I have an important question why did they completely change the shape of their shield from square to round? And how it was better than the The square shield
I think that "victory" for the republic era(or later, young imperium era) romans wasnt the same "victory" for late western roman era. In young Rome, romans would not considered victory against barbarians a simply battle win and let em to go home. Remember Cartago, Filistinia or gauls......... Romans would considere a victory a total and absolut victory, enemy aniquilation, survivors enslavemd and to put a puppet or romanized system in enemies land.
Not many people understand that Germanic people of the late 3rd century AD were much more developed than their ancestors, many living on the other side of limes were affected by latin culture and had served as mercenaries, by then they already had better armour and weapons, knew better tactics and employed political schemes like never before. Goths had confederation of peoples living with them, they also developed formidable cavalry. Germania proper was developing and more and more people lived there. Rome itself held on to that pressure for a very long time
Lol that's a load of s*** white people are trying to sell to better their history. They were hill folk who worshiped forest gods, had zero political system except what amounts to a chief I bet you think they were also peaceful too
@bastiat Trajan ? You probably mean Aurelian. Also the gallic empire failed to hold on to Spain, and the battle between the central empire and gallic empire was merely a formality. In it's short lifespan it had already changed 3 emperors.
The lines of the border became blurred culturally too, with soldiers and generals having relatives both sides of the border. Not just the germanics, but the Romans too.
Early Roman empire army was primarily an expeditionary force focused on the conquest of foreign lands. Late Roman empire army switched to a more defensive role. Change in role and structure necessitates a change in equipment
The legions became a thing before the Roman Empire, you talk about the roman phalanx system durning the Republican era wich is an altered version of the Greek phalanx with a third line, Triarii, Principes and Hastatii. The reform happend to counter the barbarian attacks in the north, asia and Africa, Rome was on it’s way to collapse when the Legionnare system replaced the old way. I recommend Marian reform by Kings and Generals.
It might also be that armies that do go and invade other peoples tend to be read about more and exploits told about them. Defensive armies are rarely covered so much or given such praise, and are only talked about when they fail. Just seems to be some bias that exists about such things.
"They mostly destroyed themselves" - sums it up perfectly. Though a lifelong Roman historian, my focus has been mostly on the "Classical Era"; videos like this have expanded my interest into the later Empire. Well done, sir.
You should. Every day new fresco are excavated and give us enough new info to change our mind on what was precisely late roman army. We also have a lot of author describing army lifestyle and by comparing these books with those from II century or those during Maurice's era or after told us than legion order has evolve not so differently as we may expect. New statue with realistic (yes it's still possible in IV-V century) shows us precise infos on how people were dressed, for instance, officer. Sarcophago are also decorated with hunting themes with some news military design that are still no seen on reenacting event on that period. And many more discoveries. It's passionnate event more for those who studied Principa era. Domina era is wonderfull.
Courier: "I was in the 19th Legion with Varus in Germania, Caesar..." Augustus: "Was? Have you been transferred?" *Top 10 moments before Absolute Rage*
I'd like to add up - barbarian recruits and Foederatis, in time, became highly disciplined by their Roman commanders/centuriones and their descendants soon became very Romanized as well - like Flavius Bauto and the fathers of Stilicho and Aetius too, remember these men were Frankish, Vandal, and Massagetaean who became Romanized. Romans also have Romanized the Scythian scale armor and then reconstructed the concept as the Lorica Squamata.
@@dusk6159 and they even identified themselves as Romans despite them being ethnically germanic, slavic, and scythian. Also, the Romans have adopted the Scythian scale armor - hence the Romanized Lorica Squamata.
Why the one way street? As the mainline troopers became , more and more foederati, don't you think that, burnt out, tired, lied to, soldiers who may have wives, mothers, sisters, aunts, back in "true rome" imploring them to victory and rest. May have looked around them and said: 'I am strong here, amongst people who appreciate strength and victory. How many "Romans" had defected, and founded themselves in strong seats amongst the "Barbarians"?
@@josephbuckley7240 That's a post modern expectation. Not really a thing back then. The vast majority of movement would be towards more complex societies, not less.
Roman army was a formidable force which fought against the most effective army in the world: Roman army. I honestly believe that civil wars should be considered a primary reason for the fall of both Western and Eastern Roman Empires. Often outside forces managed to overrun Roman territory not with force, but with opportunity, like what happened with the Lombard invasion of Italy, or the Turkish conquest of Anatolia. Battle of Manzikert could easily be a victory, if thhey saw Turks as a major adversary instead of each other.
Another example of invaders taking opportunity of Romans experience moment of weakness was the Arab Rashidun conquests of the 7th century. Both the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sasanian Empire were both exhausted from the Roman-Persian War of 602-628.
@@RocketHarry865 still its impressive how a relatively new, inexperienced and ill equipqpped confederation of arab tribes (they have little to none experience of how to conduct large military operations, especially against other major powers, let alone 2 most powerful empires of the era) people give too much credence on the weakening of both empires to their downfall than to the muslim's own abillities to even came to blows with both empires simultaneously and came out on top think about it, no band of rabble can suddenly come out of nowhere region and osuddenly overthrow two nations that held absolute power over the regon for centuries. Also their weapons, logistics and army composititon etc were shite compared to both in each and every way
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD decades? Muhammad conquered Mecca in *629.* Muslims have been preoccupied with their Arab enemies by this time for a while and in no way shape of form have any preparation to invade both empires The prophet died in in 632. The Rashiduns have put down a massive revolt immediately after his death, (632- *633)* The first muslim action against an non Arabic power is *633,* immediately after the last remnants of apostate tribes were destroyed What "decades of preparation" are you referring to then?
@@comradekenobi6908 They have spent centuries bordering and interacting with the Romans and Sassanids/Parthians. Over that long stretch of time they like the Germanic peoples learned the Romans ways, became more advanced. These tribes by the 600s were not tribes anymore in the old fashion sense. The Arabs who came out to blitz the two weakened Empires were not just some barbarians with a desert paint scheme anymore. They were learned, And knew well how the two powers fought and had worked a long side them in past.
6:46 Really loved the movie "Hannibal" made by the BBC. Not only it was very historically accurate (specially with the roman armors), but the depictions of Hannibal and Scipio were done so amazingly, I just can't imagine a different depiction of both generals. In fact, Steven Saylor took great inspiration from this movie when he wrote about the Second Punic War for his historical novel "Roma".
In the 5th century, the western army seems to have largely avoided facing the barbarians. The route the Vandals took through Gaul largely seems to have avoided walled cities like Parisiorum (Paris). The Vandals were not able to take Carthage by siege but by tricking their way in during peacetime, possibly by using a Roman title like Dux that the emperor had given their king Gaiseric. The late army was much smaller so had to pick its battles carefully. The army of Aetius may have numbered 55,000.
1:25 "His uncle Marius was my greatest enemy, and he's got ten Marius inside him. Just look at his eyes..." *Roman dictator Sulla's concerned commentary on the boldness and steadfastness of the young Julius Caesar*
This question comes to mind: If the soldiers are using oval or round shields, does this makes the "Testudo" battle formation impractical? Because round edged shields would create gaps where the corners of the "scutum" would connect.
The Roman military of Late Antiquity was every bit the superpower army as that of the Classical era. If anything, the change in emphasis toward a more mobile army with a heavier focus on cavalry and missile made it more powerful even as a tradition of military writings allowed it to begin a more systematic (and dare I say scientific) in its approach to all aspects of generalship. The biggest problems were twofold: civil wars exhausted resources, depleted manpower, undermined legitimacy, and damaged infrastructure, and foreign threats leveled up far beyond anything faced by the Classical legions (I include Hannibal in this; he was undoubtedly brilliant, but even his army with him at its head wasn't as dangerous as many of the threats that arose later). The highly effective Parthians were replaced by the even more dangerous Sassanians. The Germans became half Romanized and adopted Roman military techniques and equipment. The steppes produced threats the likes of which Classical Rome never had to face (Huns, Avars, and more). The best indication of just how effective the army became in Late Antiquity is the fact that the eastern half of the empire successfully weathered those storms (and even survived the Arab invasions) and came out the other side with an arguably even stronger army than ever before (though again matched by threats of a scale and danger beyond anything seen previously).
This is very important, maybe even key to the whole shift in warfare: horses were steadily becoming more numerous, available, and with better breeding (meaning larger and stronger, capable of bearing an armored warrior and some armor on themselves). A few centuries before that, cavarly forces like that were not possible.
Thank you again, and I'd like to offer my thoughts on the issue. The later Empire had an array of larger scale invaders, armies that were at times essentially travelling nations accompanied by families and with a very wide variety of martial skills, including even wagons used as battle fortification (as at Adrianople). This they acquired by variously enlisting accepting elements of migrating people, plus provincials somehow alienated from the Roman state whether soldiers, officials or ship builders (the Vandals use provincial ship builders). Goths and other peoples could variously count among their forces horse archers, horse archers, lancers, heavy and light infantry. The Romans had all those types, but migrating people did not tend to come one at a time in the late Empire. Plague and the fall in temperatures has been noted by scholars and meant lands once productive and fairly easily profitable were no longer so, particularly as security deteriorated from intruders. The Romans therefore had to raise far larger forces from less resources, equipping them with armour made in the state workshops made in a simpler form than earlier centuries (say with bowl like helmets). Limitanei that proved effective could be promoted temporarily or permanently to pseudo comital or comital forces. The bigger problem for imperial Rome is that from the start it was a system that could be very prone to falling into civil war (similarly for the Republic), as it soon (after Nero) became clear than anyone could be emperor if enough troops backed them. Maximinus Thrax was of barbaric, likely Gothic origins (the Historia Augusta is too readily dismissed in the Wikipedia article which fails to note that settling Germanic or other peoples happened throughout the empire, a Thracian Goth wasn't implausible), but this one time travelling strong man impressed Septimius Severus and sufficient numbers of ordinary soldiers. It might also be noted that Roman fighting skills were long preserved in the West in localities, and holdouts like Syagrius (whom St Gregory of Tours called a king of the Romans) ruling in northern France until the Franks defeated him in the later fifth century, showed continuities even with overall economic collapse.
mail has always been the most popular armor even at the height of lorica segmentata, the 2 armors coexisted for a while til segmentata was eventually dumped, if you picked a random legionnaire from anywhere at any time he would very likely be wearing mail
Yeah, lorica segmentata looks cool, but for most purposes mail is just better. Lorica segmentata is cheaper and quicker to make than chainmail if (like the Romans) you have the ability to mass-produce metal sheets, but it's kind of awkward to wear/maintain and not as protective as it looks.
Most people don't realize that what makes the Roman army formidable wasn't the equipment or the particular tactics deployed on the battlefield, but their ability to adapt to changes in the conditions imposed by warfare, their willingness to discard old hardware and doctrines when it proved outdated and to adopt new equipment, new strategies and modalities of training and recruitment.
I am glad you uploaded this video. I myself believed that the late Roman Legions were as capable as Caesar’s or any other Legions before them. Given the odds facing the Western Roman Empire during the 3rd century crisis, the late legions were still able to keep the empire intact for another century longer. That alone deserves my respect. You sir have earned my like and subscription. Legiones Semper Paratae!!
13:15: Gotta disagree there. The fall of Rome was a series of irreversable trends that were coinciding in the destruction of the empire. To prevent the fall of Rome they needed a top down cultural reform across the entire empire in every sphere, economic, geographic, scientific, agricultural, hierarchic etc.. It doesn't matter how many troops they had, the society they were defending was broken.
