Did troop quality in Europe fell after the Roman Empire had fallen? Were there any medieval entity in Europe capable of matching the Roman legion's skill and discipline?
I'm not talking about having a professional army/administration that the empire had but in a hypothetical scenario, would the ancient Romans be capable of taking on medieval European soldiers, regardless if they're a knight/mercenary etc.?
>>825356
Obviously Roman legions would be able to take on medieval knights. It's not like knights had guns or anything.
>inb4 handcannons
>>825356
mm
iirc Romans had a problem dealing with heavy cavalry
high medieval knights would crush romans with superior technology. the middle ages saw many mercenaries who were masters of their craft.
People are going to bring up carrhae as an example of Romans not being able to face heavy cavalry. But provided the proper troop composition and leadership Roman legions stood up to cavalry armies quite well.
The Battle of Cyrrhestica is a prime example of Roman discipline mopping up a parthian cavalry based army.
>>825356
The Roman Empire was destroyed for a reason.There were certainly militaries capable of taking on the Roman Empire.
I would say that drilling techniques didn't properly come back until the early modern period. If Roman soldiers were equipped with mediaeval technology then they would have been a superior fighting force IMO.
>>825356
The Roman army was basically Germanic long before the empire fell.
>>825378
If anything, political bullshits and corruption were the biggest reasons why the empire went down.
Seriously, what kind of autist would even think of causing a civil war when you're surrounded by Germanic tribes wanting to butt fuck you at full force, full throttle?
>>825356
Western European knights were pretty capable, both on horse and on foot, and they would have the obvious technological advances
>>825392
The special, ROman Emperor kind of autist. And military quality definetally went down during the later periods of the Empire. If we are talking about 400 A.D. Roman Legion, I think they could stand up to some empires. But certainly not against France, HRE, or England.
>>825356
Almost impossible to say. Roman legions also got their butts kicked numerous times by Germanic tribes/Caledonians/Brittons/Vandals/Ostrogoths whatever. Organisational wise I think there was no post-Roman troop that could that of the Romans.
>>825368
maybe, although they did get rekt by parthian cataphracts which were kind of similar to knights
>>825356
>would the ancient Romans be capable of taking on medieval European soldiers
Depends on era, terrain, and country
Obviously the Hungarian Black Army would destroy them, but I'm sure given the right conditions the Romans could win
>>825890
Basically this.
The fascinating thing about pre-modenr war is that if something was viable in one era, it woudl remain viable under similar conditions (society, terrain, Are we using bronze, steely iron, or steel?*) right until the advent of linear warfare.
For example, the swiss/lorraine army of the battle of nancy-1477 ad-facing off against an equally-sized force of the Macedonian army of 334 bc... might actually lose, in spite of 1,800 years of advancement, including the introduction of the firearm.
>>825356
>Europe fell after the Roman Empire had fallen?
Yes.
Because
>I'm not talking about having a professional army/administration that the empire
This fell.
Dark Ages medieval troops were pretty much "A few professional fighting men + levied freemen."
High Middle Ages meanwhile was "Knights + Few professional fighting men+ mercenaries."
There was a high degree of shitty standardization among medieval armies. One outfit could get its shit together while one doesn't. This is not just in terms of equipment but also training and leadership.
>>825368
>It's not like knights had guns or anything.
neither did romans
>>825356
outnumbered germanic tribes beat them so often they took control of their empire so yeah
but the reason for that was low birthrates and the armies being full of unloyal germanics anyway
could a germanic army beat an army of alexander or ceasar head on? they shouldn't even think about it
>>827795
>>825369
Triarii
>>825369
This myth again.
I think the Romans could win depending on the general leading them. The greats like Aurelian, Probus, Trajan could at the very least put a serious hurting on them.
>>827795
>>825376
>The Battle of Cyrrhestica is a prime example of Roman discipline mopping up a parthian cavalry based army.
Horses can not gallop downhill.
That is why the Legionaries were victorious.
