Another primary consideration in introduction & eventual disappearance of Segmentata?

[CNV2855]

An aside, I saw the video recently posted regarding the progression of Roman helmets and you see a drastic simplification of them from the third century onward. As time went on they were typically no longer crested, nor as ornate, but a solid simple metal helmet onward through the Byzantine era.

[Nathan Ross]

they were typically no longer crested, nor as ornate, but a solid simple metal helmet

Many later Roman helmets appear simple because they've had the decorative metals stripped off - the Theodosian code suggests that 40% of helmets produced by the state arms factory in Antioch were covered with gold or silver plating. Crests are shown frequently in late Roman art, and crest fittings have been discovered from late Roman archaeological contexts.

Helmets from the third century, like the Theilenhofen and Niederbieber types, are particularly developed, and provide far greater protection than earlier models.

As for ornate, compare these two: first century and fourth century!

   

[CNV2855]

Your example does prove that they didn't lose the capacity to produce ornate helmets, but the helmet on the left was given to hundreds of thousands of soldiers and the same cannot be said of the one on the right.  You're arguing that 40% of the helmets produced in a factory for soldiers had gold/silver plating?

During this period the Romans were running out of precious metals, the mines in Iberia were drying up.  The denarius was being debased and replaced with copper or bronze, but they decided to put the materials formerly used in coinage and apply in as plating on helmets?  Now, plating can be thin be very deceptive in terms of value.  Modern coin companies  reproduce "gold/silver plated" coinage and sell it for more than it's fair market value saying that the "plating" is 99.9% pure precious metals when in fact very little gold/silver is used in the making of the reproduction.  With that, I don't want to speculate too much on your claim.

...but I do not believe the theory that states that "Roman civilization never fell", that the "Dark Ages weren't really Dark", and that "Civilization continued to progress from Antiquity through to the Renaissance unabated".  It's clear that the pretty much every aspect of human endeavor suffered greatly.  Literacy was common during the Roman period, I've seen several estimates from 20-30% or perhaps higher.  It was used by common soldiers, farmers, and citizenry based on the level of vulgarity in the examples, while it fell to less than 5% throughout the Dark/Middle Ages only to return just prior to the onset of the Renaissance.    Widespread banking was lost, for example, and only returned with the Crusades and inventions by the Lombards.  There are numerous examples of lost arts, techniques, and inventions. 

There is no doubt in my mind that this is an example of civilization "moving forward, then back" and will probably happen again at some point.  Imagine if our society were to be hit with a massive disaster, another perhaps nuclear World War, a catastrophic natural disaster, the reemergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and so forth?  Now some of those events are pretty low on the probability but given time, it's very likely that at least one, or several may hit which would violently throw our society, sophistication, and civilization back.

The Romans went through that.  They were hit with epidemics, massive migrations, currency problems, and societal change that was too fast for them to adapt.  The Dark Ages were pretty Dark.  Yeah, there are some "flashes" of human brilliance during this period, but for the most part I'd much have rather lived in Europe during the 1st Century AD than anywhere during the 6-12th Century.   Bathes, aqueducts, and a centralized, though rudimentary, global society.   

If you read De Re Militari, Vegetius literally sounds like he's living in the present day.  His message on the very first pages included basically the call to, "Avoid using soft men, who have grown accustomed to bathes and the pleasures of city life, and instead rely on the poor and peasantry who are already hardened by the rigors of life. " and to, "avoid using certain professions best suited for women."   Crassus obtained his wealth by speculation in real estate.  Caliguala built floating palaces on a lake.  You had the aqueducts sewage, and plumbing in MOST Roman cities, and technological marvels, such as the Coliseum.

Yeah, the Dark Ages were dark.  I think the decline started in the late 2nd century, and the problem is the "Dominate was a great place" people is that they really cannot identify a good date, or set of dates, for when civilization started declining.  Some go so far as to say that it never did, which just does not make any sense. Frankly, it's my belief that the beginning of the end started with the the plague. Smallpox has been absolutely disastrous, and pathogens have played an absolutely massive role in delaying human development. Economic loss would be unfathomable in today's terms. Tear down that wall that separates you from ancient people, they were just like us, enjoyed the same pleasures, were just as vulnerable, and were not super men and almost as vulnerable as we to disaster, protected slightly by relatively rudimentary sophistication. War kills off men, oft marriageless, or those who have already had children, and these disasters killed off the women and citizenry that were the very foundation of their state. Romans assigned disaster to battles that not necessarily killed the most men, but those that killed the most nobles and those with societal importance such as Allia, when they realized that exposing such men to danger was fraught with consequence.

