuilding armies was actually fairly slow, especially when veterans and senior officers were being killed more quickly than ever. That's why they came to rely on federate troops which compromised the long term professionalism of the later imperial armies.
I'm not sure how much of a minority I might be for this take: I actually really like the late Roman aesthetic of the hamata and Ridge helmets.
P.S.: Shout out as VrboyAvrelian. I love hearing your content in the background of my Total War campaigns.
Nah bro, the video is very much a strawman of "what people say"
@@Nodnarbero I think it's more of what the most common take was.
Really great work! Your channel has answered so many of my lingering questions I’ve had trouble finding answers to. Instantly subscribed!
Correct me if I’m wrong but as I understood it, the lorica segmentata was easier and cheaper to produce than a chain mail shirt that needed each individual ring riveted together opposed to hammering out sheets of metal and buckling it together. And I’ve also heard from several sources that centurions preferred to use the chain mail shirt opposed to the lorica segmentata.
Segmentata was MORE expensive, due to needing more specialized production
@@TheAchilles26 those metal bands doesn't need expert smiths. like maille, problem with maille is it takes ALOT of time to be built together. Segmentata is ridiculously fast to make since metal bands can be made by any metalsmiths. Segmentata fell out of use because of being maintenance expensive compared to scale armour or maille. Maille armour can avoid maintenance as long as its worn and wearer is moving since they scrape against each other brushing away rusts and dirt.
Why is the slinger drip so good always loved a green uniform
I'd love to see the Scutatoi or Tagma compared to early legionaries
I remember a video I watched about the segmentata armour claimed it's use was probably very limited for a number of reasons. One of the big ones was the fact that the manufacture of large plates to a consistent level was not easily achieved at this point in time and wouldn't be until the middle to late medieval period. Hamata was easier to produce, since most cultures had experience producing mail of some type already, and allowed the soldier more mobility.
There is actually a rather significant flaw with lorica segmentata in that it's not very thick.
Newer research shows real thickness at the time was ~0.5mm, which is very limited in strength.
While it is certainly decent armor, it should be put in the perspectives of the time.
Therefore I suggest the conventional view segmentata is appreciably superior to it's scale or chainmail counterparts is likely fallacious in general. However segmentata holds an advantage against blunt attacks.
In addition it should be considered that, generally speaking, large shields are not very thick, and this applies to both the Hoplon, and the Roman shields, which must be used for long stretches of time.
Among other evidences I would suggest that a more dynamic view of ancient warfare should be considered. Varying grades as opposed to relatively binary differences.
To further elaborate, the armaments employed by friend and foe alike were influenced by the opponents they faced.
When fighting a tribe of Britons or Gauls, certainly. Wide coverage, short swords are more than sufficient.
But perhaps, what problems arise when your foes are better equipped?
The stab of a Spatha is blunted, the short blade exposing the sword arm to a counter stroke.
It is after all, unprotected.
The shield perhaps is partially cut by a long sword.
Or, as indicated earlier, now more often stabbed through?
Would one then not certainly employ round shields, more convenient and with more robust edges?
Employ spears and longswords over the Spatha of old?
I think it quite ridiculous to look at a "glorious past" and assume everything the ancestors did was right, not merely then, but in the here and now.
Insightful exploration! Strikes me the down-sizing of the legion, armor and weaponry, while adapted to new circumstances, still reflected the ongoing decline of the Roman economy, population, and the social cohesion of the ever-diversifying citizenry. Military service lost much of its prestige, made worse by internecine fighting among commanders for the throne. Soldiers had less motivation to make the ultimate sacrifice, so while the disintegration of the Western empire was occasionally stopped after 250, it was never for long.
Lorica segmentata was already phased out in early empire. Replaced by chainmails.
I understand that military lost the famous Roman army discipline in late empire, and as such it was a degenerate and inferior shadow of it former self.
