How would you equip your Legion

[Alcibiades of Athens]

The Roman Army in the late Fourth Century was a highly professional, well-equipped and highly efficient fighting force.

But small !

After all there is one thing I want to change, the most efficient,effective and succesful fighting force in history and it's fighting in SKIRTS... :rolleyes

[Xiaodun]

Originally posted by Alcibiades of Athens@Mar 23 2005, 08:37 AM

But small !

After all there is one thing I want to change, the most efficient,effective and succesful fighting force in history and it's fighting in SKIRTS... :rolleyes

But all the greatest warriors wore skirts.

Japanese samurai, Scots, feminists, Link from Zelda...

[Hiroki]

Originally posted by ThiudareiksGunthigg+Mar 23 2005, 02:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (ThiudareiksGunthigg &#064; Mar 23 2005, 02:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-deathdoom56@Mar 22 2005, 11:34 PM
They lost at Adrianople because

a) Rome was way past its prime

b) The Goth were trained in Roman military tactics

c) Valens was an idiot

The Roman Army in the late Fourth Century was a highly professional, well-equipped and highly efficient fighting force. The old idea that the late Roman Army was somehow &#39;past its prime&#39; has been rejected by military historians in recent decades. They point out that, even as late as the mid-Fifth Century, when the Roman Empire fielded an army against invaders it almost invariably won. Adrianople was the exception, not the rule. The collapse of the Western half of the Empire was an economic and political one - not a military collapse.

Few of the Goths in Fritigern&#39;s army were trained in Roman tactics. Some were Gothic federate auxilia who deserted to Fritigern, but these would have been a fraction of the Tervingian Gothic force. The rest were Tervingian Gothic harja warriors and other trans-Danubian refugees, few of whom had any exposure to Roman tactics at all.

And the battle was not won by &#39;Gohtic heavy cavalry&#39; either. Fritigern&#39;s cavalry force was relatively small compared to the infantry that made up the overwhelming bulk of his army. Valens had a larger cavalry force and it would have been more heavily armoured than all but a minority of Fritigern&#39;s (or, rather, Alatheus and Saphrax&#39;s) cavalry. Fritigern&#39;s cavalry played an important role in that they took the Roman cavalry by surprise by returning (probably accidently) unexpectedly, but the battle went on for hours after that. And it was fought and won by Gothic infantry slogging it out over many hours hand to hand with Roman infantry.

This was an infantry vs infantry battle, won by infantry against infantry.

Valens was rash and disorganised. Fritigern was defensive, but saw when to go on the offensive. This was a closely matched battle which could easily have been won by either side.

The army Valens commanded was the equal of anything commanded by earlier Roman leaders - the idea that the late Roman army was weak, inefficient, poorly trained or somehow degenerate is a load of Victorian nonsense. So is the idea that any Roman army was automatically superior to any barbarian force. The Romans were never a military machine of unbeatable uber-soldiers, as a study of their various defeats indicates. Modern Romanophile fanboys seem to have much less respect for Rome&#39;s enemies and less awareness of her weaknesses than sensible Roman generals were. [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m not saying they aren&#39;t good soldiers, but I find it doubtful that they were the equals of the 2nd century Legions of Trajan, for example. Also, there equipment was not as good as it once was, the Lorica Segmentata was a far better armor than the old hamata they reverted too. Also, though the darts were more numerous, the pilum was still a better idea because of its &#39;break-off&#39; concept and power. The longer Spatha sword also didn&#39;t give them the same flexibility as the earlier gladius. These are all factors.

Even if they were just as disciplined as the 2nd C. Legions, which I do doubt, they were certainly not equipped as well. A soldier is only as his equipment. Not very romantic, but it is true.

[Dithyrambos]

Originally posted by ThiudareiksGunthigg+Mar 23 2005, 01:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (ThiudareiksGunthigg @ Mar 23 2005, 01:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-deathdoom56@Mar 22 2005, 11:34 PM
They lost at Adrianople because

a) Rome was way past its prime

b) The Goth were trained in Roman military tactics

c) Valens was an idiot

The Roman Army in the late Fourth Century was a highly professional, well-equipped and highly efficient fighting force. The old idea that the late Roman Army was somehow &#39;past its prime&#39; has been rejected by military historians in recent decades. They point out that, even as late as the mid-Fifth Century, when the Roman Empire fielded an army against invaders it almost invariably won. Adrianople was the exception, not the rule. The collapse of the Western half of the Empire was an economic and political one - not a military collapse.

