+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army (/showthread.php?tid=22576)
High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army - C Crastinus - 05-01-2013
Quote:C Crastinus post=336533 Wrote:I know the legions couldn't do much against the Macedonian phalanx.That is not true. In the first battle of Pydna, 168 BCE, Roman legions annihilated Macedonian phalanx. Romans had 29 000 soldiers, Macedonians had 44 000. Romans lost a little over 1000 men, about 3% of their troops, Macedonians lost 25 000 men, 57% of theirs. That was a decisive victory for Romans, and it practically ended the Macedonian wars, and after that, Macedonia became a Roman province. King Perseus of Macedonia was captured, paraded in a triumph in Rome and then imprisoned. Romans were commended by Lucius Aemilius Paullus.
The battle of Pydna is a great example how flexible Roman manipular tactic won over stiff Macedonian phalanx. Legionaries going between the long sarissas and then piercing the phalangites with their gladii at close quarters.
You didn't quote my whole sentence. I said "I know the legions couldn't do much against the Macedonian phalanx, head on at least..." The Roman's head on attack at Pydna was driven back, and they succeeded by exploiting the gaps in the phalanx when it went over rougher ground and by attacking them in the flank.
If you want to continue discussing this, please PM me or start a new thread, since I'm enjoying this thread and would prefer that it wasn't derailed by a completely unrelated topic.
High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army - Flavivs Aetivs - 05-02-2013
You have to remember though, a 6-8 foot spiculum or contus would be easy to maneuver vs. a 12-16 foot sarissa.
High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army - M. Demetrius - 05-02-2013
Quote:I'm enjoying this thread and would prefer that it wasn't derailed by a completely unrelated topic.May it be so.
High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army - Timianus - 05-02-2013
There is only one way to resolve this debate: Who has a knife and chicken I can borrow?
High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army - M. Demetrius - 05-02-2013
OH, no, I fear my chicken would be harmed in making this decision.
High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army - Robert Vermaat - 05-02-2013
Quote: I cannot agree with you on this Robert.I think we agree on more than you think.
Quote:He may well have only seen unarmoured Gothic troops where he livedOf course he may have, although that will forever remain speculatuion. Fact is that he did write what he did, plus he wrote a nice little story about how things came about. This, as we can tell by the fact that armour was not dropped altogether by the troops, far from it, must mean that he either believed some source about this, or he fibbed the whole thing himself. Both explanations serve to doubt other passages in his book.
Quote: He does not say the pilum was no longer in use, he stated that it was rarely used, the troops instead using the Spiculum, which was a spear of over six feet in lenth..Actually he writes that the pilum is now called the speculum, and that it was a throwing spear (unlike which you wrote earlier, that it was used for thrusting).
They had likewise two other javelins, the largest of which was composed of a staff five feet and a half long and a triangular head of iron nine inches long. This was formerly called the pilum, but now it is known by the name of spiculum. The soldiers were particularly exercised in the use of this weapon, because when thrown with force and skill it often penetrated the shields of the foot and the cuirasses of the horse. The other javelin was of smaller size; its triangular point was only five inches long and the staff three feet and one half. It was anciently called verriculum but now verutum.
So in this passage, he sees no difference between the former pilum and the current speculum, whereas you say that this speculum looked different from the pilum (with a leafshaped blade). I’m just saying: either the pilum remained in use under a different name, as Vegetius suggests, or Vegetius was wrong and the pilum was replaced by a new weapon, the speculum, which looked differently. I’m going for option 2.
Quote:Many people point to the use of words such as Gladius, Parthian etc within Ammianus as 'evidence' of 'classising'. I would dispute this claim.I think Ammianus may be fond of using older words, but that we agree on this, it need not be wrong, like you I don’t think that Ammianus had older weapons in mind. I think that the terms he uses are more generic. I don’t know what that tells us about plumbatae, but so far the finds of these from Syria and other eastern provinces stand out through their absence..
High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army - Flavivs Aetivs - 05-02-2013
Quote:Actually he writes that the pilum is now called the speculum, and that it was a throwing spear (unlike which you wrote earlier, that it was used for thrusting).
They had likewise two other javelins, the largest of which was composed of a staff five feet and a half long and a triangular head of iron nine inches long. This was formerly called the pilum, but now it is known by the name of spiculum. The soldiers were particularly exercised in the use of this weapon, because when thrown with force and skill it often penetrated the shields of the foot and the cuirasses of the horse. The other javelin was of smaller size; its triangular point was only five inches long and the staff three feet and one half. It was anciently called verriculum but now verutum.
So in this passage, he sees no difference between the former pilum and the current speculum, whereas you say that this speculum looked different from the pilum (with a leafshaped blade). I’m just saying: either the pilum remained in use under a different name, as Vegetius suggests, or Vegetius was wrong and the pilum was replaced by a new weapon, the speculum, which looked differently. I’m going for option 2.
I think Ammianus may be fond of using older words, but that we agree on this, it need not be wrong, like you I don’t think that Ammianus had older weapons in mind. I think that the terms he uses are more generic. I don’t know what that tells us about plumbatae, but so far the finds of these from Syria and other eastern provinces stand out through their absence..
Robert's right on that, it was like a pilum with a leaf-bladed head, so it could double as a thrusting spear if need-be.
But I'd also ask that when ammianus says "Gladius" could he be referring to the Semi-spatha? Of course he could be calling a normal spatha one, but still.