Iv never thought that the late Roman military was inferior in equipment but I always assumed much like any company in modern times when funding is cut so is quality even if not in equipment than maybe in will and morale
I like to believe some guy came upon an antique Lorica Segmentata when drafted by Flavius Aetius to fight against Attila
I'm certain the officer corps must have been worse in the late roman army, simply because so few people were literate in the late empire compared to earlier.
Always great videos! Love this channel
My favorite period! The roman army of the late period wasn’t in any case inferior. It was an adaptable entity in the hands of the State, that served its role well until 1453. The difference between any army and the roman army was logistics, the “engineering” behind its success from the beginning, and it’s often underrated. In Notitia Dignitatum, Dei Rei Militari, we can see in-depth how they organized in the late Roman Empire, and it was simply amazing. Another element of this period is the specialization and flexibility of some of the core troops of the empire, multipurpose sometimes in terms of usage but also in training and tactics as well, resembling more and more a modern combined warfare approach from what it was in previous periods. I can say for sure, it was mighty. And the recruitment of “Barbaric” Forces is not necessarily a bad thing, as it was a huge pool of soldiers, and brought many tactics and elements that updated Army’s value and status “globally”. In terms of the Roman Empire’s success in this period, there are many factors, it’s not only the army. And again this empire managed to last until the late medieval time. The problem is that we are often stuck in “classicism” -which is only a snapshot of the whole history of a subject, or simply of what we idolize as perfection by our preferences and personal "tastes", and we neglect the rest. The same with the Roman Army.
Great points, but I would question the idea that adding barbarian units was always a positive contribution.
What if your barbarian allies dont know your language or your formations? No problem if they are a small portion of your forces, but when they form the majority, it forces compromises.
As actually happened, barbarian originated merenaries took knowledge of the Roman miilitary home with them , enabled a constant technology transfer. This definitely contributed to Roman units losing their edge over their adversaries. See Dacia for an early example of this.
@@coffeebreakchat2450 As a counterpoint to that, I remember reading that even after the fall of the West, the legions of the East still spoke some Latin or at the very least used Latin phrases in their formations, shouts, and commands long after the elites/leadership/bureaucracy stopped using Latin.
It can't be denied that a centuries long period of integration of Germanic origin soldiers probably did contribute to some level of technology & tactical transfer. But ultimately I think this was not a heavily contributing factor. As we all know, the Western Roman Empire didn't fall to an external enemy. This point is very important. Barbarian units worked just fine for centuries since most of them held respect/admiration for and wanted to become Romans. During this period, the Roman army was very successful with external defeats being pretty rare even in the 400's.
It's really only in the spiraling chaos of the last handful of decades in the late 400's that the barbarian origin soldiery eventually became a problem. And even then, it was mostly a wound that was self-inflicted. The late Western emperors extorting, enslaving, cleansing the families of barbarian origin Romans, killing your right hand men (Stilicho & Aetius) who could help keep the loyalty of these barbarian origin soldiers, lack of pay for the army due to losing Africa, etc. So the real damage was caused by these disastrous policies, constant civil wars, and political instability.
The barbarian units were a positive contribution right up until the very end. When they did start generating their own designs & foreign policy, like under Ricimer & Odoacer, it really was just filling a void that the disintegrating central Western government was leaving.
@@MarW1138 You raise some fascinating points.
On the Eastern Empire after the fall of the West: I seem to recall that Belisarius had all sorts of trouble managing the varied allied contingents in his army. Only someone of his genius could ge the best out of them. More homogenous armies in the Republican/Early Imerial era were generally easier to command and more predictable in the performance.
"As we all know, the Western Roman Empire didn't fall to an external enemy." - depends what you mean by "external". The Visigoths didnt integrate at all with the Western administration, and were "internal" only in the lands they took. When they sacked Rome in 410, it certainly must have looked like a foreign army to the citizens.
Many factors fed into the decline of the West. I suspect no single one of them explains it all.
Growing use of barbarian mercenaries was initially a choice, but later unavoidable. There is evidence that Roman regulars stopped being so disciplined when they saw barbarian allies not subjected to the same rules. Lack of armour, for example, was partly down to Imperial troops being eager to avoid the hassle of carrying & maintaining it when allied troops didnt bother.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest the Roman army - even the ethnically Roman part - became increasingly barbarised. They adopted Germanic war cries and stopped using advanced formations in favour of deeper blocks of toops.