Again, I would absolutely not want to live in a time when everyone was dying around me, and I'm sure other people did not either. Can you give me your date for when you think Rome "started" descending into chaos and began transitioning into the Early Medieval Period? Before you mention the Byzantines, let me pre-empt you by saying they were merely holding on and sustaining themselves and NEVER thrived for if they had they would've EASILY reconquered Europe, but the Plague of Justinian put an end to that notion. Belisarius was fruitlessly undermanned compared to other Roman military undertakings. An very small force compared to amount of bodies the Romans threw at Hannibal, and that's why we steadily see the amount of soldiers in wars/battles in antiquity slowly shrinking from being able to replace a loss of 150,000 men at Carrhae/Cannae/Trasimene, and not being able to like a loss of JUST ~10,000 at Adrianople.

Simply put, Pax Romana was the height of civilization until the Late Middle Ages, and I'll just guess that their military equipment was very good. Ancient sources might have had less information about history prior to themselves, and thus did not know the full context in which they were living their lives. If Vegetius' thinks the military had gone to shit, I'm taking him at his word.

[Nathan Ross]

You're arguing that 40% of the helmets produced in a factory for soldiers had gold/silver plating?... I don't want to speculate too much on your claim.

No speculation required! We have it in writing:


10.22.1: ARMOURERS (de fabricensibus). Emperors Valentinian, Valens and Gratian Augustuses to Tatianus, Count of the Sacred Imperial Largess.

Since six helmets for each period of thirty days are covered with bronze by each metalworker, both at Antioch and at Constantinople, and the cheekguards are also covered with wrought metalwork, but eight helmets and the same number of cheekguards are covered with silver or are gilded each thirty days at Antioch, and only three at Constantinople, We decree that at Constantinople also each metalworker shall decorate with gold and silver, not eight helmets for every thirty days but six each, with an equal number of cheekguards. (Given March 11, AD374)


Since many late Roman helmets seem to have had the gold or silver plating ripped off, we can assume that there was enough precious metal on them to make this worthwhile. Of a couple of helmets (one of the Berkasova ones and the Jarak, I think) only the gold plating survives, and no doubt it was removed for its value as metal.

There are numerous examples of lost arts, techniques, and inventions... Bathes, aqueducts, and a centralized, though rudimentary, global society.  

The 'global society' is the important bit, I think. Technologies are not 'lost' or forgotten, but they do die out when the infrastructure needed to support them is no longer there. A stable Roman state brought access to trade and raw materials, currency and skilled labour. Once this stability broke down, people were forced to turn to more simplified forms of local production. But this did not happen in the west until the 5th century; the Roman state was strong enough before then to survive major plagues, barbarian invasions and civil wars and emerge intact. The inhabitants of 4th century Gaul were still drinking wine from Egyptian glassware, and employing architects from Syria and Asia to design their monumental buildings.

Vegetius literally sounds like he's living in the present day.

Which is ironic, as he was trying to live in (his own) past! Much of his work is taken from much earlier military manuals, some dating back to the republic (Cato the Elder, principally). His views on the current state of the army are most probably from a post-Adrianople perspective. It's important to bear in mind that Romans did not share our idea of progress; for them, the past was much better than the present, which is always a debased time, and the future will be far worse unless we return to the ways of the ancients etc. Vegetius was making a political point, which we cannot ignore.

Can you give me your date for when you think Rome "started" descending into chaos and began transitioning into the Early Medieval Period?  

That's a big academic question! The 'Early Medieval' era, or 'Late Antiquity' (depending on your frame of reference) is often pegged as beginning with the reign of Diocletian. But this was by no means the 'Dark Ages' (which usually refers to the situation in the west after the loss of Roman central control). The Tetrarchy was a return to strength after the chaotic third century, and the inhabitants of Constantine's era apparently believed (in a most unRoman way!) that they were living in a golden age.

But the west did collapse - no real question about that. The rather disastrous reign of Honorius, with the sack of Rome followed by the loss of north Africa to the Vandals, would probably be my choice for the point after which revival was impossible.

The Roman state was strong and healthy in the fourth century though, and the army very effective. So I still can't agree with the idea that the seeds of eventual decline were planted back in the Antonine era.