High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army - Marja - 05-03-2013
IIRC, the surviving fragments of Eunapius refer to either Sebastianus or Modares, in one of the Roman ambushes of Gothic troops, having their troops fight without armor so they would have more mobility. It's possible Vegetius is drawing on references to these fights, without recognizing that these were special tactics for surprise attacks, river crossings, etc.
High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army - Robert Vermaat - 05-03-2013
OK, back on track towards the topic.
I think the major point about Vegetius and Late Roman troops going unarmoured is not that he may have seen unarmoured troops marching about, but that he made up a storyline about ALL troops petitioning to the emperor to drop helmets and curasses, and THAT is (as we now know) something that never happened. Body armour remained in use throughout the period. Vegetius was making a point about the changes between earlier Roman legions and the troops of his day. It was a political statement, disguised as an observation.
But we know now that although the army continued to change, some things did not change. The scutum changed shape, the pilum was used less (although when I look at the Germanic angon, it's twin brother, I have doubts I must admit), the spatha replaced the gladius (but we have the enigmatic semispatha), the helmets changed shape (but were not dropped), the segmentata was replaced 9but may have remained in production in Spain), etc. etc.
Summing up, the army was changing, and we have but a dim idea about these changed as to when, why, how much etc.
High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army - Jordanicus - 10-26-2013
that's true but still the back bone of the roman army where the legions.
It depends on the time period you look at the pricipate armies of Augusts where for the most part made up of romans and the other troops where less essential in those days
High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army - Frank - 10-26-2013
Quote:that's true but still the back bone of the roman army where the legions.
It depends on the time period you look at the pricipate armies of Augusts where for the most part made up of romans and the other troops where less essential in those days
Until the desastrous battles of Adrianople and Frigidus, the majority of the late roman soldiers were roman citizens, too. I doubt, german romans, african romans or syrian romans were worse soldiers than italian romans. The pannonian romans even claimed to be the best romans ever.
I don't know, if discipline and training was worse in the late roman army. If it was, the reason was most propably politics and not ethnology.
High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army - Flavivs Aetivs - 10-26-2013
The Romans recovered from the Battle of the River Frigidus, for the most part. It wasn't until the Fall of Africa where the recruitment of Barbarians became more essential, as they were foederati (literally: "bound by treaty") and were cheaper troops.
Many Roman soldiers seemed to have been on Aetius' personal payroll or serving out of pure loyalty after that. Sidonius Apollinaris (I think, it would be in the pangeyric of Majoran as we know Aetius' troops would have been transferred to his command, but I will double check this) records that after his death Valentinian III was unable to win over the Praesental Army (I think it's likely by this point Aetius had combined the Gallic and Italic Armies due to low manpower), who are called "Bucellarii".
High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army - Diocle - 10-26-2013
Quote:The Romans recovered from the Battle of the River Frigidus, for the most part. It wasn't until the Fall of Africa where the recruitment of Barbarians became more essential, as they were foederati (literally: "bound by treaty") and were cheaper troops.
Many Roman soldiers seemed to have been on Aetius' personal payroll or serving out of pure loyalty after that. Sidonius Apollinaris (I think, it would be in the pangeyric of Majoran as we know Aetius' troops would have been transferred to his command, but I will double check this) records that after his death Valentinian III was unable to win over the Praesental Army (I think it's likely by this point Aetius had combined the Gallic and Italic Armies due to low manpower), who are called "Bucellarii".
It depends on actually what you mean for 'the Romans recovered'.
The Eastern Romans recovered for sure because the Goths had suffered the main part of the casualties during the first day of battle, while the Western Roman Army was permanentely destroied, because nobody can think that in the V century you can recover from a huge defeat in a battle in which you have deployed 34.000 or 50.0000 men.
The names of the units quoted in the Notitia, after Frigidus, are only names written on the paper, the reality is that after Frigidus the West had no more a full working professional army.
High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army - Flavivs Aetivs - 10-26-2013
That's not true. The Western Army was hit hard but we know it continued to Function, the Italic Army alone numbered 28,500 men, the Gallic Army 34,000 men and this was in 395. It wasn't until the West began loosing Territory in 406 that the Armies began to decrease in size, as the income lessened. The empire had no shortage of soldiers, they just had a shortage of Romans to serve as soldiers. Good Generals like Aetius and Stilicho respected barbarians as recruits, especially when they were filling up the professional "Roman" units instead of serving under their own leaders.
People overestimate the damage taken at the River Frigidius. The west took quite a beating, but not a crippling one. How else were Stilicho, Constantius III, and Aetius able to hold the empire together? All of them lost their foederati as those groups rebelled against the Romans, but all of those foederatic groups were defeated by Roman generals leading Roman troops.
High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army - wolf16mt - 10-26-2013
Here is something im adding on tactics and how they can change over the year from a army sgts point of view. Durring the first world war, they used static defenses in the means of trenches and infantry charges. After which the french created a large hardend defensive line between france and germany. But in a change of tactics the german army attacked around and drove behind the line in a pincer manuver. Then attacked the back of the static defence which was aimed the wrong way. And because of this mobile warfare it changed the way wars were fought. And as current times sees the use of air envelopement. Its another change of the way wars are fought. So in my thoughts it would be based on who rome was fighting against that it would logically change tactics to best suit its adversairy of the day. So i think that late rome would have had more emphisis on reaction speed in a defensive posture than just slower moveing infantry in heavy armour. What are everyones thoughts on that?