You might have remembered me from earlier, when I made the case that Lorica Segmentata was not abandoned because of utilitarian reasons or inadequacy, but because of the staggering inadequacies when it came to finances and skill, as well as lost knowledge.
With so much new research being done, I am putting forth a pretty bold statement that is relevant to my previous train of thought regarding the disappearance of the earliest plate armor.
Plague weakens the population, causes economic and social calamity, destroys the fabric of society, causes a resurgence of religion at the expense of secularism, and much time spend at other endeavors is spent lamenting the horrid reality, burying the dead, trying to fill stations with people who lack experience, massive drops in literacy, and harms pretty much every facet of any civilization.
Before I get to Rome, let me say that the Plague of Athens was a blow from which mighty Greece which only a few generations prior had nearly conquered the World. Smallpox reduced the native population of the Americas by over 95%, so much so that had Smallpox been present, we would not have been able to subjugate the natives until the dawn of industrialization.
The Mayans were devastated by plague (or heavy drought). The Aztecs laid low. Greece brought to ruin. Mighty Parthia were easy pickings, Various Chinese dynasties. So many great powers have had disease discussed at length in their twilight.
...then we come to Rome. Pax Romana. From the reign of Octavian (although Rome was very much prosperous throughout the 1st-2nd centuries BC) to the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
It was hit by Smallpox from Parthia, which was another Empire that faded away, weakened by disease.
People love to think of the Crisis of the Third Century as the causative factor for the beginning of the fall. It was merely correlation, a symptom of weakened Roman society.
Rome lost 100,000 trained soldiers to a storm in the First Punic War, was able to shrug it off and slug it out with Carthage and defeat them. 100,000 men. They lost nearly half a million more during the 2nd, and still were victorious. Wars do not killed families, babies continue to be born, the population either remains stable or rises. Soldiers are easily replaced; it's when the family unit is slaughtered that the population is lost.
Let's look at the population estimate. We know that Europe was at it's height during 200BC to 100AD. Then:
What caused the population decline starting near 200 AD? The Antonine Plague. Smallpox. The single most deadly pathogen known to man. Two emperor's, entire cities, and much of Rome was ill-fated due to this epidemic, which also caused the collapse of Parthia. It continued with outbreak after outbreak, never really relenting. Plague of Galen, Plague of Justinian, and so forth. The population of Europe was in constant decline, and battles were fought with mere thousands when before the Empire could field armies in the hundreds of thousands.
I can't find the exact quote, but weren't there almost five times as many ship wrecks found for the 1st century AD than all of the 3rd/4th/5th showing a dramatic decline in commerce? There were simply less people, less economic output, less GDP, and a much smaller army, with a lack of men of Italian birth.
It's during this time that Lorica Segmentata fades from use. Not because the armor lacked merit, but like so many other things was one of the first signs that the Empire had been dealt a blow from which it would never recover, although it would take centuries to truly die. This isn't to say that there weren't other crisis' which weakened the Empire, but those were symptoms of a civilization suffering from ill health. Barbarian incursions, monetary debasement, reliance on mercenaries, massive conversion to Christianity. These did not cause the fall, but were symptoms of a sickened society trying it's best to stay afloat, and they did a splendid job managing to survive nearly centuries of chaos.
Without Smallpox, It's entirely possible that the Western Roman Empire may have never fallen as they had vast treatises on military warfare, were capable of some of the most magnificient war machines (ballista, and the early crossbow which would be re-invented 1,200 years later), plate armor and the advanced metallurgy involved, aqueducts, a standing army that served as engineers and maintained the public works, great planning, great thinkers, and repositories for great amounts of knowledge. Pax Romana was the height of civilization up until the modern age.
Even the citizens of the Middle Ages viewed their civilization as dwarfed by the sheer sophistication of the people who had come before.