[CNV2855]

That's a big academic question! The 'Early Medieval' era, or 'Late Antiquity' (depending on your frame of reference) is often pegged as beginning with the reign of Diocletian. But this was by no means the 'Dark Ages' (which usually refers to the situation in the west after the loss of Roman central control). The Tetrarchy was a return to strength after the chaotic third century, and the inhabitants of Constantine's era apparently believed (in a most unRoman way!) that they were living in a golden age.

But the west did collapse - no real question about that. The rather disastrous reign of Honorius, with the sack of Rome followed by the loss of north Africa to the Vandals, would probably be my choice for the point after which revival was impossible.

The Roman state was strong and healthy in the fourth century though, and the army very effective. So I still can't agree with the idea that the seeds of eventual decline were planted back in the Antonine era.

Modern estimates say that the Gauls pre-Caesar had as large or larger a military than the Romans, and thus we have millions of people involved in the subjugation of Gaul.   One city managed to throw half a million men at Hannibal, but an entire Empire could not recover from the loss of Adrianople (a rather small affair).   There had to have been something else at play.

Even though I mark 180AD as the beginning of a rather unceremonious decline, I absolutely think they had a chance at recovery if it weren't for further calamity (though the city of Rome itself was probably finished itself by the Plague of Cyprian: 5,000 dead/day at height).  The Plague of Justinian completely erased further notion for revival. That Belisarius accomplished what he did with what he had is astonishing.

Back on subject, it's important to note that this armor was NOT phased out after one battle, one war, one generation, but was around for several centuries during Rome's period of greatest expansion. There had to have been some very good qualities about the armor to keep it around if it really is as ineffective as some people are to think.

One other thing, humanity's reverence for our ancestors is undoubtedly one of our traits. Since our parents taught us most of what we know, we ascribe that they are more wise than us, and that their parents more wise than them, but in actuality we have more information and are less ignorant today than our ancestors. So Vegetius' past and ours is one in the same, and he held them in high regard like we do the founders of the Constitution, when they were just as human and capable of error, as we.

[CNV2855]

Chainmail has a lot of great qualities, nobody argues against that.  Especially so in the military where one would spend 99.9% of the time doing things other than fighting.  

However, just take a look at a standard golf club. It's only a small blunt stainless steel rod. But I've been hit by one, in the face on a backswing.  It hurts.  A lot.  Even with some kind of undergarment, blunt trauma should not be underestimated, especially in a time where small injuries could mean the difference between survival and death.  A broken rib or simple cut could easily kill or permanently retire a soldier. You cannot call 250 years a "short lived fad", especially when the life expectancy was much lower than today.

Segmentata is the F-35 of antiquity. A definitive advancement in certain areas, although probably overly sophisticated, and expensive. There are even pilots who think our F-16s would outperform the F-35 in dogfighting, much as people who think hamata outperforms plate in mobility. These people did a lot of fighting, and they used this shit. They even used it to distinguish legionnaires from their counterparts even though not all in the legion would be equipped with it. An Air Force advert would probably have the F-35 on it, even though there are thousands more 16/18s in use. We wouldn't build the things if we didn't have a wanton disregard for money, much like the Principate Romans when they were collecting 200 tons of silver per year through tax.

Those who argue that the centurions preferred Hamata, I only have to say that there's a gap between personal wants and the wants of a commander. I'd want an air conditioner in my tank, although my commander would probably prefer to just add more armor, or a bigger gun, to make it a more effective. Commanders may have used other armours, but they wanted their soldiery with the best, although probably most uncomfortable, equipment available. Guessing but centurions could probably rely on the fact that other soldiers would put up heavy resistance, just to protect him. The average legionnaire did not have that luxury and had to rely on his armor much more than an officer would. Officer's in modern armies do not spearhead the charge, contrary to popular depiction, and are very well protected. Centurion equivalent officers do not typically wear 35lbs of ceramic body armor unless they are in a very dangerous unsecured area. You just cannot argue about effectiveness based on the gear differences between officers and troops, because you'll wind up with all sorts of false conclusions.

We should admire segmentata for what it is. Although probably not an ideal armor for any society that has limits on its economy, it was a fantastic invention for its time; a precursor to the next step in military technology ca. 1,100 years later. Dominate Empire's economy was a fraction of the Principate's. It's hard to argue otherwise.