Also consider that in the late roman world cavalry and cavalry archers became much more common, as in the early roman empire, infantry were the numerity of the legions foes. The early roman army was great against infantry, but as we see with Crassus and many other roman defeats against Parthia, it struggled against cavalry centric armies. With the development in stirrups, the increasing quality of horses, and the increasing cultural expertise with cavalry that other countries gained, cavalry was becoming a more powerful force. Yet the late roman empire had a decline in civic military duty, it never really embraced horse archers, and it's infantry centric armies were becoming less and less efficient. Not to mention it's once greatest advantage, it's enormous population base was in great decline because of the numerous plagues of the era. Lastly, with the decline in the average quality of roman emperors, and therefore the increase in civil wars, the roman army was always fighting an uphill battle to maintain it's borders.
Wrong in many ways, and it seems you did not even watch the video: 1-The romans defeated the Parthian and Sassanid horse archers more often than not. Crassus' defeat is overrepresented in media, the romans were able to avenge his defeat soon enough. 2-Horse archers are extremely difficult to train and field in big numbers for sedentary populations, since they require a humongous amount of training that nomads already got just by living their lifestyle. The romans implemented them well enough and even hired horse archers as foederati allies. 3-Again, even the late roman infantry based army won more often than not. It's quality did not decline, it just could not recover from defeats as quickly due to lacking manpower pool.
@@cybermidas3973 1 - That is not the case look what happened to Marcus Anthony's army when he invaded Parthia. Yes there were some roman armies that won defensive battles in rough terrain such as mountains and forests. But on the offensive the parthian army was superior in the field. 2 - Horse archers are difficult to field in large numbers, but in the late roman and early byzantine periods there are no large numbers to be had. Armies were much smaller than their predecessors. The largest problem of the late roman army was manpower, and horse archers preserve manpower, as you engage the enemy at a distance, and you can pick your battles. Exactly the romans did implement through mercenaries and regular troops, look at the romans in the early byzantine era swapping over to a majority cavalry army. But in majorians time this was not the case yet. 3 - they did win, but at what cost? the few romans who were in the army tended to perish, leading to more and more foederati being the majority of the army. Which in turn lead to more civil wars. As the foederati weren't loyal to the state, but to whoever was paying them. Also they didn't always win like they used to, look at Adrianople where an entire generation of roman soldiers was lost.
@@micahbonewell5994 1-Anthony's loss had more to do with logistics than troop inferiority. His general Ventidius managed to soundly defeat the Parthians. Shall I remind you who won that war? It was Rome. Battles on the open are overrated, wars are not won just by that, and the Romans proved it by conquering nearly half of Parthia and sacking their capital 5 times...while the latter never managed to even reach what would later be Constantinople. The roman troops were far more versatile. 2-You debunked yourself there: if horse archers are already difficult to field in large numbers for a wealthy empire, they would be even MORE difficult to field with a lesser manpower pool and lesser treasury, specially for a sedentary power. Would you have wanted the late Romans to field only 70k men in their entire empire when they needed at the very least 250k to cover all their frontiers? Even with the faster travel speeds, horses cannot just graze anywhere, hence why every horse archer invader suffered in Europe past the Hungarian basin. Horse archers are prohibitively expensive to train and field. Nomads had the advantage of living their entire lifestyle riding, hunting and raiding, which was itself training. When they sedentarized for too long, they lost their edge. Training sedentary men to fight like that was even harder, hence why it was more profitable to just hire nomads as foederati or mercenaries. Rome could simply NOT base its armies on that. False again The Byzantines were never able to field a mostly cavalry composed army, which is a popular misconception of people who parrot the 'cavalry based' mantra ot the late roman army. Cavalry became the most pwerful arm of the byzantine army, but it was always a minority, infantry was still king in numbers. 3-Mate, could you make even more irrelevant points? Sure, they did not always win....SO? Who claimed that? I didn't, I said they won more often than not, kapeech? Again, you repeat the same mistake every afficionado commits: ''look at X or Y defeat, see? The late Roman army sucked.''...but you conveniently ommit battles such as the Catalaunian plains, Strasbourg, Ctesiphon, Satala, etc. The late Roman army was very capable, if not more capable than the early one considering it had to face far more powerful foes in shorter intervals. Civil wars became a staple of Roman politics since the late republic, mate. If Rome could not field more citizens more often, that was a fault of the state, elites and emperors, not of the army itself. Too many people had been impoverished by the corupt and glutonous elites who never got tired of hoarding land. Forget about getting as many men as Scipio and Fabian could muster against Hannibal, those men owned their own lands.
I think that the military explanation for the fall of the empire is not that complicated. The roman empire was a flux that only happened because there was no organized/ centralised military power to oppose them. If we consider the territory and population of the roman empire the army was tiny. The reserves were bigger during the second punic war than Augustus professional army. After the cimbri and teutonnes where defeated they had a peacetime army and economy until the end.
@@Theodosius_fan roman emperors like tiberius ,commodes,maximinus thrax,honorius, valerian caligula, nero constantine 1 and Justinian fake reconquest .justinian traitored belsusarius .these are the emperors who destroyed rome .caracalla is mediocre he is atlealst medium ok and mediocre type .and psychopathic germanic general flavis ricimer the barbarian who killed anthemius and majorian and he unfamously sack of rome before odoacer ,alacric , gaiseric , and battle of cape bon against vandals of Africa reconquest were failed because of germanic ricimer who planned with roman traitors and sacked this plan .so and even hunnic expansions , and roman civil war are responsible for roman destruction .when the julius caesar death itself a destruction of roman .because of brutus and senators traitor .and even praetorian guards and senators this are the things the roman destruction contributed
@@Theodosius_fan and because eastern roman empure traitored more to west and support germanic invasions if west by traitor emperor zero itself responsible
@@Theodosius_fan roman empire of the west even survived until survived 7th century as a remaining states province like syagrius of scissons and julius nepoes realm of dalmatia .julius nepos even try to reconquer the rome ovietus the germanic bodyguards bastrads who killed him and west has fallen .and later franish germanic tribes who sacked the rome in 7th century
Question: Did the Romans use the circle shield and long spear or oval shield and short spear. Because sometimes I get confused of the two and get mixed
Ave Maioranus! Thank you for the wonderful and informative video! When I saw the comparison between the "classical" Legionary and the later one, a Idea struck me: Maybe the late-roman Army is also disliked, because the soldiers begin to look already like ones from the early medieaval ages or the typical Viking with chainmail, a round shield, long sword and the ocassional throwing axe. So on top of the "barbarisation" and the "ruined discipline" the late roman legions could just the wrong look to our classical-trained eye.
Excellent video, but I would like to get answers to a few related questions. You mentioned how Roman legions got transformed in the 3rd century, but you did not explain why it actually happened except for the armour. For example, they replaced pilum with a regular spear and changed their shields and swords. Why that new kind of weapon suited them better? Why did they need more cavalry instead of relying on infantry? Maybe you can point to some publication about it or perhaps, it is a good topic for a next movie :)
Hi Gordon, thanks a lot, and yes you're right, I could have gone into more detail about every piece of equipment. Here is a very good book on the topic: www.amazon.com/-/de/dp/0300068433/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&crid=3MH0PFR89M1G9&keywords=the+late+roman+army+dixon&qid=1664175710&sprefix=the+late+roman+army+dixon%2Caps%2C124&sr=8-1 In short, equipment was used, that was easier to maintain, and better adapted to use against barbarian threats. The Spiculum for example could be better used as a spear against cavalry. Cavalry was used more often since the Barbarians relied heavily on cavalry, and so the importance of cavalry had to increase in order to deal with these threats. I will make another video about the late roman soldier, and in that video I wanted to talk in more detail about the equipment. But this video was intended as a more general overview over the broad change of the army as a whole :)
I'm glad someone also raised this question. If the Roman gear wasn't transformed to cut costs or allow poorly trained barbarians to easily adapt to them as the false narrative went, why did it change so drastically when the old formula of heavy sword-shield armoured infantry be given up on?
Not an army professional issue but one item that stands out was the average Romans inability to fight anymore. Had Italy\Rome rose up to try to save its Empire like they did in the second Punic War, the Western Roman Empire would have never fallen. They had more people than at the time of the Second Punic War and the enemies could have been defeated had the Romans/Italians had more grit. Heck, they didn't even need the rest of their Empire, Italy was what took their Empire and they could have retaken it with just Italy. This is my general strategy in Total War is hold Italy (Carthage and Spain are easy to hold to with Pyrenees but often Briton, Gaul, and Illyria are lost causes until you can run off the Barbarians).
The later Roman army of the times of Constantine the Great and Majorian was very strong and effective. The main cause of the crisis was civil wars and the loss of North Africa!
People need to realize that Late Roman Armies are formidable and effective fighting forces but the reason why it wasn't able to prevent the fall of the Western Roman Empire are because of the constant civil wars that depleted the Western Roman Empire's Army It's purely political
Excellent video as always! Yes, I think the biggest reason for the collapse of the Western Roman Empire was its inability to ever adopt a peaceful and orderly succession of leadership. Civil wars in the Late Roman empire sapped their reserves of manpower and prevented them from responding to the many more military threats facing them. The Late Roman Empire's armies were quite capable up till the end of the 4th Century. I do think that the soldiers of the Roman Republic and the early to mid Empire were superior to those of the Late Empire in at least one measure. Those legionaries and the society that produced them were much better at recovering from losses than those in the Late Empire. In fact, you see this general decline in the Empire's ability to recover from its losses over time. The Late Roman Empire had a much bigger population than the Republic/Early empire but was not able to recruit as many able fighters as they could in earlier times. I would attribute this weakness to a general loss of martial spirit in the minds of the Roman citizens. This loss of martial vigor and a willingness to defend their empire was most obvious in Italy. There are reasons for this change of spirit. I'd blame the Roman aristocracy for most of them but I'll leave that discussion for another day.
Hi J L, excellent comment, thanks ! You raise some excellent points here. I wanted to make a whole video about this loss of martial vigor, because it is indeed a major contributing factor to the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
Don't forget as well J L that also in the Late Empire the military was competing against the church and civil servant offices for manpower as well, and well many people would rather take the comfy Church live or comforts of the civil servant job, than be out in the cold and mud fighting and possibly dying.
@@ignatzmeyer1978 That's a good point. The numbers are all over the place. The overall population certainly declined during the 3rd century. However, I think it had recovered a lot during the 4th century. Regardless, recruitment for the Late Roman army became harder in the late empire. That's why they started to employ Feodorati more and more.
@@jl696 I would say the Population might have been the same in both Early and Late Empire's time. But The Late had a Less willing or capable of being mobilised for war population due to factors. Or The Late did have a bigger population due to all the centuries of stable Roman peace and huge food growth in cities. But the following civil wars, famines, Invasions and plagues slowly began grinding it down.
The video meant to be about the Roman army. You went off discussing the other factors which I agree are factors such as the civil wars that didn’t help a lot. I do disagree to some extent the quality of the Roman soldiers did drop. With the reforms of making all free men citizens it turned the Roman legionaries that where heavy infantry and the auxiliary’s that were light infantry to be merged into just light infantry. Yes the others factors such as heavy Calvary coming into play and the commanders themselves but the actual quality of soldiers was lowered.
The late roman army is actually significantly more advanced. I think this is another case of Edward Gibbon one liners still dominating popular opinion.
It's probably more that the opponents leveled up while the romans didnt really evolve (much). Basically, over time they lost the edge they had over others.