[Second part of my argument is that this is why Segmentata was abandoned. It was used over 200 years during the Empire's height, a sign that it was effective. With the abandonment of Segmentata, the Pilum, and Scutum were also abandoned. Pilum were extremely expensive to make and extremely effective in trained hands. The replacement equipment was much cheaper, less effective, and we also see many Ballista during the 3-5th centuries become too expensive to maintain as part of defensive works.)
Look at the well made example of a Pilum in his hands. It's a work of art. It didn't bend, and it was a well balanced defensive and throwing spear. Plumbata were cheap alternatives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EVrKWXHO9U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65n3PpjPK04
It all boils down to economics, and if you ask an economist what happens if society were to lose 50% of it's population over the course of five years, I'm sure you'd be quite convinced by his answer. Centralized governments were unable to weather epidemics as well as the de-centralized Feudal system which rose to prominence again in Europe and Japan.
Edit: If one wants to look at historical literacy rates. Literacy was higher than 30% during the height of the Empire, but fell to lower than 3% during the 3rd century. Why? People who were able to read and write, and pass that knowledge on had died. Lots of them, and those who had survived were pre-occupied with continuing that tradition with the newer generations.
Let's take another perspective. The Romans did suffer the loss at Teutoburg, which wasn't the fault of the legions, but of Varus. The Romans retaliated in a series of very successful campaigns of retribution which laid waste to Germanic society. Roman infantry was superior and had no problems dealing with contemporary Germans.
Fast forward to the 8th-10th century and barbarians from Scandinavia equipped very much the same as Germans, except with Longships, laid waste to most of continental Europe.
Had the 1st-2nd century Romans been around, the Vikings would have been a footnote in history. The infantry during the early Principate was the best heavy infantry up until the 14th century, and would've laid waste to most armies of the Middle Ages.
With so much new research being done, I am putting forth a pretty bold statement that is relevant to my previous train of thought regarding the disappearance of the earliest plate armor.
Plague, more so than any other cause, has been the destroyer of empires from the beginning of time.
Plague weakens the population, causes economic and social calamity, destroys the fabric of society, causes a resurgence of religion at the expense of secularism, and much time spend at other endeavors is spent lamenting the horrid reality, burying the dead, trying to fill stations with people who lack experience, massive drops in literacy, and harms pretty much every facet of any civilization.
Before I get to Rome, let me say that the Plague of Athens was a blow from which mighty Greece which only a few generations prior had nearly conquered the World. Smallpox reduced the native population of the Americas by over 95%, so much so that had Smallpox been present, we would not have been able to subjugate the natives until the dawn of industrialization.
The Mayans were devastated by plague (or heavy drought). The Aztecs laid low. Greece brought to ruin. Mighty Parthia were easy pickings, Various Chinese dynasties. So many great powers have had disease discussed at length in their twilight.
...then we come to Rome. Pax Romana. From the reign of Octavian (although Rome was very much prosperous throughout the 1st-2nd centuries BC) to the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
It was hit by Smallpox from Parthia, which was another Empire that faded away, weakened by disease.
People love to think of the Crisis of the Third Century as the causative factor for the beginning of the fall. It was merely correlation, a symptom of weakened Roman society.
Rome lost 100,000 trained soldiers to a storm in the First Punic War, was able to shrug it off and slug it out with Carthage and defeat them. 100,000 men. They lost nearly half a million more during the 2nd, and still were victorious. Wars do not killed families, babies continue to be born, the population either remains stable or rises. Soldiers are easily replaced; it's when the family unit is slaughtered that the population is lost.
Let's look at the population estimate. We know that Europe was at it's height during 200BC to 100AD. Then:
Quote:The population levels of Europe during the Middle Ages can be roughly categorized:[1]
- 200–600 (Late Antiquity): population decline
- 600–1000 (Early Middle Ages): stable at a low level, with intermittent growth.
- 1000–1250 (High Middle Ages): population boom and expansion.
- 1250–1348 (Late Middle Ages): stable or intermittently rising at a high level, with fall in 1315–17.
