High Imperial Roman army vs Late Roman army

[C Crastinus]

Auxilliaries didn't have a ton of missile weapons like the Late Romans did. Plumbatae and Lancaea/Veruta would have rendered a large portion of a principate shields useless.

In the situation of plumbatae impacting the rounded scuta vs. pila impacting flat shields, I think the pila would disable more shields, but there would have been at least twice as many plumbatae as pila thrown, so maybe it would have been a wash. I would still give the advantage to the Principate legionaries in the ensuing hand to hand combat, all other things being equal.

It's too bad we can't really put this to the test. I suppose we could have reenactment groups from each period duke it out. That wouldn't be a perfect test, but I'd still pay to watch such an event.

[Gesiþ]

Maybe a 3rd-century civil war battle between a more "innovative" emperor and a "traditional" one?

[Marja]

I think there seem to be an awful lot of thrusting spears on the Column of Marcus Aurelius. Maybe these are intended as pila, but they look more like shortened thrusting spears, and they are occasionally used in close combat. So I think the switchover occurred sometime in the second century.

I understand that Republican gladii tend to be longer than Imperial gladii, so it's hard to generalize about the roles of all gladii and all spathae.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Auxilliaries didn't have a ton of missile weapons like the Late Romans did. Plumbatae and Lancaea/Veruta would have rendered a large portion of a principate shields useless.

In the situation of plumbatae impacting the rounded scuta vs. pila impacting flat shields, I think the pila would disable more shields, but there would have been at least twice as many plumbatae as pila thrown, so maybe it would have been a wash. I would still give the advantage to the Principate legionaries in the ensuing hand to hand combat, all other things being equal.

It's too bad we can't really put this to the test. I suppose we could have reenactment groups from each period duke it out. That wouldn't be a perfect test, but I'd still pay to watch such an event.

I'd pay too, just to scream "I TOLD YOU SO!"

[C Crastinus]

I'd pay too, just to scream "I TOLD YOU SO!"

Haha! Well...we've got two sponsors so far. illy:

[Alexand96]

To enter the fray here, I'd posit that weapons and body armor would have much less impact on any such engagement than others seem to think. In fact, we don't even know if the Roman armies would look all that different in some respects, from Republic, to Principate/Empire and into to Late Rome, if you're just focusing on the individual legionary. Basically the same configuration of kit: helmet, sword, shield, spear or pila, ring mail being the prominent form of body armor throughout the entire Roman period. You get the idea.

I think deciding factors would be, ceteris paribus, the relative distribution of cavalry and their tactical effectiveness in the Late Roman contingent vs. the effectiveness of the earlier Romans in countering said horse in close infantry formations. If the Late Romans can’t utilize their horse to break the earlier Romans’ lines, then they will eventually lose the conflict as their infantry positions are overrun (by the numerically superior early-Roman infantry) while their cavalry contingent (intelligently) flees the battlefield. In essence what I am saying is that it would be more of a contest of strategy, tactics, discipline and willpower from the general on down much more than it would be an exhibition of technological superiority/inferiority. By the Late Roman period, the “game had changed,” so-to-speak, out of necessity. The earlier Romans were just playing a different game, not inherently inferior in any military sense - just different. I simply do not see the technological or strategic divide being so great between these two types of forces to say that it would be a route by either side. I think that is naïve thinking on our part, biased by a sense of chronology and “progress.”

[ValentinianVictrix]

There are a number of points that need clearing up here.

The Late Roman army did not give up the use of the Pilum, only that it was rarely used as stated by Vegetius. It was being replaced by a thrusting spear called the Spiculum that could either be thrust to fend off cavalry or thrown and had the same shield and armour penetrating power of the pilum it was replacing. There is some evidence in Ammianus that the pilum was being used as late as the 360's/370's as he several times states troops were throwing 'pilis' during the reigns of Valentinian I and Valens (Valentinian was stated by Ammianus as being an 'inventor of arms' and may have reintroduced the pilum as well as other more exotic weapons such as the Currus Drepanus).

