Lorica Segmentata and the Dark Age Roman Armies

[Hresvelgr]

So I am kind of ignorant when it comes to this period concerning pretty much everything.
All I know is that corruption, crumbling infrastructure, large barbarian migrations and deteriorating ruling class all contributed to the fall of the roman empire but militarily I am unclear as how effective Rome still was.

I know that Lorica Segmentata fell out of use because of how expensive it was and the old Citizen Legionnaire style was practically non-existent at this point.
Now how effective was the Roman Army? could they still beat tens of thousands through sheer discipline and better equipment? Did they still have Eagles?
If Rome was able to, would the old legion system with Lorica Segmentata saved Rome?

I am asking this because if someone eventually manages to make a mod where Kaziel's Romans are added into the Roman roster would they be weaker or stronger than the more 'modern' units?

I don't believe the OP has been fully addressed so I will add my thoughts. Apparently the legionary eagle was still in use at this time, though the other banners and standards seemed to have changed. The legion's flags replaced the spearpoint at the top with the Christian chi-rho symbol, and the standards used by cohorts (I can't remember what these are exactly, are they the ones with the hands?) were replaced by the draco, basically a dragon/animal head with a windsock attached that would look pretty cool when in motion. The legions themselves were organized very differently, and now much smaller. And compared to Caesar's day they contained a much greater amount of non-Italians, most of the army would've been from outer provinces or even "barbarians", and yet for all this the army was no less effective. It was perhaps even more efficient, although the state was still fully capable of enormous screw-ups that got the empire to crumble without having to blame the military. If anything these late armies were the only thing really keeping the empire up despite the best efforts of some emperors to destroy the empire.

As far as equipment goes, I'm not entirely sure on the specifics, but I know a few things. Segmentata was not in use, as you said. I think the typical armor (as it was for the whole history of the empire) was still mail, though scale-armor was used a lot by this time, mostly by cavalry IIRC. Helmets had become more simplified, shields became more oval and later on completely circular, the gladius was superceded by the longer spatha, overall the Romans started to more resemble their "barbarian" opponents. Of course shoes and full trousers were standard by this time. I think the pilum had been generally replaced by the plumbata, and I remember reading somewhere that soldiers would carry five of them and they had a very good range.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

There were no foreigners in the Roman Army. All Soldiers serving in the Roman Army were still Roman Citizen which doesn't say anything about the ethnicity but about their status. Foederati were not parts of the Roman Army and fought in their own structures, tactics and preferences.

The Spatha didn't replaced the Gladius that is a misinterpretation. It is rather the fact if you compare sword modals over the centuries that they became longer and longer and finally the Gladius became a Spatha.

[Theo]

There were no foreigners in the Roman Army. All Soldiers serving in the Roman Army were still Roman Citizen which doesn't say anything about the ethnicity but about their status. Foederati were not parts of the Roman Army and fought in their own structures, tactics and preferences.

Of course everyone living inside the roman empire with the exception of slaves was also considered a roman citizen thanks to Caracalla .

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

There were no foreigners in the Roman Army. All Soldiers serving in the Roman Army were still Roman Citizen which doesn't say anything about the ethnicity but about their status. Foederati were not parts of the Roman Army and fought in their own structures, tactics and preferences.

The Spatha didn't replaced the Gladius that is a misinterpretation. It is rather the fact if you compare sword modals over the centuries that they became longer and longer and finally the Gladius became a Spatha.

This is not true. The army was comprised of large numbers of Germanics recruited just like Roman citizens would have been. The difference between them and Foederati is that they recieved roman equipment, training, fought in Roman units and under "Roman" commanders. It would be like if you recruited a legal immigrant into the U.S. army, for comparison.

Foederati were basically the same as having an allied army alongside your own. This was a completely different thing from the traditional method of barbarian recruitment (as described above.)