[Urselius]

I don't think that your equation of widespread literacy and plate armour holds up very well. We know from archaeological remains that the 8th-9th century Turcic Khazars of the North Pontic Steppe produced plate armour greaves and pauldrons. Even with their conversion to Judaism, I do not think that they had any greater levels of literacy than was found in contemporary Western Europe, and westerners were exclusively using mail and scale at the time. Furthermore advanced metallurgy is not reliant on literacy. The illiterate or semi-literate Celts and Iberians had better metallurgical skills than the literate Romans, we know this because the Romans said so, and archaeology has tended to confirm it.

[Dan Howard]

Blunt trauma is seriously overhyped - even against mail. The only time mail is really susceptible is when an exposed "boney" area is hit such as the skull, collar bone, hip, elbow, etc. We know that mail was exclusively worn in jousts for centuries during which time they used fully sharpened war lances.

[CNV2855]

I don't think that your equation of widespread literacy and plate armour holds up very well. We know from archaeological remains that the 8th-9th century Turcic Khazars of the North Pontic Steppe produced plate armour greaves and pauldrons. Even with their conversion to Judaism, I do not think that they had any greater levels of literacy than was found in contemporary Western Europe, and westerners were exclusively using mail and scale at the time. Furthermore advanced metallurgy is not reliant on literacy. The illiterate or semi-literate Celts and Iberians had better metallurgical skills than the literate Romans, we know this because the Romans said so, and archaeology has tended to confirm it.

That's not exactly my theory.  Through the course of the discussion, I've changed my opinion from it being a uniform to it probably being the best option generals had at the time for equipping their troops with gear that best served the unit as a whole, although not necessarily the individual soldier.  

Hamata was probably more flexible, and more comfortable, but the very brilliant commanders of this period chose, used, and stuck with segmentata for a reason.  Like I said, it wasn't abandoned in one battle, one war, not even a generation but was around several hundred years.  Substandard military equipment, especially if it were a chore to maintain like segmentata, gets abandoned if there's a better alternative, especially when your state has near infinite economic resources.

Segmentata was never abandoned, it gradually fell out of use during a period where the Empire was losing it's citizens that comprised it's infrastructure.  This kind of illustrates that disease inflicted a mortal wound on the Empire's economic, industrial, and military capacity.  Other evidence is the bodies of numerous plague victims, writings we have from the time (Galen etc.), and the near constant drop in the amount of soldiers the Empire fielded onward all the way to Adrianople.  Adrianople was a battle in which the Empire was dealt a lethal blow after ONLY losing 10,000 men.  They had previously lost massive amounts of NCO's, officers, generals, and commanders, and more than 150,000 men fighting the 2nd Punic War.  Yet, still Rome shrugged it off and went on to sack Carthage not much later.   Why would an entire Empire not be able to recover from one relatively small battle, if it weren't ailing from far more serious problems?  Rome had seen losses on those scales, or worse, several times during its history.

Blunt trauma is so overhyped that the maul and mace went on to be one of the most effective weapons in history... Anyway, if you disagree then why did the Romans abandon the Scutum?  Are you honestly going to argue that the oval shield of the Late Empire was more effective?  The Scutum is the preferred shape for every modern police riot shield.  It's in widespread use for law enforcement officers who actually face melee combat.  They don't walk around with small, flat, oval shields.  It's painfully obvious that the Late Empire placed much less emphasis on personal protection for some reason.  I've given my reasons.  And they make sense in light of the evidence that we have.  Disease, probably more than any other factor, brought the Romans to their knees.  Their trade network and urban infrastructure was their undoing, and they were hit by both Smallpox and the Bubonic Plague.  The EXACT diseases that destroyed the greatest Native American power in the 16th century, the Aztecs.  [Go learn about Cortez' conquest of the Aztecs, and the more you learn the more you'll be able to relate to the Second, Third and Sixth century Romans.]

Go watch the movie Contagion, and then try to imagine an ancient society trying to operate in THAT context.  It's difficult to and I can't fathom how rough it must have been.  They'd have lost vast numbers of educated or trained people, replaced by large numbers of children. It is known in psychology that a women's response to psychological trauma is to have a bunch of children to protect them, and to replace their loved ones that they've lost.  That's why we see large birth rates following disaster, and the exploding population in Africa, which has recently been a very troubled continent.  This is a FACT.  In a society without classrooms, where children were tutored and trained almost on an individual basis, you'd have a LOT more illiterate and untrained people running around.  That is backed by evidence that shows the literacy and education of the Roman people, as a whole, dropped extensively sometime around the third century.