Use of the Spaatha over the gladius pretty much dictates a looser formation; you will decapitate your comrades swinging the former around, whilst the latter was a stabbing weapon which permitted tight formations and very focused combat power.
The West grew too complacent. It assumed it would always have supremacy over other nations and focused on cheap, mobile troops. They were great for keeping the peasants in line and quashing rebellions, but woefully inadequate for the ever improving opposition.
With declining tax base and opposition to indigenous recruitment, barbarian "fedorati" were the only choice remaining. Doesnt mean it was the best one.
You are correct about low talent and flip flopping policies from the leadership.
@@coffeebreakchat2450 Your insights are fascinating too, appreciate the discussion!
Regarding the quality of the ethnic Roman troops (I presume you mean Italic or Gallic troops? Places that were Romanized for centuries) - I am not seeing how their supposed barbarization had much of a qualitative effect. They were still extremely effective.
The type of warfare and military needs by this period had admittedly changed drastically due to the arrival of the Huns and reduced tax revenues.
However, the discontinuation of complex formations, adoption of the spatha, increase in barbarian origin, or any other perceived qualitative deficiency of the late Western army of Majorian didn't affect their success at all. In fact, the mid 400's under Majorian, they won every pitched battle in every corner of the empire that they fought in, despite having all of these supposedly "inferior" barbarized qualities.
And in fact I would argue that they instead became qualitatively better, at least in the military realities that they were facing such as an increase in mounted enemies, not least of all the Huns. Their changes allowed them to be more effective against the new mounted threat (longer spatha, adoption of long spears, scale mail to better protect against arrows, plumbata to increase volume of standoff capabilities, more cavalry, etc), possibly even with fewer numbers and lower cost.
I do agree with the West growing complacent, but I would say it was mostly the senatorial aristocracy growing complacent/selfish to the detriment of the empire. Not the military. In fact in the late 400's, investment into defensive fortications increased. While the wealthy landowners increasingly became in arrears over their tax obligations. Originally I recall that they had paid money to exempt themselves and their workers, but eventually they stopped paying that too.
First, it is important to delineate the notion that linear progress is inevitable. While it is often assumed that civilizations uniformly advance over time, history offers numerous instances where societies have regressed culturally, technologically, or militarily. The late Roman Empire exemplifies this phenomenon. After reaching a zenith of power and sophistication, it eventually witnessed a marked decline in these areas.
The equipment used by the late Roman army serves as an illustrative example of this regression. During its peak, the Roman military was renowned for its superior equipment, including sophisticated, single-metal piece helmets for example ,that provided robust protection. By the late period, however, this capacity was lost. The late Roman soldiers were armed with inferior gear, signifying a loss in both technological know-how and manufacturing capabilities. This devolution had dire consequences on the battlefield.
Furthermore, the tactical prowess that once gave Rome an edge over its enemies had atrophied. Late Roman armies increasingly employed the same tactics and equipment as their adversaries. By homogenizing their approach, they forfeited the strategic advantages that had once allowed them to dominate. Consequently, the late Roman military suffered catastrophic defeats at the hands of less sophisticated and poorly organized enemies-a stark contrast to their earlier era of invincibility.
The decline was not solely a matter of lost equipment or tactics. Several systemic issues contributed significantly. Firstly, there was a palpable loss of cultural and technological knowledge. This erosion can be attributed to a combination of political instability, economic decline, and internal conflicts that disrupted the transmission of expertise. Moreover, the empire's logistical capabilities diminished considerably, further hampering the army’s efficiency and operational reach.
Training, a cornerstone of Roman military success, also waned due to insufficient resources and a shrinking pool of qualified recruits. The comprehensive and rigorous training programs that once churned out highly disciplined soldiers became sparse, resulting in an ill-prepared and under-skilled military force.
