Quote: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.
Modern estimates say that the Gauls pre-Caesar had as large or larger a military than the Romans, and thus we have millions of people involved in the subjugation of Gaul. One city managed to throw half a million men at Hannibal, but an entire Empire could not recover from the loss of Adrianople (a rather small affair). There had to have been something else at play.
Even though I mark 180AD as the beginning of a rather unceremonious decline, I absolutely think they had a chance at recovery if it weren't for further calamity (though the city of Rome itself was probably finished itself by the Plague of Cyprian: 5,000 dead/day at height). The Plague of Justinian completely erased further notion for revival. That Belisarius accomplished what he did with what he had is astonishing.
Back on subject, it's important to note that this armor was NOT phased out after one battle, one war, one generation, but was around for several centuries during Rome's period of greatest expansion. There had to have been some very good qualities about the armor to keep it around if it really is as ineffective as some people are to think.
One other thing, humanity's reverence for our ancestors is undoubtedly one of our traits. Since our parents taught us most of what we know, we ascribe that they are more wise than us, and that their parents more wise than them, but in actuality we have more information and are less ignorant today than our ancestors. So Vegetius' past and ours is one in the same, and he held them in high regard like we do the founders of the Constitution, when they were just as human and capable of error, as we.
Christopher Vidrine, 30