[Toho]

So if I understood right if a roman army from the 2nd/3rd century faced a roman army from the 4th or 5th century the latter army would actually be better than the former?
of course assuming both armies are commanded by commanders of similar skills.

[wulfgar610]

The early army had more aggressive infantry which dominated the army, this was very useful in some circumstances but not a great formation against cavalry that used the latest techniques form the steppes. The later infantry was more passive becoming the anvil while the upgraded cavalry became the hammer. The later army was better for dealing with a broader range of contingencies. The early infantry would probably beat the later infantry in a straight fight, but be very vulnerable to the later cavalry.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The early army had more aggressive infantry which dominated the army, this was very useful in some circumstances but not a great formation against cavalry that used the latest techniques form the steppes. The later infantry was more passive becoming the anvil while the upgraded cavalry became the hammer. The later army was better for dealing with a broader range of contingencies. The early infantry would probably beat the later infantry in a straight fight, but be very vulnerable to the later cavalry.

This really didn't happen until the time of Belisarius, but Lance-and-Bow warfare revolutionized the role of cavalry. It was probably introduced in the west by Aetius.

The Late Army changed not to become defensive: the sources indicate far from it. It was the generals who became more defensive, but the good ones like Julian, Aetius, etc. were aggressive generals. The Roman infantry changed to carry more missile weapons and be more maneuverable, and therefore more versatile.

[wulfgar610]

I wasn't really referring to "lance and bow" heavy cavalry. But rather the broader use of cavalry in the 3rd century when it went from 10% of the army to 20%. A lot of the new cavalry was light cavalry either using javelins or bows. Light cavalry going by the Napoleonic period has a main feature of greater stamina, meaning it could maintain pace over longer distances for wide outflanking movements. The new cavalry was called equities meaning it carried the highest status in the army.

[Carl Jung was right]

Stilicho...executed, Constantius...poisoned, Aetius...assassinated, Majorian...executed. It's almost ridiculous. In no other period of the history of Rome were men of such competence and achievement placed so close together on the time line, and ALL of them succumbed to the same fate.

Man, 4th century Rome sounds like a very bland and formulaic HBO drama. Next week's episode: super awesome general rises up to save what little's left of Rome during her darkest hour...only to get stabbed in the back by his superior or best friend.

Thank god we still have the Eastern half running for another 10 seasons (centuries) though.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

There's no evidence that Constantius III was poisoned.

Stilicho's reign would make a fantastic TV series: there's a lot of intrigue and whatnot between him, Alaric, the Alans of Saul, and Gainas, and of course the Roman court and the court at Constantinople.

Constantius III and Aetius were heroes of the Roman Empire, Aetius stopping Attila the Hun at the Catalaunian Plains. Majorian was sort of a last ditch effort to re-take Africa, other than Cape Bon which was probably the largest military campaign ever conducted by the Roman state.

[Hresvelgr]

The early army had more aggressive infantry which dominated the army, this was very useful in some circumstances but not a great formation against cavalry that used the latest techniques form the steppes. The later infantry was more passive becoming the anvil while the upgraded cavalry became the hammer. The later army was better for dealing with a broader range of contingencies. The early infantry would probably beat the later infantry in a straight fight, but be very vulnerable to the later cavalry.

Yeah, contrary to popular opinion, the late army didn't degrade for some nebulous reason, they adapted to different threats, and IMO for the better since the early empire kinda seems to have built itself up mostly fighting militarily unsophisticated tribes across northern and central Europe.

[KLAssurbanipal]

In one of Osprey book about Sassanian cavalry there is a plate - dead of Roman emperor. Romans have segmentata and fight with Sassanians.
it is weird plate and it's a suprise that plate's author is Angus McBride.
There are reasons of book's author, but I am not convinced.

[wulfgar610]

Phil Barker believed metal torso armor for infantry largely disappeared due to cost, replaced by cheaper rawhide cuirass and scale. Another contemporary of his went further claiming that only the most elite cavalry of the later period had metal torso armor and vast majority had to be content with rawhide scale. Phil Barker disputed the latter claim bitterly viewing the later cavalry as an expensive elite that would easily afford metal armor.

