Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48

Thread: The Decline of the Roman Military

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New York, United States of America
    Posts
    758

    Default The Decline of the Roman Military

    -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.
    Last edited by Conrad_Jalowski; 02-15-2011 at 08:10 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    On The Earth.
    Posts
    2,498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski View Post
    -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
    Last edited by John Adams; 02-15-2011 at 11:57 PM.
    To train without ever surpassing ones' limits... Is that truly training?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    No Fixed Address
    Posts
    523

    Default

    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.
    "You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment." -Francis Urquhart

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    On The Earth.
    Posts
    2,498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnerphk View Post
    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
    Last edited by John Adams; 02-16-2011 at 08:46 AM.
    To train without ever surpassing ones' limits... Is that truly training?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    No Fixed Address
    Posts
    523

    Default

    Me, I'd blame the Reforms.

    Heavy armor is a bane in cold weather as well - when freezing, it burns like fire. Metal conducts heat. Boiled leather, especially reinforced by metal or lacquered wood, is more friendly in a northern clime.

    It's a matter of training, mind. Personally, I can't even keep a shield up for 20 minutes. Marching in full armor with a pack... that's waaay beyond me. And yet, I don't train with either... which means I'd be a very poor legionary in the days of the Republic.
    "You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment." -Francis Urquhart

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    8,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski View Post
    Gradually, the Roman forces became saturated with Germanic forces with a depletion of native Roman recruits.
    Why would this make the army weaker?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    On The Earth.
    Posts
    2,498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Boleslav View Post
    Why would this make the army weaker?
    The Germanic mercenaries did not owe Rome alliegence. Rather, they increaseingly owed their own tribal chiefs loyalty. Indeed, as the Germanic satuation increased, entire Germanic tribes were hired in one body to fend off rival Barbaric incursions. Also, as they began to increasingly spread into Rome, they gradually (and not so gradually) began to cast off Roman military ways... Instead, they substituted it for their own.

    In really short, gradually the Germanic calvery morphed into the knight of the medieval era.

    ~John
    To train without ever surpassing ones' limits... Is that truly training?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    8,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Adams View Post
    The Germanic mercenaries did not owe Rome alliegence.
    But weren't they hired because they were better than the Romans?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    On The Earth.
    Posts
    2,498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Boleslav View Post
    But weren't they hired because they were better than the Romans?
    They were hired, in large part, due to the civil wars that repeatedly stripped Rome of men. As Roma no longer contained enough men to patrol the expanded frontiers, it gradually (and then steeply) turned towards Roman mercenaries, in otherwords, primarily Gemanic mercenaries, to serve as Romas' -increasingly- main armies.

    Simultaniously, as Conrad points out above, while these men were being hired in increasing numbers, the Roman military machine was undergoing radical reconstruction (I would label it de-construction, as re-construction in my mind adds something positive, while this added nothing positive), to ultimately come out extremely weak and saturated with Mercenaries.

    Make no mistake, Rome always had allied soldiers, and to a more limited extent, mercenaries serving in her ranks throughout history. However, as the Germanic population soared on what was once Roman soil, the Germanic influences began to wield ever increaseing power over the military machine (coupled with radical reforms under many of the Roman Emperors... I can list names if you would like).

    ~John
    Last edited by John Adams; 02-16-2011 at 09:27 PM.
    To train without ever surpassing ones' limits... Is that truly training?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    8,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski View Post
    the heavy Germanic influences
    I'd like to ask for this to be unpacked more. What is meant here?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •