Why does the roman army of the 4th century on have to look so bad?
They look like barbarian peasants or larpers
They were poor farmers mostly.
Or maybe barbarian peasants and larpers try to look like them?
>>1133325
>Look so bad.
No?
Imo they're severely underrated because plebs only know of the meme lorca segmentata'd early empire ones.
>>1133364
I mean, shit nigga, look at this.
>>1133367
>nose guards
>le barbarian conehead helm
in the trash with it
>>1133325
>They look like barbarian peasants
because that's pretty much what most of them were
>>1133390
yes yes they had many barbarians serving, but the army itself shifts to this look that is indistinguishable from the ramshackle barbarian hordes
>>1133394
That looks fine fedorafag
>>1133364
I've never given this much thought. I sort of just assumed the western empire was using lorica the entire time. So, was it a fluid transition from segmented plate to ringmail and mounted armor/heavy cavalry? Was armor supplied by the empire Or was it more "take what you can get locally"?
I want to watch a documentary or read a book on this. Any substantiated info is appreciated.
The Late Roman army was heavily barbarised. However those helmets and armours you so easily identity with barbarians are actually Roman, it's the barbarians who adopted them, not the other way around. All the common helmets, armours, shields and swords of the early medieval period, or even the middle period, were all descended from Roman designs.
>>1133750
Werent they themselves borrowing from Persian armor? Afaik they had the first mounted knights in full plate, complete with a code of chivalrous rules of engagement
>>1133462
>>1133462
First of all, lorica isn't the name of the segmented plate armor you're thinking of, iirc it just means armor or some such. You have lorica segmentata, hamata and squamata which is segmented plate, mail and scale respectively. Also the names themselves are just our modern names for them. Armor was supplied by the army, yes. Mail co-existed with lorica segmentata but the latter was just used for a relatively short time.
Its probably just the look of scale armor and those helmets. [spoiler] Fucking square shields so much better than shitty round oval shields. [/spoiler]
>>1133375
>le barbarian conehead helm
prob the most aesthetic helmet ever
>>1133895
Wasn't lorica segmentata hard to clean and became rusty very easily?
>>1134244
rectangular sctutm best scutum
D-does anyone like the pre-Marian legions? No? O-okay...
>>1134505
I prefer the look of the gallic helmet myself
>>1134544
They're often actually pretty cool.
>>1134544
the triarii were quite striking with those many plumes streaking off their helms
Berkasovo a best
>>1134566
gaudy
>>1134244
Why did they transition from square to round shields anyways?
Was there any particular reason or did the guy in charge of shields just feel like cutting off the corners one day for aesthetic, personal or budget reasons?
>>1134588
They'd started using a longer sword called a spatha, replacing the old gladius, for reasons that we're not entirely sure of, but a lighter, smaller shield is a lot better for use with a longer sword.
I own a reproduction of a scutum, those things were heavy, no way you could use one with a spatha for more than a few minutes.
>>1134510
Basically. It was expensive/difficult to maintain.
>look bad
Fucking pleb opinions.
How standardized was the late army? I mean with all the internal troubles they were going through I suppose some logistic troubles arose no?
>>1133325
Rome in the 4th century was on the decline.
As the empire declined less and less Romans volunteered for military service, and more barbarians filled in the ranks. By the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, the Roman Army differed little from the barbarians armies that were carving up the remnants of the empire.
>>1134244
who painted this, just wanted to know?
>>1135271
French painter Lionel Royer
>>1135178
By the 4th century there was no concept of roman citizenship anymore. That turd Caracalla saw to that.
>>1135271
Why is there a guy like this in every roman army picture
>>1136071
reminds me of the guy looking back on the call of duty covers
>>1136071
Roman inherent disdain for plebs.
>>1136071
ain't those Celtic britons?
>>1136228
Who knows. That shield and spear look pre polibian (so it could well be continental celts), but the helms look imperial type (so necessarily britons).
But regardless, didn't the romans consider the britons gauls too anyway?
