Why did the Roman weaponry have to be changed?

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Since the military system structured by Augustus was not designed to deal with the type of invasions that the Empire faced after the mid-third century AD, it is understandable (and quite logical) that it had to be changed; and voila, we have the Diocletian system! But what I don't have an answer for is for the change of weaponry. Was it really necessary to replace the gladius and traditional scutum with the spatha and oval or round shield? To me, the fact that the Romans had to fight now a lot of arrow-armed enemies was a good reason to keep using the scutum (testudo worked very well in the past). And what about the sword? why the replacement? Was it necessary or just a matter of fashion? Any answer or comment will be welcome!

[Roman Clone]

I think it was Augustus being stupid and full of himself, probably thought that fear and the size of their empire kept enemies away.

[Black Francis]

They weren't "changed". It evolved. The process of manufacture was simplified along with the weapons/armour themselves so that more could be produced in properly organised fabricae (factories) for less resource cost and in less time.

The "Late Roman" arms and armour was in all likelihood in use by the late third century anyhow as constant war had made it necessary to "rationalise".

It was just more practical.

[Inhuman One]

That might have played a part in the fall of rome, poor equipment. It wasnt superiour anymore.

Or maybe it was their conversion to christendom?

Its certain though that weak emperors played a large part in it.

[Serious Spamurai]

Lorica segmentata used to corrode (a chemical reaction between the iron bands and the brass fittings) and was difficult to repair, so they abandoned it and went back to mail. I think they adopted the spatha because more and more of the legionaries were of barbarian origin and were more used to using a long sword, they changed the shields because you can't use a scutum and a long sword easily, the scutum-gladius combo needed little space.

[Gäiten]

Because the Roman army was very adaptive. Without that, Rome would had never been capable to build such a large empire and to survive as long as they did.
That adaptability was the key for Roman successes and remember learn from you adverseries, take the best they offer and you are supposed to be successful.

Against Gauls and their rabid charges, pilums were very effective, against nimble horse archers not.
Against horse archer testudos were very effective, but against full-charging cataphracts the worst tactic you may use.
Short sword as gladii are very ill-suited against cavalry (you can reach them), long swords as spathas are much better.

The traditional Roman scutum was expensive to both produce and repair. Later shields made of wood plankets were better.
Additionally, new battle tactics cried for better movement rates. Large, full-body covering shields are very unsuitable for that. smaller round and oval shields are better.
Furthermore the dramatic losses of the 3rd century (alone the Sassanids under Shapur I. destroyed more that 160.000 legionaries and large areas with their infrastructure were devasted by both enemy incursions and civil wars) and the need for much more mobile forces (almost anytime on the move) forced the Romans to look for more simple solutions.

Hope that helps you.

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Thank you all for your answers in such a short time. They have been helpful. So if the changes in Roman arms are more a matter of evolution, then that evolving process also affected the number of soldiers being part of an active army. In that case, what is the reason for the decrease in the amount of legionaries forming a legion during the late empire?

[Draco Borealis]

I think two reasons:
1)To curb the usurpation problems smaller units=less politicall power for field commanders. Also esatblishment of tietrarchy forced to split existing legions along four Emperors.
2)For logistic reasons smaller units are more strategicly mobile, easier to suply and more suited for garrison duty along the long limes.

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

That makes sense, thank you DB.

[Inhuman One]

Now I really want a good roman mod for medieval 2.. playing rome total war just looks weird after playing medieval 2, especially the combat animations.

[Black Francis]

Now I really want a good roman mod for medieval 2.. playing rome total war just looks weird after playing medieval 2, especially the combat animations.

It will be some time but I think the Gathering Storm looks good so far...

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=224

[Inhuman One]

meh thats the period the romans were already weak. I want to see them in their most glorious period, when their legions were still strong and their emperors intelligent, and still following the roman gods as well.

[Imperator of Rome]

meh thats the period the romans were already weak. I want to see them in their most glorious period, when their legions were still strong and their emperors intelligent, and still following the roman gods as well.

Emperors intelligent????How about Diecletian and Constantine,who saved the empire for a bit of time.Julian who was an scholar for years before he was an emperor,and basically died during a pillage run on the persians.Any period for the eastern or western empire before the 1400s is an glorious one.The romans had to adapt to more raiding barbarians replacing organized nations,so their army changed.Also that mod looks awesome,I love the Scholae palitinae,the heavy clibanarii,the palatine legions.Anyway the imperial period 100-200 a.d yuck,the republican and any late roman periods are the most interesting.