The question really whether that late Imperium thought it was worth investing about 9 kg of iron on torso armor for an infantry that was losing its former status. The point being that the rest of the infantryman's equipment consumed about 3kg of iron.

The general view is that the production of ore commodities that had defined the earlier Greeco-Roman world declined rapidly in the late 2nd century due to exhaustion of surface deposits. Modern data suggests that the industrial output of the 200 BC to 200 AD period was never equaled again until the invention of the steam pump at the end of the 17th century.

For example the cash payment of the 18th century Redcoat was only on par with Rome at its economic height. The Redcoat got a sixpence per day about the same weight of fine silver as the denarius which was a Roman day wage. And the price ratio of wrought iron to silver was around 250 to 1 in both cases.

But it is well known that the denarius went from fine silver to Diocletian proclaiming his denarius with 1/20 silver was a sign of good quality. And even though the troops were paid in thousands of debased denari the actual weight of silver they got as compensation had fallen to half that of earlier times. If this is the case then wrought iron in real terms had become twice as expensive per capita to what had prevailed in earlier times.

The Hamata couldn't have been cheap, excluding the should pieces it weighed 6 to 7 kg and consisted of over 50,000 rings. The noted price of a Knights medieval mail at 100 shillings equals about 450 fine silver denari! The Segmenta couldn't have that much cheaper and troublesome in maintenance and it seems seldom used in the hotter Middle East or North Africa.

Another notable decline was the replacement of brass lamps with ceramic models. Although this proved useful to Attila in his stirring speeches when he smashed them at moments of great drama!

[HuangCaesar]

Phil Baker is full of it. There is no discovery of Roman rawhide armor in widescale use compared to metallic scale or mail. Vegetius says Late Roman troops didn't wear armor so it was probably tunics similar to a cotton or linen gambeson. There is no proof on such a bold theory like cavalry only having metalic armor.

Scale was probably more common than mail as depicted in the Battle of Milvian Bridge.

Rawhide Scale? Phil Baker said this? Give me a book on Phil Baker saying Rawhide scale.

[wulfgar610]

Phil Baker is full of it. There is no discovery of Roman rawhide armor in widescale use compared to metallic scale or mail. Vegetius says Late Roman troops didn't wear armor so it was probably tunics similar to a cotton or linen gambeson. There is no proof on such a bold theory like cavalry only having metalic armor.

Scale was probably more common than mail as depicted in the Battle of Milvian Bridge.

Rawhide Scale? Phil Baker said this? Give me a book on Phil Baker saying Rawhide scale.

Well he certainly illustrated rawhide or keratin scale in relation to the Sarmations. But it was a guy, J.S.Earle that thought most cavalry armor was rawhide as well who Barker was in dispute with.

The silver content of the denarius 'mutated' over time. The new currency based on the solidus had it seems precisely two troy ounces of fine silver or 4.5 grams of fine gold. Although the general public had to be content with bags of debased cupric alloy. Going by what is known the cheapest price for the Lorica Hamata was about 12 solidi if there was a good supply of second hand suites. But Knight's maile (new) in the middle ages had a price tag of 22 solidi worth of silver. Maile armor in middle ages was the preserve of a small elite, not everyman had it. By the 5th century the European economy was well on the way to the dark ages.

The Notia Dignitatum pictures two styles of armor in use, one was a cuirass that was most likely rawhide. The other was a coat that was most likely used by the cavalry and could be scale, rawhide or metal or maile.

I'm afraid in the late Empire, the bubble gum machine was often broken, hadn't been restocked anyway. Not that it mattered because nobody had change in their pockets to operate it!

After that the rampages of Barbarians through the department store verily brought things down.

And Phil Barker remains the second biggest name in early period wargaming after H.G. Wells.