The Lorica segmentata was still being used in the 300s so it wasn’t gone by 250 …. Aurelians ‘s legions were still full of men wearing the armor and so were Constantine’s although by Constantine it was a lot less and most of the guys were probably wearing mail or scale like you said.
This is still disputed, but there is good evidence that by the time of Constantine, the Lorica Segmentata was gone. You certainly refer to the relief on the Arch of Constantine, where you can see men wearing the Lorica. However, it is thought that this is just a reused portion from another, earlier arch from the 2nd century AD. The Lorica disappeared at some time in the 3rd century AD, so pinpointing the exact date is difficult. 250 AD is a scholarly consensus, but of course some men could have worn it here and there even in 290 AD or 310 AD. 250 AD was meant as a date where large scale use started to fade.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian I think of it like this. The M-16 is largely being phased out of service and the M4 is replacing it in all capacity. Yeah there’s so many M-16s that some Marines are still carrying M 16s. Plate armor was the go to armor for more than 200 years so there had to be some guys still wearing it in a decent number in aurelians time.
You are incorrectly using informations from some most recent finds nor of which however claims what you do-that it was commonly used form of armour.In fact all scholarly texts logically assume it was rarely seen type of armour by that point.It was still around but likely not common as between 50-150 AD which saw its height of usage.Archeology makes its lack quite apparent and so do Roman artworks of that time.We only know it was still limitedly around and that is all.Nothing points on its massive or even significant presense.
@@stevenjames6830 There are actually many known examples where certain types of Roman equipment were used long after their historical prime and even single pieces which were clearly used for very long time,still what I wrote above is valid.
I've always thought there was an economic collapse in the western Roman Empire rather any particular military defeats. As you said Aetius could still defeat Atilla the Hun.
Thank you for this video! I have just discovered your channel and it is fascinating. Much like the namesake of your channel, Emperor Majorian, there was so much more to the late Western Roman empire than popular culture might suggest. Keep up the great work!
I think the army, man for man, wasn't as weak as some say, but you could argue that the society on which it was based had been severely weakened. I mean, the Roman Republic lost army after army during the Punic wars, and they just kept raising new ones. Similarly during the civil wars from Caesar/Pompey up to the final victory of Octavian (and beyond: Teutoburg Forest comes to mind). Once you had the loss of population from the plagues before the third century crisis, and everything that followed, though, you hollow out the economy. That forces you to downgrade from the more protective segmenta and scutum to hamata and oval shield. Upgrading the cavalry was a good idea, though, so it wasn't all bad. Even so, the resulting army couldn't take a punch and get back up, anymore. It had become brittle.
The army still took punch after punch for 150 years and went on. Mursa major, the battle fo samarra and Adrianople all happend in a span of 30 years yet the empire endured and still won many victories after. The western army was heavily depleted after mursa major yet still made the germans their bitch under julian and valentinian.
The Hamata was not bad as Armour at all, it was thick chainmail and the Romans did conquer most of the Empire wearing it as well before the Lorica arrived.
Yes, he doesn't mention it in the video, but Rome was drained of cash during the last couple of centuries. The barbarian invasions had become so gratuitous it was like holding the ocean back with a sponge (like our southern border today). Walls had to be built around every city and town, at colossal expense and manpower, further draining resources. Barbarians then would cut off water and food supplies to the towns, forcing people out where they would then be slaughtered. The truth is, this RUclips channel is the product of a radicalized Millennial and reflects the pro-"diversity" bias we see in all 21st century "news." But in reality, the barbarian invasions were devastating to Rome, their infestation and reneging on immigration contracts cost the empire dearly.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD Exactly, plenty of soldiers still wore the mail at the height of Lorica too, it didn’t really play much of a part in how much they conquered.
@@THISISLolesh I heard that Roman troops preferred the Chainmail to the Lorica Segementa due to ease of maintenance and putting on. It still was able to stop most blades from slicing through, and piercing weapons struggled to penetrate through the chainmail plus the layers behind the armour.
I think it could also be said that the enemy in the 1st century was nowhere near as effective as they were in the 3rd 4th and 5th century. After 400 years of fighting Romans they got better.
Fratricidal civil war / usurpations were a big issue, hiking up the costs of militaries (replace manpower that had rebelled, pay off troops to retain loyalty, replace lost equipment, etc.). And, loss of territory was another big issue, removing people, cultivated land, resources and revenues that were essential for supporting a standing army; and the downward spiral started with the Goths securing a negotiated peace in 380s, and became critical with the Vandals seizing North Africa in the 430s (really hobbled the empire in the west). But, the Roman Empire as a whole still had Persia to contend with, which at times led to costly and inconclusive wars, although not sure there were any decisive defeats in the fifth century like in those experienced in the third (Barbalissos, and Edessa and the capture of Valens). Now there are several other considerations: - The Romans seem to struggle or demonstrate less military capability against the Goths at the end of the Fourth Century, aside from losing the battle of Adrianople. Maybe because a number of Goths and formations had defected from Roman armies, and maybe because a combination of fleeing the Huns and then revolting against Rome helped Gothic leadership to organize and mobilize the various peoples/followers of theirs in ways better than was seen in the past? All conjecture, but how Theodosius ended the war with the Goths in 382 was not great - left the Goths in control of territory, under their own customs, autonomous for all intents and purposes. - The shift to the comitatenses and emphasis on key field armies with significant cavalry elements may have not unfolded/evolved so well, proved very costly, and not always yield decisive advantages against particular opponents, thinking notably the Persians and their allies in the Middle East, and against the Huns. - With respect to the Huns, the Eastern Roman Empire in the Balkans, and later the Western Roman Empire in Gaul, Italy and areas east of Italy seem to have great difficulty conducting campaigns and winning battles. Aside from the Catalaunian Plains battle and the invasion of Dengezich in 468/469, doesn't seem like Roman generals were able to gain a clear win against the Huns, or really confront them effectively, while the Huns were able to besiege and seize cities, along with securing battle field success between 441 and 452 (so one decade, at the end of the Western Roman Empire basically).
I wish somebody would make a video of the chronology of the Roman Army and their uniforms and formations, starting around 600 BC (the time of the kings and war bands) all the way to the late Byzantine or even the Holy Roman Empire
...holy Roman empire have nothing to do with actual Roman state.It was completely newly established polity only several centuries after fall of the Roman west,it ignored continous existence of actual eastern half of the actual ancient Roman Empire in the east and its core terriory(and most of its territory)were never even part of the Roman empire or only very briefly ."Byzantine" on the other hand was its direct continuation.Including very direct continuation of its military and traditions.
There is a book called Strategikon that was one of the reasons to the bizantine droped the legion system and adopted a new medieval army. If the tagmata system was inferior to the legions the Eastern Romans wouldn't survive for another millenia.
As always, excellent video Maioranus !!!. From my point of view, the Roman legions "lost" in armor, while the clibanarii/cataphractii, gained in armor and as those times required, cavalry was the best weapon, better than infantry. And that's another point, it is much more expensive to maintain an army of mostly knights than one of mostly infantry. It is noteworthy that the legionnaire's armor reached, from my point of view, its pinnacle in the third century, especially its helmets but in the middle of that century, unfortunately the helmets became of lesser quality
You are very welcome Amicus ! Yes, that is a common view these days. It's mostly based on Vegetius' work "De Re Militari", but he was super biased against the late Roman army, and this view kind of became the norm.
Don't forget in the later Centuries there were "Fabricae" state arms factories mass producing military equipment, much better than having you buy your own equipment to be able to serve like in earlier times
What I always found impressive was Rome's ability to raise new legions after losing some hard. Think Hannibal. Those legions were not strong, effective and superior; or at least not to the Carthaginians. I also find it funny how reenactors can manage to get fitting helmets while professional actors have like 3cm between the cheek plates and their cheeks. Can probably knock those plates and misplace the helment.
Not convinced. The late soldiers were not bad by any mean, especially the cavalry regiments, and certainly were more advanced in some areas, however they were indeed inferior to the post-marian legions. Both the mindset and overall quality of early-ish armies were superior. Not saying they would fare better in the same situations as late armies, the empire has changed and so did it's needs but I firmly believe the military aspect of the roman empire has devolved over the years and lost what made it so unique. I can't shake the feeling that the late armies did so well because it's normal that big empire can field good armies, instead oif the military itself being great.
I think the western Roman army was able to survive until the fall of the empire because there were times when they had good leaders who knew what they were doing because the tactics and strategy and organization the troops but I think the main weakness was the fact that you’ve mentioned In one of your videos that the average Roman citizen did not want to join the army and if they had it would’ve provided extra manpower and resources to keep the western empire afloat a lot longer
interesting ;Late Roman army was mainly composed by germanics Ppl .Only 30% Of late romans armies was composed by native Italians it could explain lot of things! Stiliko himself was Vandal like many armies mainly composed of mercenaries or auxiliaries in history you can won many battles but not maintain an empire .
I've often wondered what the world would have looked like, if the Roman Empire had not fallen and the Dark Ages/Medieval era not happened. As it was, we lost 1,000 years but of course the Gothic culture of late Medieval times was fascinating in its own way.
It's possible that a severe stagnation could have occured. Look at the pre-Columbian civilizations: they existed for thousands of years, yet by the time of Columbus some of them didn't even have basic things like a wheel or writing like the Incas.
@@actin9294 That's possible, though the pattern of the West was generally more progressive than that of third world stocks. Still, anything could have happened--we'll never know.
@@actin9294 a lot of them had writting and they a major difference, no cattle and horses limited any expansion. Only the Inca with their amazing messangers managed to sustain a big empire
It did not help dividing the empire into the west and east either. Not to mention alot of its core culture and believes faded as Rome no longer became the heart of the empire, as well as how Christianity took over. It is in truth so many things that contributed to the downfall, it almost is just law that everything must come to an end eventually.
One other point you could have mentioned was the barbarian armies of the late Empire were more advanced in terms of arms and tactics then the typical Guals and Britons Caesar faced down.
In my opinion the square scutum was much better than the late oval shield. For instance i believe that the early scutum was effective in facing the phalanx and it protected from face to knees and once you are shielded from sarissas you can close in to use the gladius which forces the enemy to drop his sarissa and use his sword. But still there were too many barbarians to deal with in the late period. But i wouldn't call the late legions 'weak and ineffective' the early legions were better though.
people forget the late roman armies were winning battles all over, but illness, and civil war depleted manpower over time so a crushing defeat couldn't be replaced. It was indeed... Crushing.
The Roman Empire during its expansion phase was so strong because of the victories, and the loot it acquired from the new lands it conquered. After it settled in the so called pax romana, it begun a long and slow economic decline, fueled by inflation, civil wars, and incompetent emperors. Rome ultimatelly failed because of economic downturn. It didnt have the funds to muster the massive armies it needed to defend itself. Same goes for most empires. They are all strong as long as new loot pours in from victories. Once there is no loot there is no money for war, so they collapse. Take Mongol Empire, Ottoman Empire etc.
This led to another question: Why are there so many usurpers in the first place? Where did the Roman society failed to satisfy them? Also, which one do you considered to be the true Third Rome between the Ottoman Empire and the Tsardom of Russia?
For the Third Rome question:I dont want to choose.The Ottomans were straight up invaders who conquered the territory(like Odoacer or the lombards) and the tsardom had nothing in common besides the religion and a marriage tie(and we know dinasty mattered close to zero in the byzantine empire, usurpers were plenty).