That's a LOT less people in a position of authority in the army.  That's a LOT less people who know how to make extravagant armour and weapons.  That's a LOT less people who could govern, rule, and lead properly.  There would be a LOT more incompetence in ALL areas as people would basically be forced to relearn a LOT of things.  What'd be easier to pass on and recreate on a large scale? Segmentata and it's high level of sophistication?  No. It was mail and it's uniformity in rings! That's why we see segmentata completely die out not much after the Plague of Cyprus, because the last smiths trained to make, repair, and maintain it would be dying around the time we get the last example. YES, the population probably rebounded!  But it had lost unquantifiable amounts of skilled citizens, and was undeniably augmented by the influx of foreigners.

Again I'm not tying literacy directly to the production of segmentata but only using it of evidence of a greater calamity.  If there are a lot more children relative to adults around to teach them their skills, then you're going to see a dramatic drop in all areas of education, including the ability to read/write AND the ability to make sophisticated equipment such as segmentata.  I am essentially saying that the emergence of both Smallpox and the Bubonic plague heralded a destructive capability not before seen, enhanced by the sophisticated trade network and urban populations of the Romans.  It was these blows that both dramatically weakened the Roman Empire, and then later completely doomed it.  Civilization simply CANNOT thrive while, or immediately after, its civilian population has been ravaged, for ANY reason.

[CNV2855]

Some scholars say that the American Natives lost between 90-95% of their population when Europeans began migrating to the New World in the 16th Century. How can you guys discount disease as a primary catalyst for the destruction of the Romans? Colony termites can easily replace dead soldiers within a relatively short period, as can healthy civilizations, IF the hive (civilian population) is healthy. These diseases did not discriminate based on education, titles, positions of power, nor any other worldly measure and decimated both aristocrats and plebs.

We assign too much damn importance to individual battles. They mattered when the victor went on to massacre or enslave the civilians, such as Alesia, and the Jewish Revolts. Otherwise, like Vietnam, just killing soldiers and not the civilians supplying, replacing, and reequipping them, takes a long time and really doesn't have a lasting effect on history, at least not as much as anything that indiscriminately kills civilians. Japan was coerced into surrender after two civilian population centers were destroyed (more than that if you include the firebombings), not after its military had been beaten. In fact to do the latter would've meant the death of a whole lot of people, and the extension of the war for years. The Romans knew this, and that's why they had no qualms about doing some of the things that they did. Attacking soldiers only means long, lasting, unfinished wars. You think we Americans would have learned this by now...

We should use our military far less, and only when we're prepared to actually fight an unconditional war. The modern concept of the military is flawed; it's not something to throw around like a sparring match. As long as we do, we should be prepared to be beaten. Soldiers can simply be relatively easily replaced, that's why the Vietnamese KNEW they would ultimately win, period!!! Each year we were only killing a fraction of North Vietnamese soldiers ready for enlistment every year, so the North Vietnamese were actually growing stronger, not weaker. Sorry for not being sentimental, I do respect soldiers... but that's the reality of it. I am definitely not arguing for genocide or for any harm to civilians, I'm saying that we shouldn't use our military in the way we do. There's nothing glorious about war. The Middle East was relatively at peace while authoritarian leaders reigned, as they effectively had enslaved the populace; Saudi Arabia is one prime example.

[Urselius]

Quoting CNV:

"Adrianople was a battle in which the Empire was dealt a lethal blow after ONLY losing 10,000 men.  They had previously lost massive amounts of NCO's, officers, generals, and commanders, and more than 150,000 men fighting the 2nd Punic War.  Yet, still Rome shrugged it off and went on to sack Carthage not much later.   Why would an entire Empire not be able to recover from one relatively small battle, if it weren't ailing from far more serious problems?  Rome had seen losses on those scales, or worse, several times during its history."

The two Roman societies were very different. The Punic War society was one of citizens-in-arms fighting for a state that was a form of limited democracy. Huge manpower losses could be replaced because the citizens were militarised, each citizen was trained for war and equipped himself, when a father was killed his son replaced him, when an older brother was killed a younger replaced him. At the time the middle classes, who provided the bulk of soldiers, were strong in numbers.

