Were they better equipped?

[AMELIANVS]

"Advances in technology and equipment made the Roman army which left Britain far better equipped than the one which first invaded."-This is what I just read on the Website of Comitatus re-enactment group.

I'm not saying that that statement is necessarily mistaken,but I always gravitated to consider late army materially at least a little worse stocked than that of principate era even though I'm interested in later army more by now.

So I wonder what exactly is meant by those Advances in technology and equipment,How they were better equipped?

To be clear-I'm not one of those who automatically thinks that late army was in everything inferior to earlier one-generally I believe it was actually an equal,but...I'm just curious about the exact arguments for that opinion in the introductory sentence :errr:

[M. Val. Naso]

On the contrary, I think the later army is better in terms of tactics/strategy/flexibility, though when you take equipment into account, you have to separate the things and talk about them that way.

Most changes in equipment reflect changes in enemies and tactics. The reason they wore smaller/lighter helmets, is not that they suddenly forgot how to make the old ones, they just didn't need it, or the new ones somehow gave them and advantage. And so on with every piece.

[Currahee Chris]

On the contrary, I think the later army is better in terms of tactics/strategy/flexibility, though when you take equipment into account, you have to separate the things and talk about them that way.

I'm inclined to agree with you. Ive always felt that the Byzantines faced more advaced warrior nations/empires and their equipment and technology had to be up to speed to at least hold the line.