High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army

[Mrbsct]

How does the army of like Trajan era compare to the Late Roman army/Byzantine(both East and West)
Which was better on the battlefield? Which tactics were better?


Heres what I know-The Trajan type army was focused on Heavy infantry as its striking force. Those guys had big shields and used the Gladius for stabbing in formation. They carried the Pilum to soften ranks or as a spear against horsemen. They had small detatchment of Auxilia cavalry to guard the flanks and archers from Crete and Syria

Late Roman army-The infantry has been weakened their Lorica segmentata was no longer used. They are no longer in ridgid formation with their smaller shields, Spatha longsword and weaker javelins but have better cavalry like Cataphracts plus the East fielded more archers.

Which army was more practical?

[AMELIANVS]

Hello Andy
And once again that obsession with Lorica segmentata viewed inaccurately as a kind of symbol of the Roman army top.But that is why you're here and asking on that,which is right.
Myself I'm short of time now,but I have no doubt,many others and very well informed members of RAT forum will answer your questions in great detail.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

There is no question that the seg is a superior piece of body armour,
As protection! It would seem it has issues in some minds due to the
Practicality of repairs in the field and expense!
I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to its real deficiencies
Though!
As time moved on the army evolved! However, whether it ended as a superior
Force may be debated! It certainly met with disastrous defeats
in the later period from which it was very hard pushed to recover from,
If it ever did, in comparison to the earlier army! But that can also be accounted
for by the attitudes of the citizens towards service as much as to any possible deficiencies
In tactics! They certainly cannot put the blame on poor equipment!
But there are many, more expert than I am who will have
Different opinions!

[AMELIANVS]

Yes,segmentata is nice kind of armour.Also a good one with some specific advantages.Certainly.But historically,it seems that mail armour was most used and most preferred type and I think it would be too simplistic to view segmentata disappearance as clear sign of roman army decline.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes I think we agree there!

[Jori]

I would answer to this question in a simpler manner :

for the ennemies of Rome in Late times, the late roman army was better than the high imperial army. For the ennemies of Rome in high imperial times, the high imperial army was better. This last point can be debated, since I also do believe that human kind will always improve the way of killing each other...

[Robert Vermaat]

This has been discussed to death already, but it’s no problem to refresh that once in a while.

Trajan type army was focused on Heavy infantry as its striking force. Those guys had big shields and used the Gladius for stabbing in formation. They carried the Pilum to soften ranks or as a spear against horsemen. They had small detatchment of Auxilia cavalry to guard the flanks and archers from Crete and Syria

There’s no difference where formations are concerned, it’s not o that legionaries stabbed all at once. Leghionaries had no spears against horsemen – you’re thinking of the auxilia, which you are forgetting here. Auxilia made up quite a percentage of the Roman armies in on the battlefield, and they had mail armour, spathae and a hasta, plus an oval shield (quite like the Late Roman armies). Archers were also present, like other troops throwing stuff throughout the battle.

Late Roman army-The infantry has been weakened their Lorica segmentata was no longer used. They are no longer in ridgid formation with their smaller shields, Spatha longsword and weaker javelins but have better cavalry like Cataphracts plus the East fielded more archers.

As has been mentioned before, ‘weakened’ is incorrect. Also, their shield were by no means smaller, just oval or round (like those of the earlier auxilia). Formations could be as rigid as during earlier Roman periods. The javelins were not ‘weaker’, just for a different puropose – similar javelins were also used under Trajan. It’s just that the pilum was no longer used, probably because the tactics changed from offensive to defensive. Archers were also fielded in the West – Roman armies always used continuing fire throughout the battle.

Different armies for different times. What changed was that due to a changing society, demographics and politics, there was no longer an unlimited resource of soldiers, meaning large battles could no longer be risked as much.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Now now Robert, its obvious the glorified hollywood actors in their plastic segmentatas would win :-P

In all seriousness, Robert is right. You really can't compare the two, although I will maintain that the commander of either side would be the only comparable factor.

Although I would argue that if Aetius was commanding, the Huns would tear a Principate Army apart.

[Frank]

Heres what I know-The Trajan type army was focused on Heavy infantry as its striking force. Those guys had big shields and used the Gladius for stabbing in formation. They carried the Pilum to soften ranks or as a spear against horsemen. They had small detatchment of Auxilia cavalry to guard the flanks and archers from Crete and Syria

This is most propably right for Trajans dacian campaign but could be wrong for his parthian campaign. The roman army of the 2nd century was more flexible than than that. I doubt, that Trajans army at Ctesiphon looked that much different to Julians army 250 years later. Perhaps a few more heavy units with scutum and gladius, because Trajan could not reequip everybody accordingly. But Trajan surely adapted the equipment, composition, formations and tactics of his army to the parthian enemy as much as possible.

You might read Arrians report about the battle against the Alans, just about 20 years later in 135 AD. This was propably the kind of army, Trajan used in Mesopotamia. And this army looked much more like a late roman army, than your standard Hollywood Legion.

The late roman army (pre-Adrianopel/Frigidus) had its weaknesses. But regarding equipment and formations, it was just more flexible. And of course they could fight like an old-style legion with a shieldwall and javelin volley, followed by a short infantry shock attack. But just if facing the appropriate enemy.

[Frank]

Although I would argue that if Aetius was commanding, the Huns would tear a Principate Army apart.