Additionally, the pool of available men for conscription dwindled, partly due to the wide-reaching impacts of constant warfare, plagues, and economic hardship. This shortage of manpower forced the Romans to recruit from less reliable segments of the population and even from foreign tribes with dubious loyalty.
In conclusion, the late Roman military's deterioration was multifaceted, encompassing deteriorations in equipment, tactical advantage, logistics, training, and human resources. Instead of advancing, the late Roman army regressed, becoming inferior in every respect. Thus, the assumption that passage of time ensures continual progress is a misconception. The trajectory of history illustrates that without sustained effort and favorable conditions, civilizations can-and often do-experience profound declines.
things dont usually look good when u are on your way out.
This happens in the U.S. Army. The WW2 army is held in the highest esteem. However, other generations are unfairly debased, suffering from bad leadership. Equipment needs change.
I think what is overlooked is the fact auxila did much of the fighting if not more such as Agricola's campaign and the Dacian Wars.
In the Agricola, he thanks his British troops for fighting with Rome. It’s in the chapter where they’re about to fight the Caledonians. So within a couple of years, he’d managed to recruit the ‘enemy’ as auxiliaries
The thing about the White and Red Uniforms soldier. Are you Suresh they don't wears armors? I am curious if these so call clothing are a types of thick clothing, perhaps something similar to the Gambeson, or other textile armors? The Persian, Greek used various form of textile armors before, so did the Viking did uses Textile armors (when they found some) or typically wore quite thick clothing during their raid. It would be Strange's if the empire didn't come across the concept, especially consider how Gambeson are very effective against most standard arming sword cuts from the Medieval period.
Very interesting and well illustrated.
The thing is if the Late Roman Army was as terrible as people claim, They Empire would have fallen long before it did.
sure, it wasnt terrible, until it was, and the empire fell, i mean alaric the visigoth king that sacked rome started as a roman soldier, odoacer a man that toppled last western roman empire and later germanic king of italy, was you guessed it a germanic man that served the roman army, army was good but it wasnt roman anymore
Very nice video on an interesting subject. I think that the late Roman Empire created a cost-effective army that better matched their economic means than the army of the late Republic or early Empire would have. The late Empire suffered from a cooling climate, plague's, social unrest, and foreign incursions which had a negative effect on tax revenues. I just do not think that they had the money to create enough scutum and gladius armed heavy infantry (a very high-cost and value-added form).
Thank You! Maiorianus vids are always good!
The Romans weren’t fighting shirtless barbarians anymore. I think their Germanic enemies began to equip themselves better and learnt tactics whilst in service to the Romans as mercenaries.
The Gauls invented the chainmail AND the scutum that the Romans used. The Iberians invented the gladius. The barbarians always had an elite core of armored troops. The real difference was that the Romans had deteriorated to the point where THEY were starting to field larger numbers of unarmored/lightly armored troops.
@@TheAchilles26 "deteriorated" is very misleading word in context you speak about.At any case say "shield"instead of "scutum"(since it only meant "shield"),say "hispanic sword" instead of "gladius"(since in reality "gladius" only meant "sword",any sword,it was never a typological word Romans would reserved only for hispanic "short" swords).
The Roman citizens no longer wished to enlist. Barbarians were the main troops after 350ad
Absolutely inferior. Bad organization, no field artillery and reduced siege artillery. Bad equipment, armors with reduced effectiveness...
fascinating. did smth similar happen in the Eastern Roman Empire towards the end? the empire was broke, mostly only able to pay some mercenaries for a few months instead of having a sizeable standing army. can't help but see similarities between West and East in their final moments, but i might be wrong.
The late Roman Legion we're just as good and as lethal as the early Roman Legion they just destroyed themselves by civil wars which was the main reason why Rome fell at 476 AD to the barbarians
That rectangular shield surely useful for resting when needed.
The biggest advantage of the later Roman army is it's ability to fight against cavalry. The classical European battlefield is all but devoid of cavalry. Whereas Asian and foes more and more were using larger more capable horses, heavy cavalry and horse archers that required the response of long spears and highly mobile archers.