@@haxel8929 Mehmed has descent of the last Roman dynasty too. Also, Sultan Suleiman claimed that through the right of conquest with Constantinople as his capital, the Ottoman Empire is the true Third Rome in an attempt to debunk Charles' claim as Caesar that was bestowed to him by the Pope and that of Grand Prince Vasily III, who likes to diplomatically referred himself as the Tsar to the Ottomans and the Western Europeans alike. Of course, there are no definitive answers. It is depending on the point of view.
Since the crisis of the 3rd century, command position started to decay. There was evidence form burial stones at the start how you had to have 10/15 years of experience but after the 3rd century it was simply handed out to anyone who could read.
They relied too heavily on German mercenaries who in many instances proved themselves to be lazy and incompetent soldiers, not to mention having dubious loyalties when fighting their barbarian brethren.
The problem was not with the Roman Military but with internal corruption within various levels of government administration from bureaucrats on up to the Imperial household. The Roman Military had a solid foundation the only major problem was that by the third century and beyond lackies by the score were given key commands were they should have stayed completely out of Military service altogether and remained as bureaucrats. The early mistakes of the Empire were never learned when Augustus appointed Varius as commander of legionary forces in Germania and were virtually slaughterd at the Teuteberg Forest by Herman. That was one of the internal weaknesses of the Roman Military was the occasional appointment of command by an individual whom had no right to wear the garb of Military command let alone the garb of rat catcher in Herculaneum.
At one time it was common to dismiss the late Roman army as inferior, but this was simplistic, as Maiorianus so well explains in this video. But a couple of points should be made: 1. I doubt the late Roman army had the same esprit de corps as the pre-3rd century army had. When everyone & his brother were citizens (post Caracalla), this was bound to have a negative effect on morale compared to the earlier centuries when Roman citizenship was more restricted and more valuable. 2. The all-too frequent civil wars, plus the epidemics of the later centuries, undoubtedly reduced the available manpower. The Tetrarchs (Diocletian et al.) each had an army. That's 4 armies. After Julian's disastrous Persian campaign, the new emperors, Valentinian & Valens, each had an army too. That's 2 armies. Seems like the Romans were short by 2 armies.
The changes were need due to the lack of troops and the need for speed on redeployment but head to head on a battlefield it's no contest to the old guard
I have an important question why did they completely change the shape of their shield from square to round? And how it was better than the The square shield
I love your channel, but this video is questionable... Your argument is that ease of manufacturing/maintenance/deployment gives a logistical advantage to the Late Empire. Quantity over quality. But that rarely is a winning warfare strategy in history... And an empire in better shape would have had the same logistical capabilities of the Late Empire, plus high quality equipment. Quantity AND quality. 6:45 Bad examples... - During the Punic wars Rome was the much superior land force, and Hannibal's brilliant tactics constituted a temporary halt to Rome's dominance. - The Battle of Teutoburg was lost due to the betrayal of Arminius, not because the legions couldn't fight properly. - And the Marcomanni (plus their allies) managed to beat the Romans when their main army was engaged elsewhere. Either way, these were all temporary halts to the dominance of Early Rome. We can't really say the same of Late Rome, where the empire was pierced deep by anyone, was forced to pay tributes to avoid further raids, lost many open-field battles, didn't have the numerical advantage and largely lost any equipment advantage.
People tend to forget that the Romans as people and empire existed for more than 2000+ (750BC-1453AD) Years so the roman army had changed during history so many times its hard to even imagine the development from the early phalanxes that rome had before the samnite wars to the hastati principes triarii , to the early legions of Marius and Caesar to the late empire legions of Trajan and Hadrian to the Comitatensis and limetanei of Aetius to the later eastern roman empire troops 600+AD and so on and so on to even using canons , with the passage of time things change and never stay the same and the people change things depending on their needs their resources and circumstances and this circle never ends .
I believe once their enemies understood their tactics they could adjust to them. Alot of their enemies served in the Roman armies and learned their tactics. I believe that was their downfall.👍
Vegetius recommends a general should only fight when he really needs to - a strategy unthinkable in the classic era. Even Stilicho followed this doctrine. The battle at Faesulae (one of the greatest Roman victories ever) was a masterpiece of diplomacy, strategy, Roman logistics - and the use of Hunnic mercenaries. Demandt argues that in the 4th and 5th century, barbarian tactics and equipment had become equal to Roman ones, and Roman advantage had been reduced to discipline and logistics. However the latter did not apply to mercenaries, who gradually replaced the Roman units.
The reason why the late Republican and early Imperial army recovered after Trebia, Lake Trasimine, Cannae, early Civil Wars, and Teutoberg Forest was the impressive population Italy had at the time. Lowering of population by the Antonine Plague and climate change causing lowered agricultural yields caused increased dependence on Germanic units where Frigidus and Adrianople spelled the death knell of the empire.
I'd say a major part that made the late Roman empire soldiers worse was due less training and loyalty towards the empire. The emphasis of cavalry was another bad decision as cavalry was expensive and took long to raise. It also didn't solve the heart of the empire's problems that internal defense was lacking, hence why groups like the Vandals were able to rampage throughout the empire all the way to Africa.
The late republican/early principate legions are not the end all and be all of military organization, they were adopted in order to meet the needs of the time. In those days, battles were almost always carried by infantry while cavalry and missile units were relatively weak and carried a secondary role; the pace of battle was (relatively) slower as two infantry lines would meet head on and slug it out for long hours in tight formations. The classical legion was the ultimate machine for an era of infantry-dominated warfare. But the classical legion was discarded as it became increasingly useless against the arrival of far more mobile enemies. By the third century AD, cavalry and missile units had grown considerably stronger and could now make or break battles. Infantry decreased in its effectiveness and importance (still important, but needed stronger cavalry and missile units to support them so they wouldn't get wiped out) while the pace of battle picked up. In a sense, medieval warfare was already coming into focus, and the Romans needed to focus on their cavalry to compete, especially as "barbarians" poured across the frontier and wars against the Sassanids continued incessantly. Nevertheless, as the empire eroded and mass migrations began slowing down, the speed of war changed once more. Cavalry and missiles were immensely important, but now siege warfare was the name of the game, as medieval kingdoms neither had the money nor men to risk battle in the open field. Stronger cavalry and missiles were needed in case pitched battles happened, but medieval armies generally avoided them as much as possible. Offensive, pitched, infantry-dominated warfare might not've seriously returned until the introduction of firearms, especially as they became more effective. Obviously, strong cavalry would be blown to pieces against firearms and artillery, and the bow was made redundant. The heyday of pike warfare would also be cut short with the growing lethality of firearms. The medieval kingdoms became increasingly centralized domains in order to ensure they had both the money and manpower to fight gun warfare and withstand the loses it produced. Europe began a manic conquest of the rest of the world for many reasons, but one was simply to raid it, to ensure it had the resources to wage war against each other back home.
I cannot speak about the quality of the late Roman army, but one thing that is clear is that there were far fewer troops that they were able to deploy. Field armies were smaller than previously and it was apparently much harder to regenerate them. The republican Roman army could suffer disaster after disaster against Hannibal and still win the war. The high Empire could suffer defeats such as the Teutoberg forest and it was no more than a setback. But the late Roman empire could not absorb defeats such as Adrianople without being gravely weakened and unable to regenerate forces for many years afterwards. It's not entirely clear to me why this was, but it appears to be the key to understanding the military defeat and dissolution of the western empire.
In the early 5th century, Stilicho held the Western Roman Empire together. His murder advocated by the Roman elite, spelled the doom for the city of Rome in 410 AD.
Nevertheless, it is still true that the barbarians conquered the Romans being outnumbered by dozens of times. In contrast, during the Republic, Rome was able to easily restore its armies no matter what defeats it suffered.
Early legions were so formidable not bacause they were super well equipped or trained, but because rome could afford to just raise new ones as soon as they lost their previous legions. Hannibal kept chopping up hydras heads but they kept springing up new
The late Roman army was the best they could do at the time, with constant crisis and the lack of manpower. The battle of Adrianople in 376 saw the death of an emperor (Valens) and the loss of about 18,000 troops to the Goths, and is widely considered as the begining of the end of the classic Roman world. By comparison, the Roman Republic - a much smaller state, not even in control of the whole of Italy yet - lost five times that number at Cannae against Hannibal, and kept fighting.
I think there’s more than just saying one type of army was stronger or weaker than the other. There were fundamental and cultural changes that happened, otherwise the standards, shield art, and symbols changed between the early imperial and later Roman armies.
These soldiers looking so clean shaven...how does THAT happen when out in the field? They stopped to take the time from marching, foraging, to gather water that is need for drinking to shave so closely? With no soap it had to be tricky. Hadrian had a beard; who not the soldiers too?
![True Size of a Byzantine Army [c. 900 AD] 3D DOCUMENTARY](/img/1.gif)
Grab Atlas VPN for just $1.99/month before the deal expires: get.atlasvpn.com/Maiorianus (30-day money-back guarantee) 😉
they trained the barbarians in tactics for centuries.
I have an important question why did they completely change the shape of their shield from square to round?
And how it was better than the
The square shield
I think that "victory" for the republic era(or later, young imperium era) romans wasnt the same "victory" for late western roman era.
In young Rome, romans would not considered victory against barbarians a simply battle win and let em to go home.
Remember Cartago, Filistinia or gauls......... Romans would considere a victory a total and absolut victory, enemy aniquilation, survivors enslavemd and to put a puppet or romanized system in enemies land.
This One Got VPN AND HONOURABLE LORD🛡️ MEMBERSHIP of 🛡️NOVA #SPQR ✍️
What about Gaius Octavian August, would he have used this VPN?
Not many people understand that Germanic people of the late 3rd century AD were much more developed than their ancestors, many living on the other side of limes were affected by latin culture and had served as mercenaries, by then they already had better armour and weapons, knew better tactics and employed political schemes like never before. Goths had confederation of peoples living with them, they also developed formidable cavalry. Germania proper was developing and more and more people lived there. Rome itself held on to that pressure for a very long time
It could be said that the Germanics were developing faster than the stagnating Romans and that made them dangerous.
Lol that's a load of s*** white people are trying to sell to better their history. They were hill folk who worshiped forest gods, had zero political system except what amounts to a chief
I bet you think they were also peaceful too
@bastiat Trajan ? You probably mean Aurelian.
Also the gallic empire failed to hold on to Spain, and the battle between the central empire and gallic empire was merely a formality.
In it's short lifespan it had already changed 3 emperors.
tako je vuče
The lines of the border became blurred culturally too, with soldiers and generals having relatives both sides of the border. Not just the germanics, but the Romans too.
Early Roman empire army was primarily an expeditionary force focused on the conquest of foreign lands. Late Roman empire army switched to a more defensive role. Change in role and structure necessitates a change in equipment
Very good point.
The legions became a thing before the Roman Empire, you talk about the roman phalanx system durning the Republican era wich is an altered version of the Greek phalanx with a third line, Triarii, Principes and Hastatii.
The reform happend to counter the barbarian attacks in the north, asia and Africa, Rome was on it’s way to collapse when the Legionnare system replaced the old way.
I recommend Marian reform by Kings and Generals.
It might also be that armies that do go and invade other peoples tend to be read about more and exploits told about them.
Defensive armies are rarely covered so much or given such praise, and are only talked about when they fail. Just seems to be some bias that exists about such things.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD The Victor writes the History.
@@josephbuckley7240 Not all the time, And secondly even victorious defensive armies don't get the credit they deserve.
"They mostly destroyed themselves" - sums it up perfectly.
Though a lifelong Roman historian, my focus has been mostly on the "Classical Era"; videos like this have expanded my interest into the later Empire. Well done, sir.