>>1136265
Not that guy, I'm pretty sure Romans considered the natives of Britain Britons
Caesar calls them Britons anyways
Fun fact: Nobody ever called them Celts, Celts was in fact a name the Greeks reserved for a different people and calling the natives of Britain Celts is a modern invention
>>1134343
Fucking hell. Revisionism is one hell of a drug, eh christfag?
>>1134963
Looks like a degenerate boy-fucker to me
>>1133325
Times change is the most neutral answer.
Real answer: The Romans had to rely less and less on their EZ mode heavy infantry and switch to heavy cavalry (foreshadowing the middle ages). By this time infantry units where anywhere and every where and Romans needed soldiers for every situation. Infantry became somewhat more mobile in equipment in order to move quickly to every crisis point. Smaller units would need better 1v1 weapons, thus a lighter round/oval shield and the spatha were standardized.
Standardization of equipment allowed for easier equipment and less bureaucracy. Roman helmets became less artistic from Trajan's day and more simple with even better protection. Oval/round shields meant more options for fighting, shield walls became a thing and the Romans could duel 1v1 against some barbarian raiders if need be too.
Cavalry became known as by the nickname "tin men" (I think, I can't exactly remember) for their armor. Cavalry was meant to be used in all roles so there were also light cavalry as well.
Basically, the army of the principate became no more after Diocletian/Constantine's reforms.
>>1136591
It's funny how armies during the 30 years war also changed to meet new Demands.
Initially very infantry heavy and relying on pike and shot to get shit done. By the end of the war armies typically had between 30 and 50% of their force made up of cavalry or mounted troops. Conditions changed and armies adapted.
>>1136763
Yea, the answer of "why?" is not given by any late antiquity historian as far as I know.
But from what we can conclude from reenactments, the enemies of the Late Roman Empire, and wars recorded in history that the Roman military needed to be faster, respond quickly, easy to maintain, and win all cavalry battles.
Simply put, defend the empire from barbarians and Persian invaders and raiders. Germans and Persians LOVED to raid the rich Roman cities.
Thus, we see the glorious square scutum and gladius short sword disappear. Rest In Peace to the weapons that created the Roman empire.
>>1136071
painted by the same guy?
>>1133877
Well yea everything the Romans used they copied from others.
Segmentata sucked and I don't know why plebs think it looked cooler than the hamata.
>>1136591
Yeah this is also noted by how small and numerous armies became. Legions changed from the standard 5000ish (although it usually was lower) to the standard 1000 and lower, and where there used to be around 27 Legions during the Imperial Era, it now numbered in the hundreds.
>>1133877
>in full plate
In full armor, not plate. Full plate is your stereotypical european knight armor that actually only existed in the last years of the middle ages and the early modern period.
Persians (and therefore romans since the rest of your post is pretty much all correct) used mail, lamellar, that kind of stuff. Still the heaviest of their time and mutatis mutandis what the european knights had for most of the middle ages.
>>1133325
>late era romans
>not the best
Wew lad
>>1134566
tacky
>>1133325
Because the armies literally were barbarian peasants LARPing as the old legions
>>1134510
It was, it also offered inferior protection compared to Lorica Hamata (Chainmail), but Segmentata could be produced at a faster rate (chainmail is a very tedious and long process to do by hand, consisting of forging, weaving, and riveting each ring together to which there could be hundreds to thousands). It was really only used during the Dacian wars because armor was needed very quickly.
>>1134980
Late army was highly standardized, had good logistics, well-equipped, and very large (Estimates range from 150,000 to 300,000 men strong across both West and Eastern Empires). The Late Legion was a much better fighting force pound-for-pound compared to an early legion, its just the West was so far-gone that the army alone couldn't save it.
>>1138297
This. I'm glad somebody understand how absurdly good the actual fighting forces of the late empire were.
>>1133375
>le celt barbarian montefortino and gladius
shit tier. Conehead is the civilised helmet
>>1134343
>at
>it's
>height
>>1138424
>invented by barbarians
>civilised
>>1133325
So you dont have to feel sorry for their part of empire falling
>>1136410
We are talking about Romans, after all.
>>1133367
I just realize how small those horses are compared to the infantrymen next to them.