From my own research, using actual numbers of infantry and cavalry from sources, indicates that the percentage of cavalry of all types in a Late Roman army ranged from about 8% to a maximum of 20% of the total force. And as to the effectiveness of this cavalry, Ammianus gives a number of accounts where Roman cavalry performed less than admirably, even the heavily armoured Catafractarii/Clibanarii routed at Argentoratum and had to be personally rallied by Julian. At Adrianopolis the entire Roman cavalry force on both wings of Valens army fled the battlefield, leaving the infantry to fend for themselves (and the infantry fought on until nightfall allowed at least part of them to escape).

Its interesting to read peoples comments on how much more well equiped the Late Roman army was, especially the infantry with the Vegetian infantry man being armed with a Spiculum, a couple of javelins (veruta)and five darts (martiobarbuli). However, I can find no reference at all within Ammianus or the SHA to either martiobarbuli or plumbata, but many references to Spiculum and Veruta, and allow arrows. I'm not saying that the infantry did not have such hand hurled missile weapons, its just very odd that they are not mentioned by name.

I wont enter into a debate about the size of the Late Roman legion and Auxilia unit sizes, as the evidence is not at all conclusive (anyone know if the Perge inscriptions have been published yet?). But I would vouch that a 'typical' Late Roman field army size was around 25,000 stong, based on the sources.

[Alexand96]

There are a number of points that need clearing up here.

The Late Roman army did not give up the use of the Pilum, only that it was rarely used as stated by Vegetius. It was being replaced by a thrusting spear called the Spiculum that could either be thrust to fend off cavalry or thrown and had the same shield and armour penetrating power of the pilum it was replacing. There is some evidence in Ammianus that the pilum was being used as late as the 360's/370's as he several times states troops were throwing 'pilis' during the reigns of Valentinian I and Valens (Valentinian was stated by Ammianus as being an 'inventor of arms' and may have reintroduced the pilum as well as other more exotic weapons such as the Currus Drepanus).

From my own research, using actual numbers of infantry and cavalry from sources, indicates that the percentage of cavalry of all types in a Late Roman army ranged from about 8% to a maximum of 20% of the total force. And as to the effectiveness of this cavalry, Ammianus gives a number of accounts where Roman cavalry performed less than admirably, even the heavily armoured Catafractarii/Clibanarii routed at Argentoratum and had to be personally rallied by Julian. At Adrianopolis the entire Roman cavalry force on both wings of Valens army fled the battlefield, leaving the infantry to fend for themselves (and the infantry fought on until nightfall allowed at least part of them to escape).

Its interesting to read peoples comments on how much more well equiped the Late Roman army was, especially the infantry with the Vegetian infantry man being armed with a Spiculum, a couple of javelins (veruta)and five darts (martiobarbuli). However, I can find no reference at all within Ammianus or the SHA to either martiobarbuli or plumbata, but many references to Spiculum and Veruta, and allow arrows. I'm not saying that the infantry did not have such hand hurled missile weapons, its just very odd that they are not mentioned by name.

I wont enter into a debate about the size of the Late Roman legion and Auxilia unit sizes, as the evidence is not at all conclusive (anyone know if the Perge inscriptions have been published yet?). But I would vouch that a 'typical' Late Roman field army size was around 25,000 stong, based on the sources.

Thank you for clearing some of these misconceptions up - I am no expert on the Late Roman military, by any means.

However, if I'm interpreting what you are stating here correctly, you believe that the cavalry-to-infantry ratio in the later Roman armies to be similar to that of the Imperial armies? If that is correct, then even more than previously would I argue that any such conflict between two such forces would essentially be a toss-up.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Adrian,

Vegetius again? He also said that the army dropped the use of armour, didn't he? Despite what vegetius says, today the common view seems to be that the pilum was phased out long before the end of the 4th century.
Actually, Vegetius writes how the spiculum was the successor of the Pilum (arguing that the pilum itself was no longer used) and had the same characteristics as the pilum. The spiculum, therefore, was a heaving throwing spear and no thrusting spear - as the pilum had not been that.

