The Decline of the Roman Military

[John Adams]

-Here is an image of a Roman legionary soldier at the height of the Roman military machine during the first century CE:

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/pic...mentata-01.jpg

-Here is an image of a Roman legionary soldier during the second century CE:

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/pic...gionary-01.jpg

-Here is an image of a Roman legionary soldier during the third and fourth centuries CE:

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/pic...gionary-01.jpg

-Here is an image of a Roman legionary soldier during the fifth century CE:

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/pic...gionary-01.jpg


One major change in equipment was the transition from the short sword [Gladius] to the Germanic long sword [Spatha]. Another change was the transition from the Roman pila to the martiobarbuli or lead-weighted darts which were used by the late infantrymen of the Roman Empire. These late infantrymen also possessed a long spear to ward off cavalry assaults. A third change was the gradual loss of armor on each individual foot soldier; from the lorica segmentata that is represented in the first image link, the standards of armor dramatically decreased. As mentioned by Montesquieu in his Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline, the Roman soldiers during the late phase of the empire received imperial permission to take off their heavy armor and helmets that had encumbered their movement. Although the Roman forces were more mobile as a result, this change made the Roman soldiers greatly exposed to missile fire.

Though certain viewpoints maintain that this minimal use of armor was due to a need for greater mobility during the period of the Germanic migrations which began in the late fourth century after the battle of Hadrianopolis in 378 CE that resulted in the inundation of the Roman Empire with barbarian tribes, I maintain that this change was brought about by the loss of military discipline and the growing lethargy of the Roman forces. Simply put, the Romans of the late empire lost their ancient martial virtue that had once been so prominent in the Republic and Early Empire. Gradually, the Roman forces became saturated with Germanic forces with a depletion of native Roman recruits. In addition, the Roman legionary soldiers became indolent as they grew accustomed to the pleasures of urban life. Overall, the heavy Germanic influences and the relaxing of military discipline led to the loss of Rome's ascendancy and the crumbling of its imperial hegemony as far-flung territories were occupied by the Germanic tribes and as the Rhine and Danube river frontiers were overrun with inimical tribes. Rotten at its core by the fifth century CE due to the ostentation of the imperial court and the growing despondency of the Roman populace and besieged on all fronts by the barbarian tribes, the Occidental Roman Empire finally collapsed in 476 CE with the deposition of the last resident emperor Romulus Augustulus.

I would argue against the writer that said that the armor encumbered movement... While it was not (and still is not) a great leap to see how a non-trained soldier would have trouble slogging about in the fields with the armor on, the Roman soldier was trained to wear such armor... Therefore, I would argue the opposite... That not having armor, having that many more openings (during even the mid-repubic era the Romans realized that cut of three to four centimeters could be lethal) would be more encumbering (because now you have to/ had to, worry about getting stabbed in the chest, or slashed in the head, etc.).

However, back to the matter at hand. A very good post, and I quite agree with it. I can see the ease upon which it could be readily expanded (such as towards the Roman Calvery, and how it changed, too), and thus it is very hard to find fault with it.

~John