Sums it up wrong, a lot of (((foreign))) interference
You should. Every day new fresco are excavated and give us enough new info to change our mind on what was precisely late roman army. We also have a lot of author describing army lifestyle and by comparing these books with those from II century or those during Maurice's era or after told us than legion order has evolve not so differently as we may expect.
New statue with realistic (yes it's still possible in IV-V century) shows us precise infos on how people were dressed, for instance, officer.
Sarcophago are also decorated with hunting themes with some news military design that are still no seen on reenacting event on that period.
And many more discoveries.
It's passionnate event more for those who studied Principa era. Domina era is wonderfull.
Courier: "I was in the 19th Legion with Varus in Germania, Caesar..."
Augustus: "Was? Have you been transferred?"
*Top 10 moments before Absolute Rage*
QUINTILIUS VARUS GIVE ME BACK MY LEGIONS!
The Senate: "So, Gaius Terentius Varro, how was your day as commander in chief ?"
@@ottovonbismarck2443
Varro: "You know? I think Scipio wouldn't be that bad of a general, to be honest"
Senators: 😐
No one does pompous authoritarian rage outburst like Brian Blessed
I'd like to add up - barbarian recruits and Foederatis, in time, became highly disciplined by their Roman commanders/centuriones and their descendants soon became very Romanized as well - like Flavius Bauto and the fathers of Stilicho and Aetius too, remember these men were Frankish, Vandal, and Massagetaean who became Romanized.
Romans also have Romanized the Scythian scale armor and then reconstructed the concept as the Lorica Squamata.
Indeed, very much a success of romanization
@@dusk6159 and they even identified themselves as Romans despite them being ethnically germanic, slavic, and scythian.
Also, the Romans have adopted the Scythian scale armor - hence the Romanized Lorica Squamata.
Why the one way street? As the mainline troopers became , more and more foederati, don't you think that, burnt out, tired, lied to, soldiers who may have wives, mothers, sisters, aunts, back in "true rome" imploring them to victory and rest. May have looked around them and said: 'I am strong here, amongst people who appreciate strength and victory. How many "Romans" had defected, and founded themselves in strong seats amongst the "Barbarians"?
@@josephbuckley7240 That's a post modern expectation. Not really a thing back then. The vast majority of movement would be towards more complex societies, not less.
@@valorwarrior7628 They were romans so as Paul the Apostle was roman. He had roman citizen rights.
Roman army was a formidable force which fought against the most effective army in the world: Roman army.
I honestly believe that civil wars should be considered a primary reason for the fall of both Western and Eastern Roman Empires. Often outside forces managed to overrun Roman territory not with force, but with opportunity, like what happened with the Lombard invasion of Italy, or the Turkish conquest of Anatolia. Battle of Manzikert could easily be a victory, if thhey saw Turks as a major adversary instead of each other.
Another example of invaders taking opportunity of Romans experience moment of weakness was the Arab Rashidun conquests of the 7th century. Both the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sasanian Empire were both exhausted from the Roman-Persian War of 602-628.
@@RocketHarry865 still its impressive how a relatively new, inexperienced and ill equipqpped confederation of arab tribes (they have little to none experience of how to conduct large military operations, especially against other major powers, let alone 2 most powerful empires of the era)
people give too much credence on the weakening of both empires to their downfall than to the muslim's own abillities to even came to blows with both empires simultaneously and came out on top
think about it, no band of rabble can suddenly come out of nowhere region and osuddenly overthrow two nations that held absolute power over the regon for centuries. Also their weapons, logistics and army composititon etc were shite compared to both in each and every way
@@comradekenobi6908 Well these tribes were not tribes anymore really, and spent decades working for the two powers before this invasion.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD decades? Muhammad conquered Mecca in *629.*
Muslims have been preoccupied with their Arab enemies by this time for a while and in no way shape of form have any preparation to invade both empires
The prophet died in in 632. The Rashiduns have put down a massive revolt immediately after his death, (632- *633)*
The first muslim action against an non Arabic power is *633,* immediately after the last remnants of apostate tribes were destroyed
What "decades of preparation" are you referring to then?
@@comradekenobi6908 They have spent centuries bordering and interacting with the Romans and Sassanids/Parthians. Over that long stretch of time they like the Germanic peoples learned the Romans ways, became more advanced. These tribes by the 600s were not tribes anymore in the old fashion sense.
The Arabs who came out to blitz the two weakened Empires were not just some barbarians with a desert paint scheme anymore. They were learned, And knew well how the two powers fought and had worked a long side them in past.
6:46 Really loved the movie "Hannibal" made by the BBC. Not only it was very historically accurate (specially with the roman armors), but the depictions of Hannibal and Scipio were done so amazingly, I just can't imagine a different depiction of both generals. In fact, Steven Saylor took great inspiration from this movie when he wrote about the Second Punic War for his historical novel "Roma".
I used to eat Honeybuns, though didn't eat that many, and gave them up years ago
@@anthonydefex
@@ammagnolia lol
Is this before hannibal was a black man.
come on guys. just having a little fun with some pun. I found the video to be very informative.
In the 5th century, the western army seems to have largely avoided facing the barbarians. The route the Vandals took through Gaul largely seems to have avoided walled cities like Parisiorum (Paris). The Vandals were not able to take Carthage by siege but by tricking their way in during peacetime, possibly by using a Roman title like Dux that the emperor had given their king Gaiseric. The late army was much smaller so had to pick its battles carefully. The army of Aetius may have numbered 55,000.
how is 55 k small.
@@Hussar-bt8sv "smaller" I said. Compared with 400,000 for both halves of the empire combined assumed in 400AD.
9:48 - Check out the cameo by Steven Segal wielding a bow 😂
For real jajajaja
1:25
"His uncle Marius was my greatest enemy, and he's got ten Marius inside him. Just look at his eyes..."
*Roman dictator Sulla's concerned commentary on the boldness and steadfastness of the young Julius Caesar*
Great quote but I don't think it ever happened
@@rrrr-xj6ll It's from the 2003 mini-series Julius Caesar. Pretty recommended, by the way!
@@TetsuShima ok cool
This question comes to mind:
If the soldiers are using oval or round shields, does this makes the "Testudo" battle formation impractical?
Because round edged shields would create gaps where the corners of the "scutum" would connect.
in the later years of the Empire, they did away with a lot of their classic military tactics
The Roman military of Late Antiquity was every bit the superpower army as that of the Classical era. If anything, the change in emphasis toward a more mobile army with a heavier focus on cavalry and missile made it more powerful even as a tradition of military writings allowed it to begin a more systematic (and dare I say scientific) in its approach to all aspects of generalship. The biggest problems were twofold: civil wars exhausted resources, depleted manpower, undermined legitimacy, and damaged infrastructure, and foreign threats leveled up far beyond anything faced by the Classical legions (I include Hannibal in this; he was undoubtedly brilliant, but even his army with him at its head wasn't as dangerous as many of the threats that arose later). The highly effective Parthians were replaced by the even more dangerous Sassanians. The Germans became half Romanized and adopted Roman military techniques and equipment. The steppes produced threats the likes of which Classical Rome never had to face (Huns, Avars, and more). The best indication of just how effective the army became in Late Antiquity is the fact that the eastern half of the empire successfully weathered those storms (and even survived the Arab invasions) and came out the other side with an arguably even stronger army than ever before (though again matched by threats of a scale and danger beyond anything seen previously).
This is very important, maybe even key to the whole shift in warfare: horses were steadily becoming more numerous, available, and with better breeding (meaning larger and stronger, capable of bearing an armored warrior and some armor on themselves). A few centuries before that, cavarly forces like that were not possible.
Thank you again, and I'd like to offer my thoughts on the issue.
The later Empire had an array of larger scale invaders, armies that were at times essentially travelling nations accompanied by families and with a very wide variety of martial skills, including even wagons used as battle fortification (as at Adrianople). This they acquired by variously enlisting accepting elements of migrating people, plus provincials somehow alienated from the Roman state whether soldiers, officials or ship builders (the Vandals use provincial ship builders). Goths and other peoples could variously count among their forces horse archers, horse archers, lancers, heavy and light infantry. The Romans had all those types, but migrating people did not tend to come one at a time in the late Empire.
Plague and the fall in temperatures has been noted by scholars and meant lands once productive and fairly easily profitable were no longer so, particularly as security deteriorated from intruders. The Romans therefore had to raise far larger forces from less resources, equipping them with armour made in the state workshops made in a simpler form than earlier centuries (say with bowl like helmets). Limitanei that proved effective could be promoted temporarily or permanently to pseudo comital or comital forces. The bigger problem for imperial Rome is that from the start it was a system that could be very prone to falling into civil war (similarly for the Republic), as it soon (after Nero) became clear than anyone could be emperor if enough troops backed them. Maximinus Thrax was of barbaric, likely Gothic origins (the Historia Augusta is too readily dismissed in the Wikipedia article which fails to note that settling Germanic or other peoples happened throughout the empire, a Thracian Goth wasn't implausible), but this one time travelling strong man impressed Septimius Severus and sufficient numbers of ordinary soldiers. It might also be noted that Roman fighting skills were long preserved in the West in localities, and holdouts like Syagrius (whom St Gregory of Tours called a king of the Romans) ruling in northern France until the Franks defeated him in the later fifth century, showed continuities even with overall economic collapse.
Augustus invented that way of becoming the emperor long before Nero.
A fine analysis
mail has always been the most popular armor even at the height of lorica segmentata, the 2 armors coexisted for a while til segmentata was eventually dumped, if you picked a random legionnaire from anywhere at any time he would very likely be wearing mail
I'm thankful somebody else said this.
Mail was ubiquitous throughout the old world for over a millenia. It obvious wasn't bad stuff.
Yeah, lorica segmentata looks cool, but for most purposes mail is just better. Lorica segmentata is cheaper and quicker to make than chainmail if (like the Romans) you have the ability to mass-produce metal sheets, but it's kind of awkward to wear/maintain and not as protective as it looks.
Yes it allways Bugs me, how Roman legionarys are basicly missrepresented
Most people don't realize that what makes the Roman army formidable wasn't the equipment or the particular tactics deployed on the battlefield, but their ability to adapt to changes in the conditions imposed by warfare, their willingness to discard old hardware and doctrines when it proved outdated and to adopt new equipment, new strategies and modalities of training and recruitment.
I am glad you uploaded this video. I myself believed that the late Roman Legions were as capable as Caesar’s or any other Legions before them. Given the odds facing the Western Roman Empire during the 3rd century crisis, the late legions were still able to keep the empire intact for another century longer. That alone deserves my respect. You sir have earned my like and subscription. Legiones Semper Paratae!!
13:15: Gotta disagree there. The fall of Rome was a series of irreversable trends that were coinciding in the destruction of the empire. To prevent the fall of Rome they needed a top down cultural reform across the entire empire in every sphere, economic, geographic, scientific, agricultural, hierarchic etc.. It doesn't matter how many troops they had, the society they were defending was broken.
Welcome to another video on Maiorianus talking about how the late Roman Army was actually a formidable force against the enemies of the Roman Empire.
Lol
Also consider that in the late roman world cavalry and cavalry archers became much more common, as in the early roman empire, infantry were the numerity of the legions foes. The early roman army was great against infantry, but as we see with Crassus and many other roman defeats against Parthia, it struggled against cavalry centric armies. With the development in stirrups, the increasing quality of horses, and the increasing cultural expertise with cavalry that other countries gained, cavalry was becoming a more powerful force. Yet the late roman empire had a decline in civic military duty, it never really embraced horse archers, and it's infantry centric armies were becoming less and less efficient. Not to mention it's once greatest advantage, it's enormous population base was in great decline because of the numerous plagues of the era. Lastly, with the decline in the average quality of roman emperors, and therefore the increase in civil wars, the roman army was always fighting an uphill battle to maintain it's borders.