Ammianus' use of the generic word 'pili' tells us nothing, he also uses words like 'gladius' for sword and 'Parthians' for Persians. that's no problem, but it's no proof that the Rom,ans actually fought Parthians by. 367 with the gladius and the pilum.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Hi Adrian,

Vegetius again? He also said that the army dropped the use of armour, didn't he? Despite what vegetius says, today the common view seems to be that the pilum was phased out long before the end of the 4th century.
Actually, Vegetius writes how the spiculum was the successor of the Pilum (arguing that the pilum itself was no longer used) and had the same characteristics as the pilum. The spiculum, therefore, was a heaving throwing spear and no thrusting spear - as the pilum had not been that.

Ammianus' use of the generic word 'pili' tells us nothing, he also uses words like 'gladius' for sword and 'Parthians' for Persians. that's no problem, but it's no proof that the Rom,ans actually fought Parthians by. 367 with the gladius and the pilum.

I cannot agree with you on this Robert.

Vegetius was using a mixture of older military manuals and current practice when he wrote his Epitome, which he admits in his text. He may well have only seen unarmoured Gothic troops where he lived, they were stationed all over the Empire between 390 and 420AD which is the date range historians place his book. The Gothic infantry on the pen and ink drawings of the Column of Arcadius and the Column of Theodosius show the Goths as mostly unarmoured.

He does not say the pilum was no longer in use, he stated that it was rarely used, the troops instead using the Spiculum, which was a spear of over six feet in lenth..

Many people point to the use of words such as Gladius, Parthian etc within Ammianus as 'evidence' of 'classising'. I would dispute this claim. He only u ses 'pilis' twice in the entire surviving books, yet there are many more references to contemporary weapons such as Spiculum and Veruta. How do we know that the troops still did not refer to their swords as the older 'gladius', are there not modern examples of this even today? (some pilots still refer to their aircraft as 'kites', which is a reference to the old 'string bag' aircraft of WW1 for example). As to the term 'Parthian', are there no modern examples where people are still referred to by a much older name? I can think of Iranian people who still refer to themselves as 'Persians' being a prime example (I have Iranian friends who go to great lengths to make sure I call them Persian).

The depictions of what I assume to be the Spiculum I have seen on Late Roman monumental works, artworks, mosaics shows a spear about six and a half feet long thatlooks equally able to be thrust as to be thrown, which would back up Ammianus stating that the Infantry at Adrianopolis retaining them in combat for so long that '...they became shattered through repeated blows'.

[Timianus]

fascinating discussion!

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Hi Adrian,

Vegetius again? He also said that the army dropped the use of armour, didn't he? Despite what vegetius says, today the common view seems to be that the pilum was phased out long before the end of the 4th century.
Actually, Vegetius writes how the spiculum was the successor of the Pilum (arguing that the pilum itself was no longer used) and had the same characteristics as the pilum. The spiculum, therefore, was a heaving throwing spear and no thrusting spear - as the pilum had not been that.

Ammianus' use of the generic word 'pili' tells us nothing, he also uses words like 'gladius' for sword and 'Parthians' for Persians. that's no problem, but it's no proof that the Rom,ans actually fought Parthians by. 367 with the gladius and the pilum.

I cannot agree with you on this Robert.

Vegetius was using a mixture of older military manuals and current practice when he wrote his Epitome, which he admits in his text. He may well have only seen unarmoured Gothic troops where he lived, they were stationed all over the Empire between 390 and 420AD which is the date range historians place his book. The Gothic infantry on the pen and ink drawings of the Column of Arcadius and the Column of Theodosius show the Goths as mostly unarmoured.

He does not say the pilum was no longer in use, he stated that it was rarely used, the troops instead using the Spiculum, which was a spear of over six feet in lenth..