>>825392
several of the roman emperors could probably be diagnosed with autism today
>>825890
>Obviously the Hungarian Black Army would destroy them
Romans have speed and numbers.
Plus Matyas the commander wouldn't have had the military experience of a Dozen Legates or a Consul or two.
>>825356
I reckon the troop quality in 460 was not significantly better or worse than in 480.
>>827972
autisim is the mildest of what one could potentially diagnose the latter roman emperors with.
>>825375
>superior technology
>a bigger sword
>a longer spear
Nothing the Romans hadn't seen before.
>>825376
I think the way they butchered the Sarmatians is probably a better example.
>>825411
It's not so much that the quality of the troops decreased as the number of troops decreased. Once Caracalla (or was it Commodus, I forget) gave everyone Roman citizenship, a lot of men stopped enlisting in the legions. Citizenship had always been one of the primary motivators for enlisting and once that was gone, the Roman military began a slow and steady collapse.
>>826376
>the swiss/lorraine army of the battle of nancy-1477 ad-facing off against an equally-sized force of the Macedonian army of 334 bc... might actually lose, in spite of 1,800 years of advancement
I'm not too certain about this. After all, technology hadn't halted, and in terms of arms and armour the late 15th century was far more advanced.
One should consider: arms and armour at that time was both hardened and tempered, made of high quality steel that Europe had available due to the invention of the blast-furnace.
To an ancient man, who was used to bloomery iron at best, a flexible sword that was not just sharp but that could also withstand great stress would have been like magic. Not to mention armour that covered the whole body.
Assuming the commanders aren't complete idiots, the more modern troops would have had a huge advantage - especially if missile weaponry is involved.
>>825378
>was destroyed for a reason
Yeah, complete corruption within. It's hard for a military to fight when the society it's based from has completely fallen apart.
>>831335
First, no. None of the arms would seem like magic. They'd be of astoudnign quality, but that's all.
Second, Armor that covered the whole body was a concept that was already wlel understood, predating the phalanx by centuries and surviving right into the early hoplite phalanx.
Third, the phalagnite is, on average, going be more heavily armed and armored than his swiss adversaries.
The swiss have some considerable advantages int terms of how they employ their skirmishers, and their front line (or two) MAY be tougher, but the footing is actually fairly even.
>>831372
>None of the arms would seem like magic.
If you're confronted with a material that has properties you have never encountered before, then calling it's astounding at the very least.
>Armor that covered the whole body was a concept that was already wlel understood, predating the phalanx by centuries
No.
Complete metal armour that enclosed the whole body, leaving no gaps - let alone metal armour that involved late 15th century joint mechanisms was absolutely unheard of.
>the phalagnite is, on average, going be more heavily armed and armored than his swiss adversaries.
Not really. Nothing they had was comparably protective.
>>831441
Before someone bemoans the early 16th century equipment in that picture - obviously, most people tend to focus on the archetypical early 16th century Landsknecht look, but in terms of technology the way from the late 15th to the early 16th century wasn't that far obviously. A different style of helmet, different tassets, no codpiece, different neck-protection, but overall rather comparable.
>>831441
>>831460
Swiss soldiers were pretty infamous for their lack of armor. The front ranks, or two, may have been as well armored as the man in your image, but many of the soldiers would have had NO armor at all.
>the phalagnite is, on average, going be more heavily armed and armored than his swiss adversaries.
>Not really. Nothing they had was comparably protective.
Shields, helms, greave on the leading leg, anything from textile to bronze on the torso for EVERYONE, and a sword.
The swiss are going to have no shields, a good portion will not have armor, those that do will typically not have lower leg armor, and the only sidearm you cna guarantee is a dagger-beyond, that, it ranges from "tears" to swords comparable in size of the macedonians, to full on longswords.
>Complete metal armour that enclosed the whole body, leaving no gaps - let alone metal armour that involved late 15th century joint mechanisms was absolutely unheard of.