At the time of Adrianople the Roman state was an absolute monarchy/military dictatorship reliant on a professional army and its citizens were unmilitary and, indeed, forbidden arms. The old Roman middle class, both urban and rural, had been severely depleted and society was far more polarised into a rich elite at one end of the scale and a multitude of peasants/slaves on the other. If a trained professional soldier was killed it took both time and money to replace him; the Roman military of this period did not have the immediately available pool of cheap, motivated and militarily trained manpower available to the early republic.

As to plague, well the Black Death had quite limited effects on the prosecution of the Hundred Years' War. Also, due to the loss of manpower available, it lead to a modernisation of both society and military organisation based on an increasingly monetary, rather than feudal, relationship between people. Major pandemics can have positive as well as negative outcomes.

[Robert Vermaat]

I'm not saying the Late Empire was totally inept, but it was definitely a period marked by high inflation and instability compared to Pax Romana when the armor was in its heyday.

The Principate had great metal.  The capacity for Roman metalworkers is drastically underrated.  They had folded steel, they had imported steel.  The outside of segmentata was hard to deflect the blade, and the inside was soft iron to absorb the shock.   Segmentata is case hardened, that's a pretty advanced technological innovation.  Yeah, mail was in widespread use for two millennia but I think you guys are reaching for reasons to prefer it over other armours.  It wasn't preferred in ANY age in which there was plate armour, period.

As to the first quote, I dare say that the early Empire also had it's problems from time to time. The 4th century was, comapred to the Principate, not a completely tranquil period but neither a time of prolonged crisis.

Mail was preferred in many centuries after the plate armour was disbanded by the Romans.
Literacy may have dropped in the West, but you seem to completely ignore that the Roman Empire continued for another 1000 years in the East. Here, too, the plate armour was disbanded, and maybe even before it was in the West. Are you really suggesting that the decline which we see in the West also happened in the East? I think not, so there must have been another reason for the abondoning of the plate armour due to a 'decline inliteracy'.

---

Chainmail has a lot of great qualities, nobody argues against that.  Especially so in the military where one would spend 99.9% of the time doing things other than fighting.  

We should admire segmentata for what it is.  Although probably not an ideal armor for any society that has limits on its economy, it was a fantastic invention for its time; a precursor to the next step in military technology ca. 1,100 years later.  Dominate Empire's economy was a fraction of the Principate's.  It's hard to argue otherwise.

Sorry but like I said in the reply before thios, I think you are now completely ignoring Roman military history, Even during the principate more than half (or even less) of the army was not equipped with the segmentata. Why do you suppose this was the case? Either the plate armour was not good enough for the Multi-purpose role of the auxiliary infantry, and best used by the legionaries in their heavy infantry battlefiled role. Or it was too expensive to be used by all the soldiers of the Roman army.

Either way, the segmentata was of lilited use, and not the fantastic invention you make it out to be. After the changes in the Roman army of the 4th c. and afterwards, we never see the return of the segmentata, even though this would have been very much possible in the military history of the Roman Empire. We do see however a changing role in the infantry, from the purely heavy legionary battlefield role to a much more diverse infantry that can both fight pitched battles as well as patrol and raid enemy villages at night. And wear mail armour.

---

Go watch the movie Contagion, and then try to imagine an ancient society trying to operate in THAT context.  It's difficult to and I can't fathom how rough it must have been.  They'd have lost vast numbers of educated or trained people, replaced by large numbers of children.
[..]
That's a LOT less people in a position of authority in the army.  That's a LOT less people who know how to make extravagant armour and weapons.  That's a LOT less people who could govern, rule, and lead properly.  

I think you overestimate the impact of diseases in the Roman world. For one, these were as far as we know recurring disasters, and as we all know the world did not end. Apart from Justinian plague, these were no 'bubonic plague' events after all.
Also, the impact may very well have been different for the different parts of the Empire, and people may have been used to them. Also, the impact of any plague was different in the countryside and the cities.
Lastly, we have no evidence of Roman society being severely hit by a massive drop in population as you seem to suggest. No sources speak of such a disaster, no cemetaries show the loss of massive numbers of nobility, etc.
Nor, for that matter, do we see such mass extinctions in areas outside the Empire.

Therefore I see no reason to see a hypothesis of the Roman army being devoid of men and commanders. Wars continued being fought, inside and outside the Empire.

---

Other evidence is the bodies of numerous plague victims, writings we have from the time (Galen etc.), and the near constant drop in the amount of soldiers the Empire fielded onward all the way to Adrianople.  Adrianople was a battle in which the Empire was dealt a lethal blow after ONLY losing 10,000 men.  