Many people point to the use of words such as Gladius, Parthian etc within Ammianus as 'evidence' of 'classising'. I would dispute this claim. He only u ses 'pilis' twice in the entire surviving books, yet there are many more references to contemporary weapons such as Spiculum and Veruta. How do we know that the troops still did not refer to their swords as the older 'gladius', are there not modern examples of this even today? (some pilots still refer to their aircraft as 'kites', which is a reference to the old 'string bag' aircraft of WW1 for example). As to the term 'Parthian', are there no modern examples where people are still referred to by a much older name? I can think of Iranian people who still refer to themselves as 'Persians' being a prime example (I have Iranian friends who go to great lengths to make sure I call them Persian).

The depictions of what I assume to be the Spiculum I have seen on Late Roman monumental works, artworks, mosaics shows a spear about six and a half feet long thatlooks equally able to be thrust as to be thrown, which would back up Ammianus stating that the Infantry at Adrianopolis retaining them in combat for so long that '...they became shattered through repeated blows'.

I have to agree with VV here, all the depictions I've seen of the Spiculum show it was like a Pilum in that it had a steel shaft, but had a leaf bladed head and was rigid. Althouhg I think that it was replaced by a shorter (8-foot maybe) version of the Contus in the 4th/5th centuries.

I think I saw a reference to darts in Ammianus, but I'd have to check the original latin text and my translated copy.

[Domen]

(Sorry, no TRW head hurlers)

Well, some individual warriors could come up with an idea of hurling heads of dead enemies towards living enemies. We know that various things were being hurled, thrown and shot towards the sieging force by the besieged (and inversely) during various sieges throughout ages (not only heads, also rotting corpses of men and animals, often corpses of people who died of epidemic disease). So the idea of some men hurling heads is not that bad. The idea of entire unit of head hurlers is already strange. But the most ridiculous thing is that these heads have an armour-piercing (sic!) bonus in Rome TW :!:

The idea that a head is good for penetrating armour... what do they smoke in CA?! :mrgreen:

If anything, head hurlers should have an effect on enemy morale, spreading fear.

[Frank]

I would not look that much to the weapons. Both were pretty much capable to hack the others into pieces. The composition of the armies would be very different:

Let's assume a typical composition of 25.000 men. The Imperial Augustean Army has perhaps
- more heavy infantry (12000 vs. 8000)
- perhaps roughly equal amount of light infantry (8.000 vs. 7000)
- less archers (1000 vs. 3000)
- less field artillery (0 vs. 1000)
- more light cavalry (4000 vs. 2000)
- less mounted archers (0 vs. 3000)
- less heavy cavalry (0 vs 1000)

Honestly, I have no clue, who would win. These armies are just too different beasts. It is all about tactics and the generals. Remember Pompeius superior army against Julius Caesar!

One question is, will the imperial heavy infantry killing machine break the late roman lines, before the late roman cavalry can rout the imperial cavalry? Or will this imperial commander come up with a genious plan, rout the mounted archers and make the cataphracts easy targets for the light cavalry? Or will the lanciarii and archers of the late roman army stop the infantry charge of the imperials with waves of arrows, javelins, and ballista bolts before they even come into pilum-range? Or, ... and don't forget the weather, the gods and what they had for breakfast.

The imperial commander would perhaps say: "Holy shit, this looks like the Parthians have invented a decent infantry!"
The late roman commander: "God help us: Well organized West-Germans with good standardized armor and weapons should not exist!"

For both guys, this must be the strangest and most frightening sight ever.

[Antonius Insulae]

I know the legions couldn't do much against the Macedonian phalanx.

That is not true. In the first battle of Pydna, 168 BCE, Roman legions annihilated Macedonian phalanx. Romans had 29 000 soldiers, Macedonians had 44 000. Romans lost a little over 1000 men, about 3% of their troops, Macedonians lost 25 000 men, 57% of theirs. That was a decisive victory for Romans, and it practically ended the Macedonian wars, and after that, Macedonia became a Roman province. King Perseus of Macedonia was captured, paraded in a triumph in Rome and then imprisoned. Romans were commended by Lucius Aemilius Paullus.
The battle of Pydna is a great example how flexible Roman manipular tactic won over stiff Macedonian phalanx. Legionaries going between the long sarissas and then piercing the phalangites with their gladii at close quarters.