Few of the Goths in Fritigern&#39;s army were trained in Roman tactics. Some were Gothic federate auxilia who deserted to Fritigern, but these would have been a fraction of the Tervingian Gothic force. The rest were Tervingian Gothic harja warriors and other trans-Danubian refugees, few of whom had any exposure to Roman tactics at all.

And the battle was not won by &#39;Gohtic heavy cavalry&#39; either. Fritigern&#39;s cavalry force was relatively small compared to the infantry that made up the overwhelming bulk of his army. Valens had a larger cavalry force and it would have been more heavily armoured than all but a minority of Fritigern&#39;s (or, rather, Alatheus and Saphrax&#39;s) cavalry. Fritigern&#39;s cavalry played an important role in that they took the Roman cavalry by surprise by returning (probably accidently) unexpectedly, but the battle went on for hours after that. And it was fought and won by Gothic infantry slogging it out over many hours hand to hand with Roman infantry.

This was an infantry vs infantry battle, won by infantry against infantry.

Valens was rash and disorganised. Fritigern was defensive, but saw when to go on the offensive. This was a closely matched battle which could easily have been won by either side.

The army Valens commanded was the equal of anything commanded by earlier Roman leaders - the idea that the late Roman army was weak, inefficient, poorly trained or somehow degenerate is a load of Victorian nonsense. So is the idea that any Roman army was automatically superior to any barbarian force. The Romans were never a military machine of unbeatable uber-soldiers, as a study of their various defeats indicates. Modern Romanophile fanboys seem to have much less respect for Rome&#39;s enemies and less awareness of her weaknesses than sensible Roman generals were. [/b][/quote]
Spartans, anyone?

[Rapax]

Originally posted by Dithyrambos@Mar 23 2005, 08:51 PM
Spartans, anyone?

Not really. What are you trying to tell us?

[Petronius]

Yes, their equipment, and to a certain degree their training was NOT as good as earlier. Rome could no longer afford to outfit its troops with the best armour and best training availible, and consequently the army&#39;s professionalism did suffer, if only slightly. The civil wars of the 3rd century had the effect of nearly shattering the economy and availible manpower of the Empire, if one was to look for a cause. In addition, the profession of soldiering at this point was passed down much of the time from father to son - rather than being a motivated soldier who joins up on his own accord, you are simply passing it on to a son, who may very well NOT want to be a soldier. Anyways, my 2 cents.

Other than that, ThiudareiksGunthigg, your post was spot on. :>

[Hiroki]

Originally posted by Petronius@Mar 23 2005, 05:10 PM
Yes, their equipment, and to a certain degree their training was NOT as good as earlier. Rome could no longer afford to outfit its troops with the best armour and best training availible, and consequently the army&#39;s professionalism did suffer, if only slightly. The civil wars of the 3rd century had the effect of nearly shattering the economy and availible manpower of the Empire, if one was to look for a cause. In addition, the profession of soldiering at this point was passed down much of the time from father to son - rather than being a motivated soldier who joins up on his own accord, you are simply passing it on to a son, who may very well NOT want to be a soldier. Anyways, my 2 cents.

Other than that, ThiudareiksGunthigg, your post was spot on. :>

Also, when you have to start branding your soldiers to keep them from deserting...you know you&#39;ve lost something in your armies.

[Milteades]

Id put porno on the shields, so that the enemy is distracted.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I&#39;m not saying they aren&#39;t good soldiers, but I find it doubtful that they were the equals of the 2nd century Legions of Trajan, for example.

Why is this so doubtful?

Also, there equipment was not as good as it once was, the Lorica Segmentata was a far better armor than the old hamata they reverted too.

Another myth. If Segmentata was so vastly superior, why was it only widely utilised in the western legions? Throughout the whole time the western fabricae were supplying western legions with Segmentata, the eastern ones continued to produce Hamata, and eastern legions continued to wear Hamata. Were the eastern Imperial administrators and commanders simply dumb?

Also, though the darts were more numerous, the pilum was still a better idea because of its &#39;break-off&#39; concept and power.