Have you ever seen the armor of archaic hoplites? The gaps on it amount to a few inches of exposed flesh over the entire body. Even the toes have armor.
The swiss will certianly have more protective armor-where the armor covers them, and for those who have it.
But they will likely have inferior coverage almost universally.
>>831508
>Swiss soldiers were pretty infamous for their lack of armor.
They're at the very least going to have a cuirass and a helmet.
>Shields, helms, greave on the leading leg, anything from textile to bronze on the torso for EVERYONE
And how is that going to protect you from hardened and tempered steel weaponry? One side has to aim precisely where the armour doesn't cover, the other side simply thrusts at their enemies and has a good chance of penetrating their armour.
>Have you ever seen the armor of archaic hoplites? The gaps on it amount to a few inches of exposed flesh over the entire body. Even the toes have armor.
It's still hardly comparable to late medieval plate armour.
>The swiss will certianly have more protective armor-where the armor covers them, and for those who have it.
Exactly, and they're going to be armoured where it matters.
I maintain the position that the technological difference is a factor that needs to be considered. Bronze or early iron/steel weapons weren't heat treated comparably. They would get damaged on impact with the late medieval armour and have a much worse chance of actually penetrating it. On the other hand, the late medieval weaponry would have a much better chance of achieving penetration. Late medieval steel weapons could be made longer while at the same time being much lighter and more robust. Armour was much more refined, involving more elaborate joint mechanisms and shifted plates that would make it more mobile.
>>831534 here
It's getting late here though, so we'll have to continue this discussion at a later time.
>>825368
Yeah but what about handcannons
The knights of medieval times were not like any other cavalry force the Romans had faced. Not only would they have higher quality weaponry and armor, but the stirrup would have given them the ultimate advantage. I'm really surprised nobody's mentioned this yet, the stirrup is one of the major reasons cavalry was so important in medieval warfare. A charge would destroy Roman formations.
>>831534
You're seriousl failing to understand that having better metla doesn't magically invalidate the other guys armor.
No, tempered steel isn't generally gong to stab or cut cleanly through bronze or iron. It has the capacity, yes, but the human body is not going to generate the needed force except in rare occasions.
>They're at the very least going to have a cuirass and a helmet.
Even latter German forces fielded plenty of PIKES with no armor, never mind shot or halberds.
There is absolutely no reason to assume they will all have at least a curiass-the swiss had no such standards, and there's nothing from the period saying they did.
Most of what you're talking about simply isn't going to matter. Few, if any, swiss are going to be in any more than curiass and tassets, with mail arm defenses-or none-being common among armored men. The complexity of joints is irrelevant when those pieces simply aren't seeing use.
Making weapons longer due to better steel is, again, irrelevant-this doesn't affect pikes, which are the principal arm being used by both.
The swiss themselves had to ban the wearing of longswords, as they're TOO LONG to use in a pike formation. They're going to have weapons that end up comparable in size to Macedonian swords. Yes, they're better, but not decisively so, and if it comes down to swords-one side has shields.
I DO think the Swiss would win more often than not in a straight infantry clash, but this is due to the possibility of them discharging crossbows and guns into a section of line at point blank range, and then rushing halberds into the resulting gap to carve the phalanx up from the inside.
If cavalry is involved, the swiss probably lose.
>>831635
>but the stirrup would have given them the ultimate advantage.
No it wouldn't.
>>825376
You know horsemen were literally the bane of Roman and Byzantine armies until after the 7th or 8th centuries right? You also know Parthians and Sassanids were the most feared forces to Roman legionaries which is why a certain Roman historian talks about Persian cataphracts skewing multiple heavy infantry with their lances.
>>825378
But that's fucking wrong.
Foreigners didn't destroy the Roman Empire's military, first they became the military and then they military destroyed itself.
>>827058
Exactly thats the point, medieval european armies were not that different to the romans technology wise.