We had this discussion lately on another forum. If the Huns would invade Europe and northern Italy directly after Actium, when Augustus had about 60 battle hardened republican legions, I would say: Sorry guys, wrong time, wrong place! :eek:

PS: I know, Huns in Europe at this time is absurd

[AMELIANVS]

PS: I know, Huns in Europe at this time is absurd

Not for a Hollywood :wink:

[Alexand96]

Although I would argue that if Aetius was commanding, the Huns would tear a Principate Army apart.

Ah, but I'd like to see a Caesar, Marius, or Scipio put to that test.

In all honesty though, even as a pro-Republican kind of guy, I do think that the weaknesses of the late Roman military are often exaggerated.

[Quintius Clavus]

I would add that both the Roman Army of the Principate and the Roman Army of the 300's-400's AD considered themselves to be ROMAN armies. And, so did the army of the eastern Roman empire after the west "fell". Times/tchnologies change, enemies change/learn, etc., nothing stays static - or if it does - it does to its peril.
The lorica segmentata was a good armor. Mail (lorica hamata) was used before it, during its heyday and after it; as were other armors like scale (lorica squamata). Mail has proven itself to be a very effective armor thoughout its long history. We will never know the reasons why the Romans phased it out, but they did. One reason MAY BE its maintenance issues, but there were probably other reasons as well, which we will never know. Mail armor could arguably be passed on and last years and years. At the Higgins Museum in Worcester, MA, they had a display of several pieces of mail armor. The display included a large section of mail - made of alternating rows of solid and riveted rings - that was worn thin in a few places and had been patched in others, and clearly had had a long life.

[Blake]

It's a really interesting question you posed and one I have often thought about. I'm a graduate of European Literature (B.A.) and my focus was on Republican Rome, but I always found the period of late antiquity fascinating.

To my thinking, one of the things that changed as much as the Roman Army were Rome's enemies. In the late period to which you refer, it is well established that the introduction of the stirrup amongst Rome's enemies created a shift that probably upset Roman military dominance. Rome ofcourse being an infantry based super power, was probably fairly quickly confronted by enemies who were able to deny it its tactical advantage. This was to some extent played out with Parthia earlier, in Crassus' case with devastating effect to Rome, but ofcourse the Parthian victory then had been won without the stirrup. All of sudden cavalry could really charge headlong into Roman formations, probably without the need to soften the formations up first, not to mention the complimentary effect the stirrup would have had for mounted archers. Perhaps the apparent deterioration in Roman infantry was due in part to the increasing importance of Roman Cavalry. A comparable shift in the art of war was later seen with the reemergence of pike warfare in the late medieval period, which had a terrible effect on any cavalry dominant armies that were brought to bear against it.

On top of all this there were calamities upon calamities for Rome and Constantinople in this period. Civil War followed Civil War, diseases which in some cases completely depopulated areas hit the Empire on a scale previously unseen. Add to this a resurgent Persia and what appears to be a comparatively overpopulated (non-Roman) Northern Europe. It was too much for Rome and Constantinople to resist, something had to give and it did.

Whereas in the past Rome had numerous advantages over her enemies like a better supply chain, better access to weapons, better training, vast manpower to draw upon and the ability to move it quickly; these advantages were diminished. Rome's enemies were now well acquainted with her methods, and in the case of Northern Europe were catching up in terms of military sophistication and organisation, either by direct contact as foederati or by observation through being on the losing end of many a battle.

Once Western Rome fell Constantinople found itself in the position of having few friends, and certainly no allies anywhere near approaching her strength, but of having hundreds of nation states who hated her and saw her as rich pickings. Remarkably Constantinople survived, and was resurgent.

This was not before the army underwent extensive change. I think that what you have intimated Andy to a certain extent was right, I do not think the Rome and Constantinople of late antiquity had the resources as its disposal, in particular money and manpower, that was available during Trajan's time. However I believe that a contributing factor was the fact that Rome's enemies had caught further up to her in terms of their way of war, although Persia, Rome's largest single threat (not counting German tribes as a single but rather multitudinous threat) had probably never fallen behind in relation to military sophistication.

What was consistent though, in my view, was Rome's military memory, which when resources permitted was able to reinvent itself and field armies the equal of any on earth. Constantinople continued this tradition right up until the fourth crusade, and possibly to some extent afterwards. In this sense I think the Roman Army of almost all periods of its history was the equal of the other epochs.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I would add that both the Roman Army of the Principate and the Roman Army of the 300's-400's AD considered themselves to be ROMAN armies. And, so did the army of the eastern Roman empire after the west "fell". Times/tchnologies change, enemies change/learn, etc., nothing stays static - or if it does - it does to its peril.
The lorica segmentata was a good armor. Mail (lorica hamata) was used before it, during its heyday and after it; as were other armors like scale (lorica squamata). Mail has proven itself to be a very effective armor thoughout its long history. We will never know the reasons why the Romans phased it out, but they did. One reason MAY BE its maintenance issues, but there were probably other reasons as well, which we will never know. Mail armor could arguably be passed on and last years and years. At the Higgins Museum in Worcester, MA, they had a display of several pieces of mail armor. The display included a large section of mail - made of alternating rows of solid and riveted rings - that was worn thin in a few places and had been patched in others, and clearly had had a long life.

I actually think that it was phased out in the transition from private manufacturers to state-run fabricae, as Segmentata had to be custom fitted to work properly, while Mail was more "one size fits all" in comparision. Now I'm sure a local blacksmith would have solved the fit issues with a segmentata, but it was easier to mass-produce mail than segmentatas, similar to why ridge helmets were introduced - less waste (Single-piece Bowls could have imperfections and would have to be cycled through again, wasting material.)