[Gäiten]

Well, especially in that dramatic era many Roman emperors were very keen, however, their adverseries were that, too.

IMO that era (210-495 AD) is especially interesting because Rome got a lot of true challenges. They wavered but they previaled for a very long time. Impressive feat of the empire.

[Samuel Adams]

There were other reasons for the change in numbers in the legions. For instance, one legion in Gaul may have no more than 1000 men, while a legion in Dacia had 3000, and yet another one in Spain had 500. This was also to keep the enemy uninformed. There may be only one legion on the field; but do they have 500 men? or do they have 5,000?

Also, it's a common misconception that late Roman Armies were substandard. They weren't! They were able to fight to the very last, very well. Rome's downfall was not the soldiers, but a mixture of poor leadership, civil strife, and the fact that the WRE never stopped trying to be an empire; had they retired all their forces back to Italy and GAul only, they might have lasted longer as well. There were simply so many barbarians coming over the borders of the late empire the legions, while good, were just overwhelmed.

Why not retire from Gaul? That part of the empire was, by 400 AD, completely Romanized. It would have been dastardly indeed to leave people almost as Roman as other Italian Romans to the barbarian.

However, the Late Army, while being rather poorly equipped at times, was really as effective at dealing with enemy threats as their earlier counterparts.

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Well, that was a very risky move. If the invaders assumed the Romans had a 3000-men legion and sent an army as large as that one or even larger, and then it turned out that the Romans only had 300 soldiers... .

[Inhuman One]

The greatest threats to Rome seem to have been the Carthaginians and the Goths. Carthage had the power to crush Rome if they had given Hannibal reinforcements. Definatly a worthy opponent and also in the time that the Roman Empire was still in its prime.

[anvil of crom]

The greatest threats to Rome seem to have been the Carthaginians and the Goths. Carthage had the power to crush Rome if they had given Hannibal reinforcements. Definatly a worthy opponent and also in the time that the Roman Empire was still in its prime.

Actually Rome was still on the rise during the Second Punic War, they controled only Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily, the Italian peninsula and parts of eastern Spain. Gaul wouldn't be conquered for more than 150 and the Republic wouldn't become the Empire for 200 years...the 1st century A.D. was the time of the Pax Romana, Rome at it's height.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I think that a key development in the changing tactics, traced back to Diocletion and Constantine, was the move from a Legion based static border defense (which was difficult to control and therefore prone to being subverted by usurpers) to the 'thin-crust' and 'defense-in-depth' strategy. This allowed raiders and hordes to penetrate the limes which would be able to alert the interior mobile field army. The concept was then to intercept the raiders as they returned laden with booty and slaves and annihilate them with a follow-up punitive raid on their home ground. Ammianus illustrates how this worked in practice under Constantius, Julian and Valentinian.

The consequences were that the old border Legions retained their structure and titles whereas the newer Legions were raised to be more mobile and brigade size so that the interior units could form together into task forces appropriate to the specific threat. A H M Jones is a good read to illustrate this shift.

Phil Barker is also worth reading to highlight how the later Roman army was in fact a superior fighting force in relation to the variety of the threats it now had to face compared to the old large Legion. (BTW, Invasio Barbarorum brings out nicely the varied units and consequently the player's decisions on how to organise and deploy both limitanei and comitatenses).

It has also been pointed out that the spatha is erroneously described as a barbarian longsword co-opted by the Romans whereas in fact it is a development of the gladius in response to more cavalry-orientated opponents which was then picked up and used by the Goths and Germans! Late Roman military equipment reflected a change in the strategic use of the army and an increase in the size of the army by about a third (with all the attendant logistical problems therein). The fact that Roman strategy after Diocletion and Constantine remained fundamentally unchanged for over 200 hundred years vindicates its effectiveness. As other posts have pointed out, the Roman army was compromised by social forces which revolved around the withholding of recruits and monies which led to an over-reliance (in the West) on barbarian foederates and laeti.

[lestat_bcn]

The Spatha wasn't use to cut from up to down, it was use like in the ancient times. It's a very flexible weapon better to deal with the new treats.