With more and more non-citizens in the army, the citizen portion changed to closely resemble them.
Since the barbarian mercenaries didnt stick to training schedules, the citizen soldiers thought, "hey, why should we? And they dont have to wear armour all the time, so lets drop ours".
Sloppy standards of military practice diffused into the Roman part to the late army. The soldiers wanted an easier life in the barracks.
This is like comparing the US in WW2 compared to the modern military. One could make an argument that the modern military has fought more frequent and longer wars, has better equipment, etc. People will almost always favor the WW2 soldier because it is a more romantic era.
This is terrific Maiorianus, thankyou for setting the record straight on the Late Roman army.
I sometimes have to keep reminding myself is why the Romans were so successful was their ability to adapt, both on and off the battlefield.
For example: In the early days of the Roman people, the were concord by the Etruscans. The Romans learned from then and then over through them.
But they gained both a better understanding of weapons and economic technology. from them.
After about 350 the Roman's struggled to mobilize armies of even 3 legions, except for civil wars. The army was good, their just wasn't the money or manpower.
10:18 - People just stop this drivel with "light armor made you faster" already, they didn't make armor as heavy as a pack or rock boulders, they made segmentata-plate-type armor to be mobile and easy to wear. They couldn't use it afterwards because it was harder to make.
What kind of speed will help you when a ray or arrows hit you while lots of maces/axes/swords/spears hit you from all sorts of directions.
The, light armor was faster, it send you faster into the GRAVE than anything else, lol.
Light armor is another term for "less useful armor which is little more than clothes"- I would like to see those "light armor vibes" when a freaking pike or mace hits your arm shoulders or forearm .And wanna see your agility genes kick in then a kid with faster archery shoots 10 arrows at you in 5 seconds and some other guys from your front use you as the next target practice with pikes and spears.
Even horse archers tried using more armor, for peat's sake, but they usually bought mail not cuz it was better( it's almost paper junk compared to plate) but cuz it was easier to get. Fair and simple ! If they had a know they would use a full segmentata or plate armor all day if they had brains in their heads.
Also, lots of plate armored units with bows did exist in medieval times also, so archers also loved plate armor.
"The late Roman army wasn't degenerate, they just had to adapt to worse circumstances. They had less money, more logistical problems (as the Empire was being destroyed),"-So they were degenerate.
having declined or become less specialized (as in nature, character, structure, or function) from an ancestral or former state"- That defines late roman equipment perfectly. ! The segmentata was superior because of this.
"Advantages:
better combat performance
Segmentata provided much better protection against missiles, thrust, and blunt if plates were done with proper metalurgy.
It was usually lighter than mail by 1/3
It was probably cheaper to produce (required less metal and less labor) if done in good centralized armory by skilled armorer"
So people should keep their fanboi hiffs to themselves , I'm not interested if they went the line of "mail is better than plate" lmfao.
Hi Maiorianus I discovered your channel recently and have been really enjoying it / learning a lot - keep up the great work
This is an EXCELLENT production!! Thanks! Also, quite informative. You have presented FACTS that in all my readings I was simply unaware of. Again, Thank you!
One conquered the world, the other lost the world....meaning the advantage over their enemies was definitely LOST....meaning late roman soldier was definitely NOT as good....
The army wasn't ineffective, just key decision makers for the state at critical points. Coupes launched when someone competant was dealing with a crisis, no coup launched when someone incompetant was in charge for decades. Bad policy decisions with border tribes, ect.
The iconic legionary look was not lost due to evolution or anything. Most late legions were recruited outside of Italy. Lorica segmentata, gladius hispaniensis and the rectangular scutum were all mostly Italian weapons. Italians rarely ever fought in the late period. Celto-germanics took over and their local smiths were making the kind of gear that they knew how to make. There was a lot of issues with late legions such as poor command and poor supplies but making northern soldiers mimic warriors from Italy would not have solved anything. Thinking that any emperor would consider dumping billions of gold to find enough retired Roman soldiers and send them all up north to teach millions of new citizens how to fight like Latins is just silly.