Wrong in many ways, and it seems you did not even watch the video:
1-The romans defeated the Parthian and Sassanid horse archers more often than not. Crassus' defeat is overrepresented in media, the romans were able to avenge his defeat soon enough.
2-Horse archers are extremely difficult to train and field in big numbers for sedentary populations, since they require a humongous amount of training that nomads already got just by living their lifestyle. The romans implemented them well enough and even hired horse archers as foederati allies.
3-Again, even the late roman infantry based army won more often than not. It's quality did not decline, it just could not recover from defeats as quickly due to lacking manpower pool.
@@cybermidas3973
1 - That is not the case look what happened to Marcus Anthony's army when he invaded Parthia. Yes there were some roman armies that won defensive battles in rough terrain such as mountains and forests. But on the offensive the parthian army was superior in the field.
2 - Horse archers are difficult to field in large numbers, but in the late roman and early byzantine periods there are no large numbers to be had. Armies were much smaller than their predecessors. The largest problem of the late roman army was manpower, and horse archers preserve manpower, as you engage the enemy at a distance, and you can pick your battles. Exactly the romans did implement through mercenaries and regular troops, look at the romans in the early byzantine era swapping over to a majority cavalry army. But in majorians time this was not the case yet.
3 - they did win, but at what cost? the few romans who were in the army tended to perish, leading to more and more foederati being the majority of the army. Which in turn lead to more civil wars. As the foederati weren't loyal to the state, but to whoever was paying them. Also they didn't always win like they used to, look at Adrianople where an entire generation of roman soldiers was lost.
@@micahbonewell5994 1-Anthony's loss had more to do with logistics than troop inferiority. His general Ventidius managed to soundly defeat the Parthians. Shall I remind you who won that war? It was Rome. Battles on the open are overrated, wars are not won just by that, and the Romans proved it by conquering nearly half of Parthia and sacking their capital 5 times...while the latter never managed to even reach what would later be Constantinople. The roman troops were far more versatile.
2-You debunked yourself there: if horse archers are already difficult to field in large numbers for a wealthy empire, they would be even MORE difficult to field with a lesser manpower pool and lesser treasury, specially for a sedentary power. Would you have wanted the late Romans to field only 70k men in their entire empire when they needed at the very least 250k to cover all their frontiers? Even with the faster travel speeds, horses cannot just graze anywhere, hence why every horse archer invader suffered in Europe past the Hungarian basin.
Horse archers are prohibitively expensive to train and field. Nomads had the advantage of living their entire lifestyle riding, hunting and raiding, which was itself training. When they sedentarized for too long, they lost their edge. Training sedentary men to fight like that was even harder, hence why it was more profitable to just hire nomads as foederati or mercenaries. Rome could simply NOT base its armies on that.
False again The Byzantines were never able to field a mostly cavalry composed army, which is a popular misconception of people who parrot the 'cavalry based' mantra ot the late roman army. Cavalry became the most pwerful arm of the byzantine army, but it was always a minority, infantry was still king in numbers.
3-Mate, could you make even more irrelevant points? Sure, they did not always win....SO? Who claimed that? I didn't, I said they won more often than not, kapeech? Again, you repeat the same mistake every afficionado commits: ''look at X or Y defeat, see? The late Roman army sucked.''...but you conveniently ommit battles such as the Catalaunian plains, Strasbourg, Ctesiphon, Satala, etc. The late Roman army was very capable, if not more capable than the early one considering it had to face far more powerful foes in shorter intervals.
Civil wars became a staple of Roman politics since the late republic, mate. If Rome could not field more citizens more often, that was a fault of the state, elites and emperors, not of the army itself. Too many people had been impoverished by the corupt and glutonous elites who never got tired of hoarding land. Forget about getting as many men as Scipio and Fabian could muster against Hannibal, those men owned their own lands.
Fascinating and informative overview of the history of the military capabilities of the late Roman Empire. Thanks for another awesome video.
I think that the military explanation for the fall of the empire is not that complicated. The roman empire was a flux that only happened because there was no organized/ centralised military power to oppose them. If we consider the territory and population of the roman empire the army was tiny. The reserves were bigger during the second punic war than Augustus professional army. After the cimbri and teutonnes where defeated they had a peacetime army and economy until the end.
Nah
@@capitanjulietti3436 what’s wrong
@@Theodosius_fan roman emperors like tiberius ,commodes,maximinus thrax,honorius, valerian caligula, nero constantine 1 and Justinian fake reconquest .justinian traitored belsusarius .these are the emperors who destroyed rome .caracalla is mediocre he is atlealst medium ok and mediocre type .and psychopathic germanic general flavis ricimer the barbarian who killed anthemius and majorian and he unfamously sack of rome before odoacer ,alacric , gaiseric , and battle of cape bon against vandals of Africa reconquest were failed because of germanic ricimer who planned with roman traitors and sacked this plan .so and even hunnic expansions , and roman civil war are responsible for roman destruction .when the julius caesar death itself a destruction of roman .because of brutus and senators traitor .and even praetorian guards and senators this are the things the roman destruction contributed
@@Theodosius_fan and because eastern roman empure traitored more to west and support germanic invasions if west by traitor emperor zero itself responsible
@@Theodosius_fan roman empire of the west even survived until survived 7th century as a remaining states province like syagrius of scissons and julius nepoes realm of dalmatia .julius nepos even try to reconquer the rome ovietus the germanic bodyguards bastrads who killed him and west has fallen .and later franish germanic tribes who sacked the rome in 7th century
The Romans were quick to adapt to foreign methods of war,this is why they were so successful.
Question:
Did the Romans use the circle shield and long spear or oval shield and short spear. Because sometimes I get confused of the two and get mixed
Ave Maioranus!
Thank you for the wonderful and informative video!
When I saw the comparison between the "classical" Legionary and the later one, a Idea struck me:
Maybe the late-roman Army is also disliked, because the soldiers begin to look already like ones from the early medieaval ages or the typical Viking with chainmail, a round shield, long sword and the ocassional throwing axe.
So on top of the "barbarisation" and the "ruined discipline" the late roman legions could just the wrong look to our classical-trained eye.
Excellent video, but I would like to get answers to a few related questions. You mentioned how Roman legions got transformed in the 3rd century, but you did not explain why it actually happened except for the armour.
For example, they replaced pilum with a regular spear and changed their shields and swords. Why that new kind of weapon suited them better? Why did they need more cavalry instead of relying on infantry? Maybe you can point to some publication about it or perhaps, it is a good topic for a next movie :)
Hi Gordon, thanks a lot, and yes you're right, I could have gone into more detail about every piece of equipment.
Here is a very good book on the topic: www.amazon.com/-/de/dp/0300068433/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&crid=3MH0PFR89M1G9&keywords=the+late+roman+army+dixon&qid=1664175710&sprefix=the+late+roman+army+dixon%2Caps%2C124&sr=8-1
In short, equipment was used, that was easier to maintain, and better adapted to use against barbarian threats. The Spiculum for example could be better used as a spear against cavalry. Cavalry was used more often since the Barbarians relied heavily on cavalry, and so the importance of cavalry had to increase in order to deal with these threats.
I will make another video about the late roman soldier, and in that video I wanted to talk in more detail about the equipment. But this video was intended as a more general overview over the broad change of the army as a whole :)
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian thank you a lot :)
I'm glad someone also raised this question.
If the Roman gear wasn't transformed to cut costs or allow poorly trained barbarians to easily adapt to them as the false narrative went, why did it change so drastically when the old formula of heavy sword-shield armoured infantry be given up on?
@@RexGalilae he just explained!!!!!!!!!!
@@ammagnolia
I couldn't hear you! Could you add a few more exclamation marks?
Not an army professional issue but one item that stands out was the average Romans inability to fight anymore. Had Italy\Rome rose up to try to save its Empire like they did in the second Punic War, the Western Roman Empire would have never fallen. They had more people than at the time of the Second Punic War and the enemies could have been defeated had the Romans/Italians had more grit. Heck, they didn't even need the rest of their Empire, Italy was what took their Empire and they could have retaken it with just Italy. This is my general strategy in Total War is hold Italy (Carthage and Spain are easy to hold to with Pyrenees but often Briton, Gaul, and Illyria are lost causes until you can run off the Barbarians).
The later Roman army of the times of Constantine the Great and Majorian was very strong and effective. The main cause of the crisis was civil wars and the loss of North Africa!
This is one of your best videos, great choice of a topic. Happy to see the channel growing.
People need to realize that Late Roman Armies are formidable and effective fighting forces but the reason why it wasn't able to prevent the fall of the Western Roman Empire are because of the constant civil wars that depleted the Western Roman Empire's Army
It's purely political
Excellent video as always! Yes, I think the biggest reason for the collapse of the Western Roman Empire was its inability to ever adopt a peaceful and orderly succession of leadership. Civil wars in the Late Roman empire sapped their reserves of manpower and prevented them from responding to the many more military threats facing them. The Late Roman Empire's armies were quite capable up till the end of the 4th Century. I do think that the soldiers of the Roman Republic and the early to mid Empire were superior to those of the Late Empire in at least one measure. Those legionaries and the society that produced them were much better at recovering from losses than those in the Late Empire. In fact, you see this general decline in the Empire's ability to recover from its losses over time. The Late Roman Empire had a much bigger population than the Republic/Early empire but was not able to recruit as many able fighters as they could in earlier times. I would attribute this weakness to a general loss of martial spirit in the minds of the Roman citizens. This loss of martial vigor and a willingness to defend their empire was most obvious in Italy. There are reasons for this change of spirit. I'd blame the Roman aristocracy for most of them but I'll leave that discussion for another day.
Hi J L, excellent comment, thanks ! You raise some excellent points here. I wanted to make a whole video about this loss of martial vigor, because it is indeed a major contributing factor to the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
Don't forget as well J L that also in the Late Empire the military was competing against the church and civil servant offices for manpower as well, and well many people would rather take the comfy Church live or comforts of the civil servant job, than be out in the cold and mud fighting and possibly dying.
Was the population in the Late Empire really higher than in the Early? What I had read there were several plagues, which dried out the manpower.
@@ignatzmeyer1978 That's a good point. The numbers are all over the place. The overall population certainly declined during the 3rd century. However, I think it had recovered a lot during the 4th century. Regardless, recruitment for the Late Roman army became harder in the late empire. That's why they started to employ Feodorati more and more.
@@jl696 I would say the Population might have been the same in both Early and Late Empire's time. But The Late had a Less willing or capable of being mobilised for war population due to factors.
Or The Late did have a bigger population due to all the centuries of stable Roman peace and huge food growth in cities. But the following civil wars, famines, Invasions and plagues slowly began grinding it down.
The video meant to be about the Roman army. You went off discussing the other factors which I agree are factors such as the civil wars that didn’t help a lot. I do disagree to some extent the quality of the Roman soldiers did drop. With the reforms of making all free men citizens it turned the Roman legionaries that where heavy infantry and the auxiliary’s that were light infantry to be merged into just light infantry. Yes the others factors such as heavy Calvary coming into play and the commanders themselves but the actual quality of soldiers was lowered.
The late roman army is actually significantly more advanced. I think this is another case of Edward Gibbon one liners still dominating popular opinion.
Edward Gibberish.
