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.
Bookmarks