I really appreciate you using B.C. and A.D. 👍
Romans: "Our Empire will surely fall one day, but what is also certain is that we will always look BADASS even in the most mediocre armor!" 😎
A fascinating essay, sir - thank you.
☝️😎
It really should be mentioned that the West was hampered by people like Valentinian III and Honorius killing the best commanders of the West
I would suggest to you that there are a number of indicia that strongly suggest the Roman soldier had gone downhill. One was the size of the legions, which had shot up greatly in number and become, basically, large cohorts, while retaining undue percentages of officers, leading to inferior officers. Another was the presence of huge numbers of Foederati, which were brave but inferior in discipline to the classical, or even republican, legions. Thirdly, look to the change from pilum to plumbata, and gladius to spatha, where, indeed, the spear hadn't replaced both. Those are the mark of men trying to keep the enemy at a distance, whereas the former were the marks of men willing and even eager to close with and destroy the enemy in close combat. Thirdly, the nature of combat had changed, leading to likely superior skill in small unit patrolling and skirmishing, with a concomitant reduction in ability to fight in large formations.
The latin greeting really is the cherry on top of this video.
I largely disagree.
One thing is adapting your army to your new enemies, another thing is downgrading your equipment.
Comparing infantries makes this downgrade very clear:
Despite similar mass and mobility, the earlier Romans were better protected.
The curved squared shield offered unparalleled protection, also allowing for safer out-of-formation engagements. It encouraged ricochet too.
The segmented plate armor was much better at protecting your bones and deflecting blows.
The Gallic helmet was slightly less protective on the face, but more everywhere else, thanks to its protrusions, ridges and monolithic construction.
Offense wise, it's arguable:
The plumbata was a smart introduction of the late Romans.
The pilum was better at piercing through armor.
The short sword is vastly better for formation fighting (so, one thing is clear: the late Romans didn't need or weren't capable of tight formation fighting).
In other words, if you replaced the late imperial soldier with the early imperial soldiers, the late Roman army would have been tactically stronger.
Of course, the early equipment was harder to produce or maintain, and that's probably why the financially struggling late empire downgraded its equipment.
But it was a downgrade nonetheless.
However there never was a time when segmental armour would be the only thing in use.They didnt changed back to chainmail and scale-they never stopped using it.The curved rectangular shield was historically shortest ever used type in the Roman army.For most of their history they had shields of oval shapes and both rectangular and oval(typical was slightly convex not flat as often imagined)shapes had their own advantages and disadvantages when compared with each other.
Except there was no such downgrade. Your comment is largely misunderstands how those weapons and formations worked:
1st-The base of your argument lies on a wrong assumption about formations: NO, early imperial romans DID NOT FITGHT IN SUPER TIGHT formations as we tend to see in TV series, games or movies. How do we know that? Because of the early authors themselves such as Livy, Polybius, Caesar and Vegetius. All of them agreed the early legionnaries needed at least a couple feet to the sides, behind and diagonally to be able to use their weapons wthout hurting their own comrades, switch ranks, close the distance with enemy infantrymen, throw their pilum and maneuver quickly as a unit. Those soldiers were, essentially, agressive individual fighters charging forward to close the distance and deliver powerful short blows like Mike Tyson, honoring the dueling traditions of Roman folklore, yet adapted to fighting as a unit. We know they did not only thrust with the gladius, but also delivered powerful short cuts which amputated limbs, as noted by their Macedonian enemies....and that requires space.
Granted, they could fight tightly on occasion, but that made them far more static, deffensive, less able to switch ranks quickly or even maneuver as a unit...and more vulnerable to heavy cavalry charges as proved by Carrhae. After losing their pilum, early legionnaries tightly packed were toast. Caesar had to tell his men to keep their space around them, since they tended to tighten their ranks when scared or demoralized, which made them less capable of using their gladii and more reliant on their pilum, which was not optimized for melee combat and was normally not at hand after a point in the battle we already know.