I seem to remember the conclusion of most on the subject being that the Romans weren't particularly militarily skilled: rather, it was the fact that they were able to muster a standardized and trained host in an efficient manner and in a relatively short amount of time, giving them the logistical edge that allowed them to overwhelm as well as they did.
I wanna say the Medieval forces would win in a one-on-one battle, but in a prolonged war, the Romans would win.
>>831877
>No, tempered steel isn't generally gong to stab or cut cleanly through bronze or iron.
I think you're overestimating the protective potential of these early materials. Certainly you're not going to "cut" through this sort of armour, but a well placed thrust is going to achieve penetration. On the other hand, the chance to achieve the same with bronze or early bloomery iron weaponry against steel is much slimmer.
Again: you're underestimating the technological development in terms of metallurgy. Antique arms and armour were primitive in comparison.
They looked similar, but their material properties were a lot different.
>Even latter German forces fielded plenty of PIKES with no armor, never mind shot or halberds.
Judging by historical depictions and descriptions of battles it was well common to have at the very least a cuirass. We're dealing with professional mercenaries here - people who fight for a living. Certainly they would bring proper equipment.
>The complexity of joints is irrelevant when those pieces simply aren't seeing use.
The officers would have certainly been able to afford more complex armour pieces, which is well documented.
>If cavalry is involved, the swiss probably lose.
The Swiss infantry was actually great against cavalry and late medieval cavalry was infinitely superior to anything that was riding around in the antique period.
>>831186
I'd mention Elagabalus but he'd probably skew the statistics far too much.
>>825356
I like how in movies Romans have english accents
What if they actually had dude-bro accents?
>>831877
>the human body is not going to generate the needed force except in rare occasion
lol no
not everybody was a limp wristed faggot back then you know.
What is this meme that Rome is the undisputed god empire of history? Rome wasn't even the most powerful empire of it's time. The Han dumpstered on Rome in terms of military and technology,
>>834100
>The Han dumpstered on Rome in terms of military and technology,
are you joking? What kind of lameass scumfucking weeaboo bait is this?
>>834100
The Han chinese were shit. Didn't even have concrete, didn't even have an actual system of roadways
>>834062
Worse: what if they had Italian accents all along?
>>834117
>>834119
The Roman army could never compete with the Han. Even at it's height the Roman army only numbered 450,000 soldiers never mind fielding the whole lot at once. Rome struggled again'st Barbarian armies in Europe and Hannibal was almost there at conquering them with a force a fraction the size of what the Han could field. Nevermind the massive array of talented officers available in China during the time of the Roman empire.
>>834193
Who cares?
I still would have rather lived in the Roman Empire than in fucking Han China. Rome was more technologically advanced, had better logistics, better culture (who wants to live in stratified Confucian culture that makes Roman culture seem easygoing?) and lifestyle, etc.
Fuck Han China. Even the palaces of the Chinese Emperor up until the modern age were wood-and-reed crap and stones with mortar because they couldn't into concrete or cement. Savages.
>>834235
>Posting on /his/ with this sort of education
>This was the largest palace ever built on Earth, covering 4.8 km2 (1,200 acres), which is 6.7 times the size of the current Forbidden City, or 11 times the size of the Vatican City
That would be the Weiyang palace of the Han
>>834193
Alot of European numbers have been downsized based on modern historical work. I wonder if Asian accounts have had the same scrutiny yet
Most han troops were peasant conscripts. the Roman army was a professional operation which often one against incredible numbers
Without taking numbers into account.
Rome was a military culture that designed its army to conquer tribal cultures. They made war about killing disorganized enemies as efficiently as possible. While the Dark Ages are called such because of the stagnation in population and technology, it created organized armies trained to defeat other organized armies.
Cavalry in Europe before the 6th century was much slower and less effective than afterwords, because for whatever reason no European came up with the idea of the stirrup. The stirrup allows the horse to run faster without throwing the rider and in combat allows the man to brace his blows, putting much more strength into them. The stirrup only began appearing in Europe after the 6th century.
The differences in Metallurgy have already been described fairly well in this thread.
