01-25-2006, 11:22 PM
Quote:Could it be a factor considering the transformation of the roman army (also Pilum & Gladius) that by the 2th century A.D the roman empire had reached it´s largest proportions and somehow the original fervour of the legions had died out gradually by the following decades.
I mean that from then on the legions focused mainly on quarding the frontiers of the empire and gradually the high-point impetus of the expansion and that also had some effects on the army and it`s socio/political culture of making war?
This is a bit of a digression, but ...
I don't think this is a factor in the change of equipment. The main problem with the legions (and the Empire) in the late 2nd century was plague. This was a particularly difficult period to keep legions up to strength.
However, the political will for major expansion was still present as late as the reign of Marcus Aurelius. I read that expansion was the purpose behind his raising of two new legions. Had he lived to carry out his ambitions I think it would've been great for the Empire.
I think the Romans should have taken all of modern Germany, Poland, and the Carpathian Mountains. That would've made a much more securer border because you have a much shorter frontier plus the Mountains which have only a few passes or gaps that need to be blocked and guarded by relatively few troops. The problem of course is that the Romans would've needed time to assimilate the new peoples brought into the Empire so that you don't get revolts springing up from behind the new frontier.
Oh the other hand, they wouldn't need as many troops to guard the border, but they would probably need a bigger fleet to partrol the Baltic Sea.
Jaime