So, again, was there a sudden drop in IQ in the Empire in the early Fourth Century? If the earlier pila were so much better, did the entire Imperial administration and Roman army have a collective attack of amnesia, forget how much better they were and then - for no reason - stop using this superior weapon and start using an inferior one? How does that make any sense?

The longer Spatha sword also didn&#39;t give them the same flexibility as the earlier gladius. These are all factors.

Ditto. If the spatha was so inferior to the gladius and so inflexible, why the hell was the gladius abandoned in favour of the spatha? Were they nuts?

None of this makes any sense. An army as efficient and propfessional doesn&#39;t simply abandon equipment it has used for centuries and take up new equipment for no reason. Clearly something forced a change in Roman tactics and this tactical change facilitated a change in equipment. The classic Augustan - Trajanic era kit of heavy helmet, long, curved scutum, pila and gladius reflected close-order formation fighting, often against lighter armed more mobile troops. The equipment of the late Empire reflects a more open, less static, more fluid style of fighting - one probably predicated by heavier armed, better organised and more disciplined foes, especially on the Rhine and Danubian frontiers.

Even if they were just as disciplined as the 2nd C. Legions, which I do doubt, they were certainly not equipped as well. A soldier is only as his equipment. Not very romantic, but it is true.

Sorry, but this sounds like more fanboy fetishism over the Trajanic era legionary. If the late Roman soldier&#39;s equipment was so poor, why didn&#39;t someone notice and fix it? It was used, with little variation, for several centuries. The idea that the disruptions of the Third Century caused some of the changes in equipment has some merit - a ridge-helm is quicker and cheaper to produce than the older, classical legionary helmet. But the idea that the later equipment was inferior simply doesn&#39;t hold water. If ridge helms were inferior, why did they continue to be used? For centuries on end?

Besides, whenever I&#39;ve asked someone making this argument to explain to me how precisely a ridge-helm is &#39;inferior&#39; to the older form they&#39;ve been unable to. The fact is, they simply are not. They may not give early Empire fetishists as much of a hard on, but they do the job of protecting your noggin admirably. I know - I&#39;ve worn both types of helmet in metal-weapons re-enactment combat. In fact, I vastly prefer the ridge-helm - better face protection thanks to the nasal.

[Coh I Nerv Reenactor]

I&#39;m inclined to agree with Thududareiks, the gear was not inferior, just designed for a different purpose. The Republican/1st-2nd Century legions were primaraly offensivly equpied for when the empire was expanding. The later troops were equipped differently for the purpose of holding and defending the borders of the empire from barbarian encursion.

[Lee1026]

replacing pilums with darts have a important motive other then effectiveness: cost.
the same goes for alot of the other changes.

One important weakness in the Legion is against heavy cav, which is the reason behind Andeninople.
How do I know that heavy cav is the important part? the fact that roman armys started to make heavy cav is most important part, and infantry the second. They wouldn&#39;t do that if heavy cav were good against the legionarys.

[Hiroki]

He said it all. It was because they couldn&#39;t afford to continue to use the better 2nd C equipment. Simple as that. That was pretty much there entire motivation. Also, they switched to the Spartha, since the Legions were no longer completely &#39;Italian&#39;. Having many Celtic people for example, who were more used to long swords, was one of the big reasons for the switch from Gladius to Spatha. And I am not a Trajan Fanboy thank you. I enjoy all of Roman History.

[deddem]

I`ll prefere to make a mix of swordmen and pikemen. When on rough terrain, pikemen stand in 3`rd-4`th line and support swordmen in first lines. When against cavalry or on plain terrain, pikemen form phalanx, and swordmen cover em on flanks and rear and fill breaches.
Equipment: gallic helmet; chainmail with plate reinforcements on shoulders and belly; segmentated armor on right arm; for swordmen - large scutum, with multiple handles like those on riot-police shields (not authentic single handle), for pikemen - beotic-style shield, allowing to hold pike with two hands.

As for sword, gladius is too specialised, it works badly when the initial tight formation is shattered or in skirmish. So I`d prefere falchion.

