The Decline of the Roman Military

[John Adams]

Oh aye; it's a solid post. Almost goes without saying.

I'd like to suggest, JA, that you're missing something. The troops, knowing the value of armor, chose not to wear it. They had the power to avoid training -- political power, which apparently growes from the barrel of a pilum.

The legions of Julius Caesar could march fifty miles in a day and fight a pitched battle at the end of it. Yes, they were tired... but they were disciplined - trained, armored, and battle-hardened. When there was no battle, they marched - and built a fort at the end of every day. Oh, it wasn't a motte-and-bailey, but it was a square ditch-and-embankment fortification, complete with abatis and enough cover to grant the legion a solid defensive advantage.

The lack of armor is not the entire problem. Rather, it is a symptom of an intrinsic decay.

I would postulate that Rome under the late Republic was far more efficient than Rome as an empire, and the decay began at the heart and spread out from there. Oh, the Republic was doomed by the lack of social advancement from Equestrian to Senator as well as the vast and seeming insurmountable barriers facing the plebian's rise in social status. But had the system admitted a degree of flexibility in the social structure, I would posit that the Republic would have continued in greatness for centuries beyond the actual fall.

People are more willing to fight for something in which they have a vested interest. Wearing heavy armor is a part of that.

No I understand that, heh. What I mean is that the armor is not that heavy. A weight of sixty to eighty pounds distributed over the entire body is not that much (which I understand the full load of a Roman soldier to be... Although I could be wrong).

Now, if it was congregated into one small focal area (say on the back, in the form of a pack, for example), I could understand willingly removing it for increased speed and dextarity.

However, when it is spread out over the entire body, and thus encumbers movement very, very little, I would not see any value in choosing not to wear it.
After a helmet, the shield (especially, being as it was of Roman design, which tended to be quite large. Large enough to provide good cover) is the most valuable. I could understand forsaking the rest, out of choice. But to willingly remove both pieces of armor? That seems quite foolish to me.
A person who is in decent shape, would have no trouble donning the armor. The only problem with metal armor is that it is akin to wearing an oven once you start moving in it. But the weight itself, in a decent suit of armor, is set across the entire body. And thus is not a problem to movement.
Along the frontiers to the North, where the temperature is much colder, I would have thought the opposite would be more likely. That is, that the armor use would increase, instead of decrease (history, and Conrads post as an extention of this-- shows a decreased use of heavy armor among boarder troops. Both due to the increased speed prefered to stop barbarin incursions into territory by some tribes, and due to the increaseing ignorance.).

Also, I know that the Roman Legionary soldiers were trained using weights from 60-80 pounds (they practiced carrying them). So that, when a march came in full gear, and additional ration supplies, they found it to be much easier. May I ask about what time that this practice was willingly discontinued? I would imagine it came at the tale end of the Mid-Empire period.

~John