Another primary consideration in introduction & eventual disappearance of Segmentata?

[Nathan Ross]

You're arguing that 40% of the helmets produced in a factory for soldiers had gold/silver plating?... I don't want to speculate too much on your claim.

No speculation required! We have it in writing:


10.22.1: ARMOURERS (de fabricensibus). Emperors Valentinian, Valens and Gratian Augustuses to Tatianus, Count of the Sacred Imperial Largess.

Since six helmets for each period of thirty days are covered with bronze by each metalworker, both at Antioch and at Constantinople, and the cheekguards are also covered with wrought metalwork, but eight helmets and the same number of cheekguards are covered with silver or are gilded each thirty days at Antioch, and only three at Constantinople, We decree that at Constantinople also each metalworker shall decorate with gold and silver, not eight helmets for every thirty days but six each, with an equal number of cheekguards. (Given March 11, AD374)


Since many late Roman helmets seem to have had the gold or silver plating ripped off, we can assume that there was enough precious metal on them to make this worthwhile. Of a couple of helmets (one of the Berkasova ones and the Jarak, I think) only the gold plating survives, and no doubt it was removed for its value as metal.

There are numerous examples of lost arts, techniques, and inventions... Bathes, aqueducts, and a centralized, though rudimentary, global society.  

The 'global society' is the important bit, I think. Technologies are not 'lost' or forgotten, but they do die out when the infrastructure needed to support them is no longer there. A stable Roman state brought access to trade and raw materials, currency and skilled labour. Once this stability broke down, people were forced to turn to more simplified forms of local production. But this did not happen in the west until the 5th century; the Roman state was strong enough before then to survive major plagues, barbarian invasions and civil wars and emerge intact. The inhabitants of 4th century Gaul were still drinking wine from Egyptian glassware, and employing architects from Syria and Asia to design their monumental buildings.

Vegetius literally sounds like he's living in the present day.

Which is ironic, as he was trying to live in (his own) past! Much of his work is taken from much earlier military manuals, some dating back to the republic (Cato the Elder, principally). His views on the current state of the army are most probably from a post-Adrianople perspective. It's important to bear in mind that Romans did not share our idea of progress; for them, the past was much better than the present, which is always a debased time, and the future will be far worse unless we return to the ways of the ancients etc. Vegetius was making a political point, which we cannot ignore.

Can you give me your date for when you think Rome "started" descending into chaos and began transitioning into the Early Medieval Period?  

That's a big academic question! The 'Early Medieval' era, or 'Late Antiquity' (depending on your frame of reference) is often pegged as beginning with the reign of Diocletian. But this was by no means the 'Dark Ages' (which usually refers to the situation in the west after the loss of Roman central control). The Tetrarchy was a return to strength after the chaotic third century, and the inhabitants of Constantine's era apparently believed (in a most unRoman way!) that they were living in a golden age.

But the west did collapse - no real question about that. The rather disastrous reign of Honorius, with the sack of Rome followed by the loss of north Africa to the Vandals, would probably be my choice for the point after which revival was impossible.

The Roman state was strong and healthy in the fourth century though, and the army very effective. So I still can't agree with the idea that the seeds of eventual decline were planted back in the Antonine era.