Scale was probably more common than mail as depicted in the Battle of Milvian Bridge.

But can you be sure it wasn't rawhide? Rawhide is on par with maile as regards protection, the only advantage of maile was a long lifespan.

However cavalry of the late Roman were a sophisticated trained elite. With an expensive train of horse stock and servants to maintain them. So the expenditure of maile or metal scale on them seems feasible. Even the light cavalry weren't a cheap cavalry, but rather a tactical doctrine of cavalry that could maintain pace for wide outflanking movement.

[Architect of Doom]

What about the helmets? Were the new types of ridge helmet superior to the imperial helmets?

Here you can find some pics of the late types of the ridge helmet.

[HuangCaesar]

Wuflgar....Illustrated? Wow. I can't debate with such nonsense. Its like saying sources from a comic book writer. You clearly said before only the Musculata was rawhide in your earlier threads and now you bring up Rawhide Squamata to back up your Milvian Bridge claim. There is no source of Baker saying Rawhide Squamata.

Wow you keep mentioning mail when I clearly say Squamata. Currency devalation blah blah. Its the government. They tax, they grab, they build. The armor could be hide, the armor could be boiled leather, it could be metal, it could be linen, it could be no armor. You have no proof that it was specifically rawhide besides "oh the economy was worse." Actual metal Squamata had been found and Vegetius says no armor. Those are more reliable source.

I searched Phil Baker. He's a nobody.

Rawhide is crap protection compared to mail. Arrows and stabs go right through. It is poor repairing capality to shatter links of mail and has to be super thick.

Cavalry is sophisticated and elite trained compared to Infantry....do you have a source on this, when there are both non-elite cavalry and elite infantry? Palantina infantry is also better trained than standard Comiatenses...do they get mail? Why is your conclusion soley on cavalry? You clearly pulled the source out of your behind.

[wulfgar610]

Wow you keep mentioning mail when I clearly say Squamata. Currency devalation blah blah. Its the government. They tax, they grab, they build. The armor could be hide, the armor could be boiled leather, it could be metal, it could be linen, it could be no armor. You have no proof that it was specifically rawhide besides "oh the economy was worse." Actual metal Squamata had been found and Vegetius says no armor. That is a more reliable source.]

Well the 'economy'? There's good reason to believe the production of metals fell to a third or a quarter of what had enjoyed under the early Empire. The population fell as well since food production suffered a crisis. The general opinion is the population of the Eternal city itself went from a population of a million in the 2nd century to half that by the time Diocletian restored order. Sea trade fell vastly as well after 200 AD. Unfortunately for the Romans they were on a downer while their Barbarian friends were on the upper.

And one can only tax what is there, it does seem they tried to tax more than that and brought the Empire down. You'd make a fine Emperor Huang! You just don't understand the little people, perfect!

Rawhide is crap protection compared to mail. It is poor repairing capality to shatter links of mail and has to be super thick.

Noooo! Mike Loades has given that argument its funeral!

[HuangCaesar]

The production of metals fell? Explain the Notitia and Fabricaes? The economy of the East was still working. Military spending was high. Explain how you say Late Roman rawhide is so widespread and Byzantine Rawhide Scale armor doesn't exist at all?

Yes...I do not disagree that tax brought the empire down...so your agreeing metallic armor was common due to the goverment revenues?

You haven't rebuted the nonsense claim that it can be other materials and it metallic armor was soley reserved to cavalry.

Hmm that video proves its just as good as mail? Just because it stopped an arrow?

[wulfgar610]

What about the helmets? Were the new types of ridge helmet superior to the imperial helmets?

Here you can find some pics of the late types of the ridge helmet.

Eek! Barbarian Scythian styles! Next they'll be wearing pantaloons and eating sausages!

But I'd say a metal helmet is more important than metal torso armor and only up to about 2kg of iron. The cheapest ones were perhaps two solidi, but could be made more expensive. Silver coating alone would require a solidus worth of silver.