@@septimiusseverus343 I like his work overall but some points are just outdated
It's probably more that the opponents leveled up while the romans didnt really evolve (much). Basically, over time they lost the edge they had over others.
I'm so happy to see that you have a sponsor now, great to have seen you grow so much!:)
it's not so much that the roman armies got worse, but the enemies got way better.
The Lorica segmentata was still being used in the 300s so it wasn’t gone by 250 …. Aurelians ‘s legions were still full of men wearing the armor and so were Constantine’s although by Constantine it was a lot less and most of the guys were probably wearing mail or scale like you said.
This is still disputed, but there is good evidence that by the time of Constantine, the Lorica Segmentata was gone. You certainly refer to the relief on the Arch of Constantine, where you can see men wearing the Lorica. However, it is thought that this is just a reused portion from another, earlier arch from the 2nd century AD.
The Lorica disappeared at some time in the 3rd century AD, so pinpointing the exact date is difficult. 250 AD is a scholarly consensus, but of course some men could have worn it here and there even in 290 AD or 310 AD. 250 AD was meant as a date where large scale use started to fade.
@@Maiorianus_Sebastian
I think of it like this. The M-16 is largely being phased out of service and the M4 is replacing it in all capacity. Yeah there’s so many M-16s that some Marines are still carrying M 16s. Plate armor was the go to armor for more than 200 years so there had to be some guys still wearing it in a decent number in aurelians time.
@@stevenjames6830 still the majority of them did not used it
You are incorrectly using informations from some most recent finds nor of which however claims what you do-that it was commonly used form of armour.In fact all scholarly texts logically assume it was rarely seen type of armour by that point.It was still around but likely not common as between 50-150 AD which saw its height of usage.Archeology makes its lack quite apparent and so do Roman artworks of that time.We only know it was still limitedly around and that is all.Nothing points on its massive or even significant presense.
@@stevenjames6830 There are actually many known examples where certain types of Roman equipment were used long after their historical prime and even single pieces which were clearly used for very long time,still what I wrote above is valid.
I've always thought there was an economic collapse in the western Roman Empire rather any particular military defeats. As you said Aetius could still defeat Atilla the Hun.
Indeed. If you don't have the money, you can't pay to train, equip and supply a standing army. Cicero was right, money is the infinite sinews of war.
@@septimiusseverus343 Crassus is Exeption
But he had to use an army he cobbled together with Alan and Goth allies, which sort of underscores the difficulties the late empire faced
@@septimiusseverus343 they didn't have money because they lost wealthy provinces like North Africa
@@septimiusseverus343 Cartage was more rich than Rome but came off as a loser at the end...
Thank you for this video! I have just discovered your channel and it is fascinating. Much like the namesake of your channel, Emperor Majorian, there was so much more to the late Western Roman empire than popular culture might suggest. Keep up the great work!
I think the army, man for man, wasn't as weak as some say, but you could argue that the society on which it was based had been severely weakened. I mean, the Roman Republic lost army after army during the Punic wars, and they just kept raising new ones. Similarly during the civil wars from Caesar/Pompey up to the final victory of Octavian (and beyond: Teutoburg Forest comes to mind). Once you had the loss of population from the plagues before the third century crisis, and everything that followed, though, you hollow out the economy. That forces you to downgrade from the more protective segmenta and scutum to hamata and oval shield. Upgrading the cavalry was a good idea, though, so it wasn't all bad. Even so, the resulting army couldn't take a punch and get back up, anymore. It had become brittle.
The army still took punch after punch for 150 years and went on. Mursa major, the battle fo samarra and Adrianople all happend in a span of 30 years yet the empire endured and still won many victories after. The western army was heavily depleted after mursa major yet still made the germans their bitch under julian and valentinian.
The Hamata was not bad as Armour at all, it was thick chainmail and the Romans did conquer most of the Empire wearing it as well before the Lorica arrived.
Yes, he doesn't mention it in the video, but Rome was drained of cash during the last couple of centuries. The barbarian invasions had become so gratuitous it was like holding the ocean back with a sponge (like our southern border today). Walls had to be built around every city and town, at colossal expense and manpower, further draining resources. Barbarians then would cut off water and food supplies to the towns, forcing people out where they would then be slaughtered. The truth is, this RUclips channel is the product of a radicalized Millennial and reflects the pro-"diversity" bias we see in all 21st century "news." But in reality, the barbarian invasions were devastating to Rome, their infestation and reneging on immigration contracts cost the empire dearly.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD Exactly, plenty of soldiers still wore the mail at the height of Lorica too, it didn’t really play much of a part in how much they conquered.
@@THISISLolesh I heard that Roman troops preferred the Chainmail to the Lorica Segementa due to ease of maintenance and putting on.
It still was able to stop most blades from slicing through, and piercing weapons struggled to penetrate through the chainmail plus the layers behind the armour.
Simple answer, Rome's enemies became more disciplined, got better gear, training, they were no longer barbarian anymore
I think it could also be said that the enemy in the 1st century was nowhere near as effective as they were in the 3rd 4th and 5th century. After 400 years of fighting Romans they got better.
Thanks!
Fratricidal civil war / usurpations were a big issue, hiking up the costs of militaries (replace manpower that had rebelled, pay off troops to retain loyalty, replace lost equipment, etc.). And, loss of territory was another big issue, removing people, cultivated land, resources and revenues that were essential for supporting a standing army; and the downward spiral started with the Goths securing a negotiated peace in 380s, and became critical with the Vandals seizing North Africa in the 430s (really hobbled the empire in the west).
But, the Roman Empire as a whole still had Persia to contend with, which at times led to costly and inconclusive wars, although not sure there were any decisive defeats in the fifth century like in those experienced in the third (Barbalissos, and Edessa and the capture of Valens).
Now there are several other considerations:
- The Romans seem to struggle or demonstrate less military capability against the Goths at the end of the Fourth Century, aside from losing the battle of Adrianople. Maybe because a number of Goths and formations had defected from Roman armies, and maybe because a combination of fleeing the Huns and then revolting against Rome helped Gothic leadership to organize and mobilize the various peoples/followers of theirs in ways better than was seen in the past? All conjecture, but how Theodosius ended the war with the Goths in 382 was not great - left the Goths in control of territory, under their own customs, autonomous for all intents and purposes.
- The shift to the comitatenses and emphasis on key field armies with significant cavalry elements may have not unfolded/evolved so well, proved very costly, and not always yield decisive advantages against particular opponents, thinking notably the Persians and their allies in the Middle East, and against the Huns.
- With respect to the Huns, the Eastern Roman Empire in the Balkans, and later the Western Roman Empire in Gaul, Italy and areas east of Italy seem to have great difficulty conducting campaigns and winning battles. Aside from the Catalaunian Plains battle and the invasion of Dengezich in 468/469, doesn't seem like Roman generals were able to gain a clear win against the Huns, or really confront them effectively, while the Huns were able to besiege and seize cities, along with securing battle field success between 441 and 452 (so one decade, at the end of the Western Roman Empire basically).
The Roman army suffered what's happening to the British army, to many diverse soldiers and a reduction in numbers.
I wish somebody would make a video of the chronology of the Roman Army and their uniforms and formations, starting around 600 BC (the time of the kings and war bands) all the way to the late Byzantine or even the Holy Roman Empire
...holy Roman empire have nothing to do with actual Roman state.It was completely newly established polity only several centuries after fall of the Roman west,it ignored continous existence of actual eastern half of the actual ancient Roman Empire in the east and its core terriory(and most of its territory)were never even part of the Roman empire or only very briefly ."Byzantine" on the other hand was its direct continuation.Including very direct continuation of its military and traditions.
Excellent video. The Roman Empire, as a political and military entity, evolved over the centuries in order to survive. And the empire did just that.
There is a book called Strategikon that was one of the reasons to the bizantine droped the legion system and adopted a new medieval army. If the tagmata system was inferior to the legions the Eastern Romans wouldn't survive for another millenia.
As always, excellent video Maioranus !!!. From my point of view, the Roman legions "lost" in armor, while the clibanarii/cataphractii, gained in armor and as those times required, cavalry was the best weapon, better than infantry. And that's another point, it is much more expensive to maintain an army of mostly knights than one of mostly infantry. It is noteworthy that the legionnaire's armor reached, from my point of view, its pinnacle in the third century, especially its helmets but in the middle of that century, unfortunately the helmets became of lesser quality
You have to see how ineffective it became after the souvlaki and moussaka Romans took over. Opa!
The "late Roman Army" lasted until 1453.
Thanks for this i hear to many people say that the late roman army wasnt effective in its role and was not disciplined, thank you my friend.
You are very welcome Amicus ! Yes, that is a common view these days. It's mostly based on Vegetius' work "De Re Militari", but he was super biased against the late Roman army, and this view kind of became the norm.
Bizantine playing like an AoE2 HD AI: here, let me wait outt your defeat in my territories while I drain your resources.
Don't forget in the later Centuries there were "Fabricae" state arms factories mass producing military equipment, much better than having you buy your own equipment to be able to serve like in earlier times
What I always found impressive was Rome's ability to raise new legions after losing some hard. Think Hannibal. Those legions were not strong, effective and superior; or at least not to the Carthaginians.
I also find it funny how reenactors can manage to get fitting helmets while professional actors have like 3cm between the cheek plates and their cheeks. Can probably knock those plates and misplace the helment.
Not convinced. The late soldiers were not bad by any mean, especially the cavalry regiments, and certainly were more advanced in some areas, however they were indeed inferior to the post-marian legions. Both the mindset and overall quality of early-ish armies were superior. Not saying they would fare better in the same situations as late armies, the empire has changed and so did it's needs but I firmly believe the military aspect of the roman empire has devolved over the years and lost what made it so unique.
I can't shake the feeling that the late armies did so well because it's normal that big empire can field good armies, instead oif the military itself being great.
I think the western Roman army was able to survive until the fall of the empire because there were times when they had good leaders who knew what they were doing because the tactics and strategy and organization the troops but I think the main weakness was the fact that you’ve mentioned In one of your videos that the average Roman citizen did not want to join the army and if they had it would’ve provided extra manpower and resources to keep the western empire afloat a lot longer
interesting ;Late Roman army was mainly composed by germanics Ppl .Only 30% Of late romans armies was composed by native Italians it could explain lot of things! Stiliko himself was Vandal like many armies mainly composed of mercenaries or auxiliaries in history you can won many battles but not maintain an empire .
There's a way to say it even more shortly: "The late Roman legions were not bad, their commanders were(except for very distinguished exceptions)"
Honestly the late roman army was good,but the reason it failed was because the lack of troops,so they had to use foederatii to fill the legions.
THIS
I've often wondered what the world would have looked like, if the Roman Empire had not fallen and the Dark Ages/Medieval era not happened. As it was, we lost 1,000 years but of course the Gothic culture of late Medieval times was fascinating in its own way.
It's possible that a severe stagnation could have occured. Look at the pre-Columbian civilizations: they existed for thousands of years, yet by the time of Columbus some of them didn't even have basic things like a wheel or writing like the Incas.
@@actin9294 That's possible, though the pattern of the West was generally more progressive than that of third world stocks. Still, anything could have happened--we'll never know.
@@actin9294 a lot of them had writting and they a major difference, no cattle and horses limited any expansion.
Only the Inca with their amazing messangers managed to sustain a big empire
It did not help dividing the empire into the west and east either. Not to mention alot of its core culture and believes faded as Rome no longer became the heart of the empire, as well as how Christianity took over. It is in truth so many things that contributed to the downfall, it almost is just law that everything must come to an end eventually.