Rome was a plunder culture, conquer a tribe take all their stuff then tax them and bring all of it back to Rome. The lords and kings of the Middle Ages loved to do this but it was much harder with stronger defenses and people willing to attack from behind, a great example of this is "We do not Sow".
>>834100
The Romans had a professional army of 500,000 men (and not even at its peak) maintained by state funds with virtually nil conscription in pre-industrial Europe with a population of about 60 million. It is no meme. There was literally nothing else on Earth aside from perhaps China (which is essentially cheating due to its massive as fuck population) comparable to it in terms of its sheer power and influence, both soft and hard.
>>834294
You have to be fair numberwise, you have to cut out at least 10% of those numbers, because the Roman army loved keeping its dead on the books in order to divvy up the extra pay and rations.
>>834193
>peasant levies are totally the same as a rigorously standardized professional fighting force that builds roads and cities in it's off time guys!!
>>834343
>because the Roman army loved keeping its dead on the books in order to divvy up the extra pay and rations.
So did the Chinese actually.
Well, during the Ming Dynasty. Local Commanders conflated the numbers to the point that Spanish Missionaries said there were 1.7 Million soldiers in Ming China.
[spoiler]It was actually less then or up to 1 million, still many kek[/spoiler]
>>834276
Asian accounts are bureaucratic records compiled from primary sources that we no longer have access to.
Records of the Donghai military inventory show that the Han dynasty was capable of equipping their men. http://historum.com/asian-history/45323-han-dynasty-donghai-military-inventory.html
Napoleonic Europe adopted levee en masse yet the Han are criticized for conscription.
>>834343
True. Plus the Vindolanda tablets show just how fucked individual units could be with like 20% of them ill from some peculiar eye disease Romans always used to get while in Britain, or on leave to go and buy goods in one of the towns, or injured.
>>834294
Their manpower represented like 0.2% of their population, at least that is the calculation I have seen sometime, the non European part was taxable and provided troops to the European part, hell even non roman tribes gave troops to the Empire.
The English army at harfleur of 12.000 would represent 0.6% of it's (roughly) 2 million inhabitants. Granted that the English army was not a standing one. I'd reckon that the total possible manpower of all European states combined was quite high too.
>>834381
Yeah 250,000 of the 500,000 figure I gave are supposed to be auxiliaries, many of whom came from beyond the frontiers.
>>834287
>Cavalry in Europe before the 6th century was much slower and less effective than afterwords, because for whatever reason no European came up with the idea of the stirrup. The stirrup allows the horse to run faster without throwing the rider and in combat allows the man to brace his blows, putting much more strength into them. The stirrup only began appearing in Europe after the 6th century.
No. The stirrup was good for balancing on long rides and horseback archery, but that was about it. Cavalry was plenty fast and effective before the 6th century without the stirrup.
>>834387
It's actually shocking to realize just how small armies of said states and empires were compared too tribal peoples. Not in absolutely numbers but in warriors relative to the population, not full time warriors of course but still.
>>834405
He is a bit right, if you got stirrups you can press your butt in the cantle which could possible allow you to use a slightly thicker lance. That said shock cavalry was relevant long before the stirrup arrived.
>>834062
>Bro, you shoulda seen Quintus' testudo at drill the other day. It looked like total shit but what else would you expect from those scrubs over in the sixth legion amirite? It was fucking hilarious brah but I'll tell you what Quintus won't be laughing when he gets a snownigger spear up his ass from showing up in Germania with a bullshit testudo like that.
>>834193
The Chinese are infamous for overstating numbers. Just take the size and capability of treasure ships as an example. Utter bullshit when examined scientifically. They really did go for the Herodotus tier exaggeration sometimes.