**On the contrary, late roman infantrymen fought far more tightly packed in shield walls with the spearmen behind supporting their comrades on the front by attacking diagonnaly, which was something early legionnaries could not do. Most of them were spearmen, which meant they were more versatile fighting either deffensively or offensively, specially when they alternated a line of swordsmen on the front supported my spearmen immediately behind. Once Sassanians, Germans and Sarmatians perfected their heavy cavalry, roman infantry now could not just maneuver in small squares as freely as before due to the risk of an unexpected flaking cavalry charge being so real. That's why infantry lines had to form more solid blocks prioritizing durability over maneuverability...in pitched battles. The lighter shield, axes ad plumbatas actually ALSO made it easier for those same men to fight on loose skirmishes. I'll explain more about this later. Overall, the late roman infantryman would have been just as lethal, if nor more, both individually or as part of a unit.
As for the weapons:
2-The curved square scutum's edges made it harder to use with any other weapon that was not a gladius, such as spears, long spathas, axes and maces, which were a must in the late period against the heavier cavalry and infantry fielded by the late Parhians, Sassannids, Germans and Sarmathians. Its huge size became a perfect surface over which enemy cavalryment could produce a domino effect which smashed numerous rows of infantrymen at once, specially after the romans had thrown all their pilum, such as in the Battle of Carrhae. Whenever early legionaries became demoralized, they started to tighten the formation so much their gladii became useless.
Ricocheting? Mate, there were no bullets yet, arrows would not ricochet much, and you don't want stones being deflected towards your teammates o your sides....and forget any of them flying back to the enemy. If you were actually talking about melee weapons, in a period when most enemy heavy infantry would use spears, deflecting a trike would not make much of a difference.
The late oval shield, on the other hand, would be coupled with a long spear, which was far better against cavalry, and a spatha, which was better to keep enemies at a longer range with slashing and long thrusts. Out of formation fighting, then became easier. Deffensive formations and fighting while backwards, on the other hand, became much stronger, which was key to preserve precious manpower even during defeats.
3-Segmentata was never as massively worn as depicted in popular media. It remained an arguably minoritarian piece of gear, most soldiers wore mail and scale even during the glory days of the Principate. It was always a logistical strain, since it required more polishing against rust, replacing the leather thongs that held it together and replacing entire plates if damaged. Hamata required minimum upkeep and repair.
Segmentata was actually not that strong, specially when we consider how little padding was worn underneath, which was more common later with mail. Experiments such as performed by the likes of Dr. Alan Williams have shown segmentata was arguably more fragile than hamata mail, since only 113 joules were able to pierce it, whereas maille could withstand over 200 joules. Check this article, which by the way, has lots of citations, specially on the segments ''Mail vs Weapons'' and ''Lorica Segmentata'': myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html.
Then we have to remember it also placed more weight over the infantryman's shoulders, which made him less balanced, caused the armor not to fit as well, which meant blunt impact was not as well absorbed as once thought. Mail, on the other hand, could fit much better with the help of a belt and padding.
Segmentata also did not cover the arms below the shoulders nor the waistline, which hamata did. And don't bring in lorica manica, since it was only worn during Trajan's campaigns and was helluva expensive to produce.
4-Most attacks would come from the front, not the sides nor behind. Late troops were better fighitng in tighter, deffensive formations and did not need to close in as much thanks to their weapons. This meant the front of the head was the prime target to protect. The late helmet was better at this without leaving the back vulnerable,m so the soldiers could also fight loose when required
5-The Plumbata had far more reach and was smaller than the pilum, which meant it could sneak through the gaps of shieldwalls easier and be harder to detect in flight until it was late. This meant it was also more useful to fight against cavalry or while marching backwards. Late romans also threw axes, which produced more blunt impact that damaged shields and could kill someone through his helmet....and of course, we shall not forget they also fielded far more archers.
5-False for reasons I already stated. The gladius was optimized for agressive, individial fighting, not formations. I already explained it. The advancements on metallurgy also made it easier for the late Romans to create better longswords than the superlight and flexible ones the Gauls once used against them, which made longer swords more powerful overall.