One other point you could have mentioned was the barbarian armies of the late Empire were more advanced in terms of arms and tactics then the typical Guals and Britons Caesar faced down.
In my opinion the square scutum was much better than the late oval shield. For instance i believe that the early scutum was effective in facing the phalanx and it protected from face to knees and once you are shielded from sarissas you can close in to use the gladius which forces the enemy to drop his sarissa and use his sword. But still there were too many barbarians to deal with in the late period.
But i wouldn't call the late legions 'weak and ineffective' the early legions were better though.
Excellent! Much to digest. Much to research.
people forget the late roman armies were winning battles all over, but illness, and civil war depleted manpower over time so a crushing defeat couldn't be replaced. It was indeed... Crushing.
The Roman Empire during its expansion phase was so strong because of the victories, and the loot it acquired from the new lands it conquered. After it settled in the so called pax romana, it begun a long and slow economic decline, fueled by inflation, civil wars, and incompetent emperors. Rome ultimatelly failed because of economic downturn. It didnt have the funds to muster the massive armies it needed to defend itself.
Same goes for most empires. They are all strong as long as new loot pours in from victories. Once there is no loot there is no money for war, so they collapse. Take Mongol Empire, Ottoman Empire etc.
This led to another question: Why are there so many usurpers in the first place? Where did the Roman society failed to satisfy them?
Also, which one do you considered to be the true Third Rome between the Ottoman Empire and the Tsardom of Russia?
@trueblue23 What do you use to support this claim?
For the Third Rome question:I dont want to choose.The Ottomans were straight up invaders who conquered the territory(like Odoacer or the lombards) and the tsardom had nothing in common besides the religion and a marriage tie(and we know dinasty mattered close to zero in the byzantine empire, usurpers were plenty).
Neither because Spain is the most legitimate faction to be the third rome
@@haxel8929 Russia was also culturally influenced by the Romans actually
@@haxel8929 Mehmed has descent of the last Roman dynasty too. Also, Sultan Suleiman claimed that through the right of conquest with Constantinople as his capital, the Ottoman Empire is the true Third Rome in an attempt to debunk Charles' claim as Caesar that was bestowed to him by the Pope and that of Grand Prince Vasily III, who likes to diplomatically referred himself as the Tsar to the Ottomans and the Western Europeans alike.
Of course, there are no definitive answers. It is depending on the point of view.
Since the crisis of the 3rd century, command position started to decay. There was evidence form burial stones at the start how you had to have 10/15 years of experience but after the 3rd century it was simply handed out to anyone who could read.
They relied too heavily on German mercenaries who in many instances proved themselves to be lazy and incompetent soldiers, not to mention having dubious loyalties when fighting their barbarian brethren.
The problem was not with the Roman Military but with internal corruption within various levels of government administration from bureaucrats on up to the Imperial household. The Roman Military had a solid foundation the only major problem was that by the third century and beyond lackies by the score were given key commands were they should have stayed completely out of Military service altogether and remained as bureaucrats. The early mistakes of the Empire were never learned when Augustus appointed Varius as commander of legionary forces in Germania and were virtually slaughterd at the Teuteberg Forest by Herman. That was one of the internal weaknesses of the Roman Military was the occasional appointment of command by an individual whom had no right to wear the garb of Military command let alone the garb of rat catcher in Herculaneum.
At one time it was common to dismiss the late Roman army as inferior, but this was simplistic, as Maiorianus so well explains in this video. But
a couple of points should be made: 1. I doubt the late Roman army had the same esprit de corps as the pre-3rd century army had. When everyone & his brother were citizens (post Caracalla), this was bound to have a negative effect on morale compared to the earlier centuries when Roman citizenship was more restricted and more valuable. 2. The all-too frequent civil wars, plus the epidemics of the later centuries, undoubtedly reduced the available manpower. The Tetrarchs (Diocletian et al.) each had an army. That's 4 armies. After Julian's disastrous Persian campaign, the new emperors, Valentinian & Valens, each had an army too. That's 2 armies. Seems like the Romans were short by 2 armies.
The changes were need due to the lack of troops and the need for speed on redeployment but head to head on a battlefield it's no contest to the old guard
Chain mail was more common than the segmentata due to cost and maintenance reasons.
I have an important question why did they completely change the shape of their shield from square to round?
And how it was better than the
The square shield
I love your channel, but this video is questionable...
Your argument is that ease of manufacturing/maintenance/deployment gives a logistical advantage to the Late Empire. Quantity over quality.
But that rarely is a winning warfare strategy in history...
And an empire in better shape would have had the same logistical capabilities of the Late Empire, plus high quality equipment. Quantity AND quality.
6:45
Bad examples...
- During the Punic wars Rome was the much superior land force, and Hannibal's brilliant tactics constituted a temporary halt to Rome's dominance.
- The Battle of Teutoburg was lost due to the betrayal of Arminius, not because the legions couldn't fight properly.
- And the Marcomanni (plus their allies) managed to beat the Romans when their main army was engaged elsewhere.
Either way, these were all temporary halts to the dominance of Early Rome.
We can't really say the same of Late Rome, where the empire was pierced deep by anyone, was forced to pay tributes to avoid further raids, lost many open-field battles, didn't have the numerical advantage and largely lost any equipment advantage.
People tend to forget that the Romans as people and empire existed for more than 2000+ (750BC-1453AD) Years so the roman army had changed during history so many times its hard to even imagine the development from the early phalanxes that rome had before the samnite wars to the hastati principes triarii , to the early legions of Marius and Caesar to the late empire legions of Trajan and Hadrian to the Comitatensis and limetanei of Aetius to the later eastern roman empire troops 600+AD and so on and so on to even using canons , with the passage of time things change and never stay the same and the people change things depending on their needs their resources and circumstances and this circle never ends .
What people don't realize is that all these major victories were also costly.
both in men and equipment.
I believe once their enemies understood their tactics they could adjust to them. Alot of their enemies served in the Roman armies and learned their tactics. I believe that was their downfall.👍
Decline of Roman state was not limited just on military matters.
@@paprskomet I agree I was speaking about the military not the overall factors of everything. It was a chain of things that brought down Rome. 👍
Well, in the end, the Byzantines lasted for a long longer, so the late Roman army was more effective than the early legions.
Except that those never referred to themselves as Byzantines but as Romans. Greeks did so even much beyond the Turkish conquest.
SO YOU can't fight the Huns and Visigoths without your own excellent CALVARY and exploradores?
Vegetius recommends a general should only fight when he really needs to - a strategy unthinkable in the classic era. Even Stilicho followed this doctrine. The battle at Faesulae (one of the greatest Roman victories ever) was a masterpiece of diplomacy, strategy, Roman logistics - and the use of Hunnic mercenaries. Demandt argues that in the 4th and 5th century, barbarian tactics and equipment had become equal to Roman ones, and Roman advantage had been reduced to discipline and logistics. However the latter did not apply to mercenaries, who gradually replaced the Roman units.
3:26 is this Obelix in gold helmet?
Basically, when Romans fight Romans, Rome loses
The reason why the late Republican and early Imperial army recovered after Trebia, Lake Trasimine, Cannae, early Civil Wars, and Teutoberg Forest was the impressive population Italy had at the time. Lowering of population by the Antonine Plague and climate change causing lowered agricultural yields caused increased dependence on Germanic units where Frigidus and Adrianople spelled the death knell of the empire.
we need that alternate timeline video ASAP
I think the real turning point was the Vandel invasion of Africa. It was a rich, lightly defended province they failed to recover.
"wewl wfiends owf wfate wroman whistory" lmao dude you sound like that Roman senator from monty python
I'd say a major part that made the late Roman empire soldiers worse was due less training and loyalty towards the empire.
The emphasis of cavalry was another bad decision as cavalry was expensive and took long to raise. It also didn't solve the heart of the empire's problems that internal defense was lacking, hence why groups like the Vandals were able to rampage throughout the empire all the way to Africa.
Great video!⚔
The late republican/early principate legions are not the end all and be all of military organization, they were adopted in order to meet the needs of the time. In those days, battles were almost always carried by infantry while cavalry and missile units were relatively weak and carried a secondary role; the pace of battle was (relatively) slower as two infantry lines would meet head on and slug it out for long hours in tight formations. The classical legion was the ultimate machine for an era of infantry-dominated warfare.
But the classical legion was discarded as it became increasingly useless against the arrival of far more mobile enemies. By the third century AD, cavalry and missile units had grown considerably stronger and could now make or break battles. Infantry decreased in its effectiveness and importance (still important, but needed stronger cavalry and missile units to support them so they wouldn't get wiped out) while the pace of battle picked up. In a sense, medieval warfare was already coming into focus, and the Romans needed to focus on their cavalry to compete, especially as "barbarians" poured across the frontier and wars against the Sassanids continued incessantly.
Nevertheless, as the empire eroded and mass migrations began slowing down, the speed of war changed once more. Cavalry and missiles were immensely important, but now siege warfare was the name of the game, as medieval kingdoms neither had the money nor men to risk battle in the open field. Stronger cavalry and missiles were needed in case pitched battles happened, but medieval armies generally avoided them as much as possible.
Offensive, pitched, infantry-dominated warfare might not've seriously returned until the introduction of firearms, especially as they became more effective. Obviously, strong cavalry would be blown to pieces against firearms and artillery, and the bow was made redundant. The heyday of pike warfare would also be cut short with the growing lethality of firearms. The medieval kingdoms became increasingly centralized domains in order to ensure they had both the money and manpower to fight gun warfare and withstand the loses it produced. Europe began a manic conquest of the rest of the world for many reasons, but one was simply to raid it, to ensure it had the resources to wage war against each other back home.
I cannot speak about the quality of the late Roman army, but one thing that is clear is that there were far fewer troops that they were able to deploy. Field armies were smaller than previously and it was apparently much harder to regenerate them. The republican Roman army could suffer disaster after disaster against Hannibal and still win the war. The high Empire could suffer defeats such as the Teutoberg forest and it was no more than a setback. But the late Roman empire could not absorb defeats such as Adrianople without being gravely weakened and unable to regenerate forces for many years afterwards. It's not entirely clear to me why this was, but it appears to be the key to understanding the military defeat and dissolution of the western empire.
In the early 5th century, Stilicho held the Western Roman Empire together. His murder advocated by the Roman elite, spelled the doom for the city of Rome in 410 AD.
Nevertheless, it is still true that the barbarians conquered the Romans being outnumbered by dozens of times. In contrast, during the Republic, Rome was able to easily restore its armies no matter what defeats it suffered.
Early legions were so formidable not bacause they were super well equipped or trained, but because rome could afford to just raise new ones as soon as they lost their previous legions. Hannibal kept chopping up hydras heads but they kept springing up new
The late Roman army was the best they could do at the time, with constant crisis and the lack of manpower. The battle of Adrianople in 376 saw the death of an emperor (Valens) and the loss of about 18,000 troops to the Goths, and is widely considered as the begining of the end of the classic Roman world. By comparison, the Roman Republic - a much smaller state, not even in control of the whole of Italy yet - lost five times that number at Cannae against Hannibal, and kept fighting.
I think there’s more than just saying one type of army was stronger or weaker than the other. There were fundamental and cultural changes that happened, otherwise the standards, shield art, and symbols changed between the early imperial and later Roman armies.
These soldiers looking so clean shaven...how does THAT happen when out in the field? They stopped to take the time from marching, foraging, to gather water that is need for drinking to shave so closely? With no soap it had to be tricky. Hadrian had a beard; who not the soldiers too?
Great video!!