- 1348–1420 (Late Middle Ages): steep decline.
- 1420–1470 (Late Middle Ages): stable or intermittently falling to a low level.
- 1470–onward: slow expansion gaining momentum in the early 16th century.
What caused the population decline starting near 200 AD? The Antonine Plague. Smallpox. The single most deadly pathogen known to man. Two emperor's, entire cities, and much of Rome was ill-fated due to this epidemic, which also caused the collapse of Parthia. It continued with outbreak after outbreak, never really relenting. Plague of Galen, Plague of Justinian, and so forth. The population of Europe was in constant decline, and battles were fought with mere thousands when before the Empire could field armies in the hundreds of thousands.
I can't find the exact quote, but weren't there almost five times as many ship wrecks found for the 1st century AD than all of the 3rd/4th/5th showing a dramatic decline in commerce? There were simply less people, less economic output, less GDP, and a much smaller army, with a lack of men of Italian birth.
It's during this time that Lorica Segmentata fades from use. Not because the armor lacked merit, but like so many other things was one of the first signs that the Empire had been dealt a blow from which it would never recover, although it would take centuries to truly die. This isn't to say that there weren't other crisis' which weakened the Empire, but those were symptoms of a civilization suffering from ill health. Barbarian incursions, monetary debasement, reliance on mercenaries, massive conversion to Christianity. These did not cause the fall, but were symptoms of a sickened society trying it's best to stay afloat, and they did a splendid job managing to survive nearly centuries of chaos.
Without Smallpox, It's entirely possible that the Western Roman Empire may have never fallen as they had vast treatises on military warfare, were capable of some of the most magnificient war machines (ballista, and the early crossbow which would be re-invented 1,200 years later), plate armor and the advanced metallurgy involved, aqueducts, a standing army that served as engineers and maintained the public works, great planning, great thinkers, and repositories for great amounts of knowledge. Pax Romana was the height of civilization up until the modern age.
Even the citizens of the Middle Ages viewed their civilization as dwarfed by the sheer sophistication of the people who had come before.
[Second part of my argument is that this is why Segmentata was abandoned. It was used over 200 years during the Empire's height, a sign that it was effective. With the abandonment of Segmentata, the Pilum, and Scutum were also abandoned. Pilum were extremely expensive to make and extremely effective in trained hands. The replacement equipment was much cheaper, less effective, and we also see many Ballista during the 3-5th centuries become too expensive to maintain as part of defensive works.)
Look at the well made example of a Pilum in his hands. It's a work of art. It didn't bend, and it was a well balanced defensive and throwing spear. Plumbata were cheap alternatives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EVrKWXHO9U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65n3PpjPK04
It all boils down to economics, and if you ask an economist what happens if society were to lose 50% of it's population over the course of five years, I'm sure you'd be quite convinced by his answer. Centralized governments were unable to weather epidemics as well as the de-centralized Feudal system which rose to prominence again in Europe and Japan.
Edit: If one wants to look at historical literacy rates. Literacy was higher than 30% during the height of the Empire, but fell to lower than 3% during the 3rd century. Why? People who were able to read and write, and pass that knowledge on had died. Lots of them, and those who had survived were pre-occupied with continuing that tradition with the newer generations.
Let's take another perspective. The Romans did suffer the loss at Teutoburg, which wasn't the fault of the legions, but of Varus. The Romans retaliated in a series of very successful campaigns of retribution which laid waste to Germanic society. Roman infantry was superior and had no problems dealing with contemporary Germans.
Fast forward to the 8th-10th century and barbarians from Scandinavia equipped very much the same as Germans, except with Longships, laid waste to most of continental Europe.
Had the 1st-2nd century Romans been around, the Vikings would have been a footnote in history. The infantry during the early Principate was the best heavy infantry up until the 14th century, and would've laid waste to most armies of the Middle Ages.
Christopher Vidrine, 30