6-The late Roman equipment may have been even more expensive, due to contaning more metal and consisting on more pieces, meaning enemies were not also stronger but that war was overall far more costly to fight.
As a conclusion: man by man, considering the late roman infantryman had to elarn to use a bigger variety of weapons against stronger and more mobile enemies makes me think the they were actually better than the early principate legionaries.
@@cybermidas3973 1 - I never specified how close they fought. I only said that a longer sword requires more space, and imposes a looser formation. Short swords (used by the Greeks and many other formation-oriented armies) were developed exactly for that reason despite longer swords being available. The formation must be as wide as needed, but as tight as possible.
Your " ** " paragraph is mostly nonsense.
2 - I could argue that it's easier to use the spear with the squared shield, at least in certain situations. And i remind you that early legionaries used spears as much as late legionaries. Maces and such were not standard equipment anyway. And you need to explain why the domino effect would be caused by the scutum only, or why the spatha would be any better after the lines had imploded...
Yes, ricochet, deflection. Call it how you like but it's basic physics, enabled by the high angles provided by the scutum (and lorica segmentata). The fragments deflected towards your mates would likely be low energy, and your mates would be protected by their own scutum and armor.
3 - Segmented armor was widespread at the height of the empire, as by depictions. It could be argued that ALL legionaries eventually wore it (thus excluding auxilia). It was a logistical strain that only a financially strong empire could withstand (that's exactly my point...).
Hard to say whether it was always more protective (some experiments and a bit of logic suggest it was...), but it surely was against blunt traumas. The weight is actually better distributed than chain armor. It's also lighter, and not a big problem to wear for long, as Metatron showed. It also covered more arm length than the Roman chain armor.
4 - Attacks come from everywhere in the chaos of a battle. And of course your face is less protected with a rounded shield, hence the (slighly) greater front protection of the late helmets.
5 - I already said the plumbata was a smart invention.
However, comparing it with the pilum is.... wrong. The pilum must be compared with the spear/javelin.
5 (again) - longer swords were perfectly available when the short gladius was used. And it's a nonsense to prefer a shorter blade for 1VS1 fights, and a longer for formation fights.
6 - What?!?!?
@@paprskomet I think the available depictions of the early-mid empire (Trajan column etc) depict all legionaries (not auxilia or high officers) wearing the segmented armor. But i'm not sure. What's sure is that it was widespread.
The scutum found at Dura-Europos was 105cm tall. You could easily cover yourself almost entirely.
I know artistic depictions suggest it was smaller, but i think that was an artistic license to avoid covering the entire scene with shields.
Anyway, it was easily the most protective shield ever used by Rome.
I'll gladly read about the advantages you think flat shield have.
@@paprskomet Obviously, because segmentata was much more expensive. Nobody would have wore an armor more expensive if it would have been worse.
What is your take on McMullen’s idea that corruption in the Roman army had a strong impact on the fall of the Western Empire?
He describes such practices as local commanders not challenging barbarian raiders until after they had accumulated treasure from their raids, and then returning only some, or none, of the goods to the original owners. Obviously that would be a way to supplement the poor pay that the limitanei received from the state, which would play into your statements about the difficulty of recruiting new soldiers from the 4th century onwards.
Carausius did exactly that in the 200s. Rome had been corrupt like hell since the republic.
I have the book. I agree with him (did you know he died between your writing this and my reply?). Corruption and the Decline of Rome is a great work that deserves to be read more. If you haven’t read Enemies of the Roman Order, I recommend it.
Interesting, but comparing any army to its predecessor from centuries earlier is a tricky task at best. While in service there was a never ending stream of people suggesting that the service, Navy in my case, was better before and had degraded, and this was just a few years. I would suggest that a lot of it has to do with the tendency we have of remembering what we want and acknowledging what makes us comfortable; it's a human thing. In reality as technology advances, threats change, and the economy evolves the military necessarily adapts regardless of the chapter in history. The real test is whether the military is effective in its own time.