Excuse me, but no evidence speaks of a constant drop in the amount of soldiers fielded towards Adrianople. None whatsoever. To the contrary - due to the guesswork about unit sizes we can argue for a late Roman army strength between 450.000 strong (which is comparable of the number towards the end of Augustus' reign) based on the lower estimate of the Notitia Dignitatum, and no less than 645.000 as based on Agathius (Agath. V.13).

Also, what 'lethal blow' was dealt to the Roman Empire at Adrianople? That 'so-called blow' has been discussed here very often, and at no time could evidence be presented that the defeat at Adrianople presented the end of the Empire. Which, I should not have to repeat, continued on for another 1000 years despite its field army being destroyed at Adrianople.

[Nathan Ross]

Are you honestly going to argue that the oval shield of the Late Empire was more effective?

Of course it was more effective. For the kind of fighting they were doing. No soldier is going to discard a superior piece of equipment and use an inferior one instead. The curved rectangular shield suited the infantry tactics of the Principiate. The (dished) oval was apparently better suited to the warfare of a later era. Changes in military equipment are dictated by the demands of the battlefield.

I'm not tying literacy directly to the production of segmentata but only using it of evidence of a greater calamity... Civilization simply CANNOT thrive while, or immediately after, its civilian population has been ravaged, for ANY reason.

But, as we've said, segmentata did not completely fall out of use for at least a hundred years after the Antonine Plague (which was almost certainly not bubonic). The army increased in size under Severus, and by Diocletian's day it apparently numbered over half a million men (according to John Lydus, I think). So there's neither evidence for a decline in numbers nor in military effectiveness over this whole period.

As Urselius has pointed out, civilisations did continue to thrive after major epidemics. The Black Death did not end civilisation in Europe, nor did the Great Plague of 1665 end civilisation in Britain. States with the infrastructure to survive such things do so.

(by the way, I notice you've droped the bold type and underlining from your posts above - it might encourage others to debate your ideas if you avoided too much extra emphasis, including caps! )

[CNV2855]

Segmentata did not completely fall out of use for at least a hundred years after the Antonine Plague (which was almost certainly not bubonic).

I have given my quite convincing reasons for why it survived for a short period of time.  Also to note, I never implied that the Antonine Plague was Bubonic, but quite the opposite.  It is the first pandemic of Smallpox that we have recorded, a disease as dangerous if not more than the Black Death, which we've proven to be an evolutionary dead end.   Smallpox hit the Romans, and the first pandemic lasted for fifteen years, compared to five for the Black Death.  It killed two Emperors, one of which whom devoted his lasts words the disease, and death it had brought.  Then there is evidence of multiple further epidemics, and the disease was not gone but was re-emerged several times during the Third and Fourth Centuries.   Smallpox has undoubtedly killed far more people over it's lifetime than the Bubonic Plague ever has.  

The army increased in size under Severus, and by Diocletian's day it apparently numbered over half a million men (according to John Lydus, I think). So there's neither evidence for a decline in numbers nor in military effectiveness over this whole period.  

Of course, there is.

Again, the system that relied on skilled and professionalized civilians, collapsed, not necessarily the military.  Uneducated soldiers, even professional, are easier to replace than the civilian infrastructure that supports them.  Almost every young person wants to fight, but the people, tutors, smiths, craftsmen, artisans, tradesmen, sailors, and so forth that made up the Imperial infrastructure had died, replaced by a population of survivors struggling to fill their shoes.

It's commonly thought that this is also the period when the Romans started resorting to mercenary and barbarian soldiers. Are you really arguing otherwise? There was a reason they did that, and it's because they didn't have the civilians to replace their losses, only the remaining wealth of those whom had died - and that went to those they had hired.

No soldier is going to discard a superior piece of equipment and use an inferior one instead. The curved rectangular shield suited the infantry tactics of the Principiate. The (dished) oval was apparently better suited to the warfare of a later era. Changes in military equipment are dictated by the demands of the battlefield.

This argument can easily be flipped and used for in favor Segmentata.  It does not sway one to either argument, nor the other. In fact, it might indicate that there was a general breakdown in discipline, or a vast replacement of domestic soldiers by barbarian, which assuredly happened (which reinforces my arguments).

As Urselius has pointed out, civilisations did continue to thrive after major epidemics. The Black Death did not end civilisation in Europe, nor did the Great Plague of 1665 end civilisation in Britain. States with the infrastructure to survive such things do so.