>>1134544
they're undeniably the best legions
>>1134544
Feather helmets look fucking retarded.
It's as if they were trying their very best to resemble donkeys.
It seems that the Late army was indeed strong.
I wonder, if somehow Rome managed to fix their shit after pushing back the Huns, would've that army be sustainable.
And what would've they done with it? Perhaps started expanding again for more wealth?
>>1141110
Modern Arabian horses weren't brought to Europe until the middle ages
>>1138282
You got it opposite. Segmentata provided more protection than hamata alone but required that each soldier was to have fitted armor which meant that skilled craftsmen have to follow legions. Having hamata makes upkeep much lower as mail does not require precise fittings and if one dies, the mail can be repaired for someone else.
4th century armies preferred scale armor as it was the cheapest, provide better protection against blunt attacks than mail and is only slightly less flexible.
>>1133895
>Also the names themselves are just our modern names for them.
Only the segmentata. Hamata and squamata are what the Romans called them.
>>1144802
Also the Romans in that pic are auxiliaries, likely Batavians.
>>1134526
>the meme segmentata armor that was not used for a long period anyways.
3 centuries and widespread use across legionaries and auxilia
But keep up your contrarian memeing
>>1136265
wat
It's the Roman invasion of Briton, they look like Auxiliary spearmen, probably Gallic
>>1134343
>The Empire of the 4th century was at its height.
gr8 b8 m8.
>>1143528
No my friend, I have plenty of katanas lying around in my room. I am also well-versed in the ancient arts of ninjutsu and kendo. If that dirty barbarian tired anything, his heavy shield and goofy armour would slow down his movements so much that I could strike at his exposed center a hundred times over. My superior 10000 times-folded Nippon steel would slice through his inferior lorica squamata like a knife through butter.
>>1133367
Kataphraktoi are the best
>>1145010
Didn't know we had living legend in this thread
>>1145028
it's fun to involve the observer
it's a technique to draw you in
>>1134526
Chain mail Roman armor was best
>>1136404
>muh Dark Ages
>muh Gibbon
So if a Late Era legion would defeat an early one, why do some people say that medieval armies were inferior?
>>1133367
>Arc de Triomphe in the background
uwotm8?
>>1133325
that's because they were barbarian peasants
it's partly why the empire failed in the first place
![RomeConstantine'sArch03[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/aoVvnc1.jpg "RomeConstantine'sArch03[1].jpg")
>>1145377
the romans started this meme and emperors all over the world shared it on facebook
>>1133325
the usual shit... greed, nepotism, dumb retards in positions of power etc made the empire colapse and implode taking their hugo bosses with them
so making nice looking armor and outfits gets secondary when orgies and hot baths turns out to be the only thing you do until you die
>>1134935
those shields are supposed to be supported by the ground since that was how roman formations worked unlike the smaller ones which are supposed to be mobile and meant to be used on individual skirmishes instead of being part of a compact formation units that moves and fights as a whole
to resume it: after adopting the "barbarian" weaponry, romans started fighting like the barbarians
>>1143518
>When the squad's ready to wreck some Barbarian's shit.
Pretty much what happens when a nation crumbles, the state has to haul in fighters from all over in order to hold on to their diminishing territory with what ever gear they can get a hold of.
Similar to the situation in Syria with the government being helped by Hezbollah and the Kurds.
>>1134343
not according to just about anyone. explains yourself, and I really hope it's something more interesting that religion as your justification.
>>1133325
The 4th century Roman army was based as fuck. Instead of hiding like a bitch behind a big shield and being covered by two other soldiers, most soldiers of the era fought medieval style with longswords and smaller shields, fighting individual smaller guerilla actions against larger armies of barbarians that had crossed the frontier to raid.
>>1136228
Definitely. Gauls were not that much into chariots as they were.
[spoiler]I really need to copy some images from my other PC. I had this pic with "Let me tell you about the Britons"[/spoiler]
>>1145224
its cringe
>>1150396
I bet they hacked and slashed too
what a bunch of undisciplined, unsophisticated, barbarians