[imb39]

Originally posted by deddem@Mar 24 2005, 08:25 AM
I`ll prefere to make a mix of swordmen and pikemen. When on rough terrain, pikemen stand in 3`rd-4`th line and support swordmen in first lines. When against cavalry or on plain terrain, pikemen form phalanx, and swordmen cover em on flanks and rear and fill breaches.
Equipment: gallic helmet; chainmail with plate reinforcements on shoulders and belly; segmentated armor on right arm; for swordmen - large scutum, with multiple handles like those on riot-police shields (not authentic single handle), for pikemen - beotic-style shield, allowing to hold pike with two hands.

As for sword, gladius is too specialised, it works badly when the initial tight formation is shattered or in skirmish. So I`d prefere falchion.

Then you don&#39;t have a legion...

It is amazing how many people would want to go back to the phalanx formation. True in the middle ages pike formations made a come back BUT the Roman style of fighting dominated for nigh on 1000 years. Why change that? The Romans were the best at nicking/adapting ideas. They rejected spears for a reason....

BTW - in gaming istuations I much prefer to use phalanxes as they seem more &#39;romantic.&#39; So I know what army I prefer to command, but for sheer effectiveness the Roman setup was lethally (quite literally&#33 effective.

Also if the pilums were kept and not thrown they made handy spears to fend off cavalry attacks. Brilliant system for its time.

[DemonArchangel]

Hmm...
Armor for the sword arm.
A spear (optional) and 3 javelins like the Seleucid Thorikitai (sp?) Argyraspidai
Face mask.
Gauntlets or gloves.
Stronger shield.
Greaves (Optional)

[Petronius]

Economic disaster in the 3rd Century (due to civil wars) was a huge reason behind the abandonment of the &#39;classical&#39; legionary&#39;s equipment. Segmentata has been proven in tests to be pretty much superior to Hamata in all areas - easier to produce, much more resistant, lighter etc... A short sword, in close melee, always beats a long one. Seriously, if one thinks that earlier legions were inflexible then they don&#39;t know what they&#39;re talking about. A superb book on the subject is..

The Roman Army at War: 100 BC - AD 200 by Dr. Adrian K. Goldsworthy

For anyone who thinks that the legion was inflexible, relied completely on tight formation, please read this book (yes, it&#39;s worth the money, or go to your library and see if they carry it&#33. The Legions were one of the most adaptable forces (tactically) and this is what made them so strong - whether versus light troops or heavy infantry.

[Gaius Vorrenus]

Originally posted by Rapax@Mar 18 2005, 11:56 AM
But you do realize that roman tactic was to stab out of a closed formation and not engage in single combat to swing around wildly?
Also note the irony that you claim there is little use for a weapon that was actually used by the romans for a very long time and succesfully too.



That again wouldn&#39;t be contemporary, would it?

Other then maybe armouring the swordarm and the legs, I wouldn&#39;t really change anything, since the Legion was more or less a perfectly equipped unit.

Thank you jeebus, someone with some sense... I praise thee Rapax, lol

[Hiroki]

Originally posted by Gaius Vorrenus+Mar 27 2005, 12:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (Gaius Vorrenus @ Mar 27 2005, 12:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rapax@Mar 18 2005, 11:56 AM
But you do realize that roman tactic was to stab out of a closed formation and not engage in single combat to swing around wildly?
Also note the irony that you claim there is little use for a weapon that was actually used by the romans for a very long time and succesfully too.



That again wouldn&#39;t be contemporary, would it?

Other then maybe armouring the swordarm and the legs, I wouldn&#39;t really change anything, since the Legion was more or less a perfectly equipped unit.

Thank you jeebus, someone with some sense... I praise thee Rapax, lol [/b][/quote]
I said the exact same thing, and nobody has given me a brain yet. :getlost

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Originally posted by Hiroki@Mar 24 2005, 02:10 AM
He said it all. It was because they couldn&#39;t afford to continue to use the better 2nd C equipment. Simple as that. That was pretty much there entire motivation.

History is rarely, if ever, &#39;as simple as that&#39;. Regardless of the disruptions of the Third Century, the Empire continued for a further 200 or so years in the West and 1200 years in the East. Yet it never re-adopted the (supposedly) &#39;superior&#39; First/Second Century equipment. Why not? And what made the stuff from the First/Second Century so superior? How, precisely, was a First Century helmet &#39;superior&#39; to a Fourth Century ridge helm?