Bullshit.  Surviving is not thriving.  Modern states may have the capacity to survive short-lived pandemics, but there is no reason to suggest that even the mighty Western Roman Empire was able to weather the near simultaneous weakening by the plague, and the Great Migration that occurred before it was able to return to power.  

There is far less known about the Third and Fourth Centuries because there was far less reading, writing and dare I say a much lesser amount of educated people.  Yes, they might have had silver/gold plated helmets, and we may have archeological remains but those do not necessarily prove strength.  Plating may be a simple task and speculation is outside both our realms.

(by the way, I notice you've droped the bold type and underlining from your posts above - it might encourage others to debate your ideas if you avoided too much extra emphasis, including caps!  )

If people stoppped misinterpreting some of my points, such as implying that I had ever called the Antonine Plague an instance of Yerstinia Pestis.  I was just a tad frustrated, my apologies.

As to the first quote, I dare say that the early Empire also had it's problems from time to time. The 4th century was, comapred to the Principate, not a completely tranquil period but neither a time of prolonged crisis.

Indeed, it was.  That's why Pax Romana was nearly four centuries later.

Mail was preferred in many centuries after the plate armour was disbanded by the Romans.

It's a very easily maintained, comfortable, effective piece of armor that can be standardised, very efficiently, by the current civilian infrastructures in which it saw widespread use.

Are you really suggesting that the decline which we see in the West also happened in the East? I think not, so there must have been another reason for the abondoning of the plate armour due to a 'decline inliteracy'.

Yes.  This is exactly what I am saying.  The East was much stronger economically and was able to weather the storm of the 5th Century.  The Western Roman Empire was not.

To those arguing against me, what was the death knell that stopped Justinian, and his successors, from successfully maintaining hold on to the former Western Roman Empire? Why are the Eastern Romans from the Fifth Century to the Fifteenth constantly shrinking instead of expanding? A thriving state does not shrink.

With the new medical data that we have, most scholars attribute a primary reason for the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, and the degradation of the East, as disease. That's the modern line of thought, and nobody has given any reasonable arguments for why it isn't valid. It's far more convincing than some of the other theories such as lead poisoning. I'm sure Smallpox had far greater reprecussions than the gradual poisoning of a small percentage of the populace by miniscule amounts of lead. If anything, lead might have caused them to be more susceptible to disease.

It's in this context that we see plate die out until 1,000 years later. This whole "the Dark Ages" were a period of growth, revival, and great advances theory that some people are reading off the internet is patently false. Gibbons would be rolling in his grave! He would probably be saying the same thing modern scholars are saying now that they've excavated and have evidence as to the causes for the Great Plagues. Those pandemics/epidemics, of which there were a great number, in no small measure, had dire consequences for the Roman people, East AND West.

Knowledge CAN easily be lost to time. There are multiple things we simply no longer know about people living in the pre-gunpowder era. One day men may be looking back on us wondering how we accomplished some of the things we did, if disaster were to befall us. There is a reason we attribute the end of Pax Romana with the same date as the Aurelius' death.

Or it was too expensive to be used by all the soldiers of the Roman army.

If it is even true that Segmentata wasn't in overwhelming use during the Principate, for which we simply do not know. In any case, it probably was! Metal armour, of any type, is extremely expensive from the evidence we have, and most later Eastern soldiers went into combat with very, very limited amounts of it, some completely unarmored. The very sophisticated Segmentata simply had become a liability because of its sophistication, and within a few generations the ability to make it was probably lost.

[Nathan Ross]

I never implied that the Antonine Plague was Bubonic

That was a reference to your point above: "Disease, probably more than any other factor, brought the Romans to their knees... they were hit by both Smallpox and the Bubonic Plague". Were you referring to the plague of Justinian for the second one?

there is no reason to suggest that even the mighty Western Roman Empire was able to weather the near simultaneous weakening by the plague, and the Great Migration that occurred before it was able to return to its power. 

But it did weather the plague. The west did not fall for over two hundred years. The migrations were in the late 4th-5th centuries, so were not 'near simultaneous'. There were plague outbreaks after the Antonine one, and doubtless they contributed to imperial decline, but your original point concerned the second century.

The East was much stronger economically and was able to weather the storm of the 5th Century.  The Western Roman Empire was not.

That seems fairly uncontroversial! But, again, you're talking about the 5th century here.