What we actually have in the Third and early Fourth Centuries is a sizeable gap in the archaeological record. Until future new finds fill this gap we have only a scanty idea of how Roman equipment evolved in this period. The idea that they simply couldn&#39;t afford to produce the &#39;superior&#39; earlier equipment and so permanently adopted &#39;inferior&#39; equipment simply defies reason. People in the past weren&#39;t stupid and if the style of equipment (and tactics) of the earlier Empire were so &#39;superior&#39; it is inconceivable that they would not have been either (i) re-adopted or (ii) re-invented. It makes far more sense that the new equipment reflected new tactics which in turn reflected new battlefield requirements and challenges.

Also, they switched to the Spartha, since the Legions were no longer completely &#39;Italian&#39;. Having many Celtic people for example, who were more used to long swords, was one of the big reasons for the switch from Gladius to Spatha.

&#39;Many Celtic people&#39; in the legions? In the Third Century? Huh? The Romans had been both integrating foreign troops and adopting foreign weaponry and equipment for centuries. If there was a period where there was an influx of Celtic people into the Imperial armies it was the late First Century BC and the early First Century AD. So why did it take another 200 years for this &#39;Celtic&#39; weapon to be adopted? And why, if the gladius was so innately superior, did they stupidly abandon the gladius in favour of an &#39;inferior&#39; weapon?

Besides, the Roman cavalry had been using the spatha since at least the late First Century BC. Once again, its adoption by the infantry indicates that the legions were no longer using the tactics and formations that made the gladius effective. For whatever reason, a more open formation was adopted and slashing swords became the weapons of choice. They remained the weapon of choice in Europe for the best part of 1000 years after that. Armchair experts who think a short stabbing sword will &#39;always&#39; be superior to a long slashing sword need to get out of their armchairs, find a re-enactment group and learn that both have their uses and their weaknesses. Again - the Romans weren&#39;t stupid. They didn&#39;t adopt the spatha for their infantry without a good reason.

The &#39;economic&#39; argument (above) for the change also doesn&#39;t wash with swords - a spatha is just as expensive to produce as a gladius, if not more so. So why the change? And why did that change co-incide with a change to the shield, helmet and most common body armour? Clearly it wasn&#39;t economics that was driving this set of changes - it was tactics.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Originally posted by Petronius@Mar 27 2005, 11:39 AM
Economic disaster in the 3rd Century (due to civil wars) was a huge reason behind the abandonment of the &#39;classical&#39; legionary&#39;s equipment.

So, how does this explain the abandonment of the gladius for the infantry spatha? How was a spatha cheaper to produce than a gladius? How does it explain the abandonment of the curved scutum for the oval or circular shields of the later Empire? How were these concave shields cheaper to produce than the older form? How does it explain the adoption of hamata over segmentata, since the eastern Empire (the richer half) never equipped its legions in anything other than hamata?

Segmentata has been proven in tests to be pretty much superior to Hamata in all areas - easier to produce, much more resistant, lighter etc...

Talk to re-enactors: - it is also a b*astard to maintain and clean, its straps and fittings break constantly and it is far more rigid and less flexible than other forms of armour available. If it was as &#39;superior&#39; as some claim, why wasn&#39;t it adopted by the eastern legions? And why was it abandoned, even in elite units, from the Third Century onwards?

A short sword, in close melee, always beats a long one.

How many close melees have you been in? I&#39;ve been in quite a few and I can assure you that this statement is total nonsense. The gladius did suit the kind of close formation fighting used by the legions in the early to mid Imperial periods. But it was abandoned. Why was it abandoned if it was so &#39;superior&#39;?

Seriously, if one thinks that earlier legions were inflexible then they don&#39;t know what they&#39;re talking about. A superb book on the subject is..

The Roman Army at War: 100 BC - AD 200 by Dr. Adrian K. Goldsworthy

I agree that Goldsworthy&#39;s book is excellent and I&#39;m not sure who was suggesting the earlier legions weren&#39;t flexible. The Roman army, throughout its history, adapted and changed tactics and equipment as it needed to. The idea that the equipment it adopted to meet the many military challenges of the last 300 years of its existence was inherantly inferior to that of the earlier Empire simply does not make sense.

The late Roman army was as fromidable and well-equipped as its earlier manifestations. The collapse of the West Roman Empire was a matter of economics - the army and its equipment had nothing to do with it and the &#39;barbarians&#39; were a symptom, not a cause.