>>834294
>The Romans had a professional army of 500,000 men (and not even at its peak)
Where the fuck did you pull that number from? The estimates but the Roman army at 400,000 not 500,000? If you are pulling out the number from after the Han empire then no you are still wrong and under representing the Roman army and during the 3 kingdoms China had a combined force of at least 1.5 million. Stop your Rome is the god empire of history meme right now. Tribes alone under Ma Chao could field an army of 100,000 and they weren't even a kingdom nor state. In terms of sheer manpower there is no debate China prior during and following the Han where unrivaled in their numbers. My argument to begin with was China being easily comparable to Rome so you can't discredit them from the argument now.
>>834597
>The Humans are infamous for overstating numbers
ftfy, happens everywhere not just to the Chinese the Romans did it as well.
>>834367
the musket changed warfare a lot. professional soldiers have historically out preformed levies
>>834597
It's the fact that the Roman army was so professional that meant they usually won their battles against sometimes numerically superior armies. Shit tier Chinese peasants are hardly their equal. 500,000 professional troops versus 1.5 million rice stained, low-morale peasants would be no contest.
>>834597
>Where the fuck did you pull that number from?
Academic sources i've read over the past few years. I can't remember distinctly who. I know that 500,00 is when it was at its smallest under Augustus before being massively expanded in the 3rd century.
>>831198
>largely equipped with iron vs steel equipment of superior quality and design
>cavalry with stirrups
Stirrups were a big deal.
>>834610
Listen mate, the difference is, western historians make a concerted effort at debunking those numbers. The CPC narrative of "MUH 5000 YEARS" has encouraged people to accept Chinese historical claims without putting them under scrutiny. That's why we've got more accurate numbers for Rome, and most western societies, than we do for China.
>>834615
Professional soldiers haven't been around that long though.
>>834619
>Provides no source despite me providing proof he is wrong >>834607
>Shit tier Chinese peasants
> Conscripted soldiers underwent one year of training and one year of service as non-professional soldiers. The year of training was served in one of three branches of the armed forces: infantry, cavalry or navy
That's from the book Discourses on Salt and Iron about the Han empire
Now will you please stop spouting bull shit
>>834623
The Han empire is a very documented time period which have also been covered by western historians such as Armies of Antiquity by Richards which looks at the different attitudes towards technology of both the Romans and the Han
>>834619
>Rice stained,low morale peasants
When will his meme end
>>834654
oh man, we broke his mind.
>>834669
how many men were armed as such?
>>834714
Apart from the helmet this was munition grade armor.
Attached image is of a late western Han officer.
>>834732
kill yourself
>>834817
>get destroyed
>throws insult
Yep
>>834821
who are you quoting?
>>834814
again I am somewhat skeptical ,do you have an academic source I could look up
>>834654
Richards, as I understand it, is by no means an expert on Chinese history.
>>834849
Based on Liu Sheng's funerary armor.
http://historum.com/ancient-history/54835-western-han-dynasty-scale-lamellar-armour-9p.html
Most early western Han armors are based on the Yangjiawan terracotta army.
>>834906
>http://historum.com/ancient-history/54835-western-han-dynasty-scale-lamellar-armour-9p.html
I don't doubt the armor existed, just that it was universal or near so
>>834906
Light Infantry
>>834926
Something like Liu Xiang's armor would be more unique.
>>834669
Same armor from a musuem
>>835030
Always fascinated me with how advanced China was for it's size though it's a shame about the whole inventing China thing which prevented them from inventing anything like glass.
Troop Quality was already steadily declining as the Roman Empire reached its end.
But the Roman Legionaries were overall a more effective infantry force than any from the middle ages as far as I'm concerned. The primary concern would be dealing with the heavy cavalry of the middle ages, especially in the late era with the plate-armoured Knights. But knowing the Romans, they'd probably adopt some kind of counter to that.
Neither could beat a full army of horse archers.
>>835205
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Mongol_invasion_of_Poland
>>835205
Roman society and culture would be incompatible with horse archer armies, methinks
>>835481
tell that to Belisarius
>>832134
>You know horsemen were literally the bane of Roman and Byzantine armies until after the 7th or 8th centuries right?
You know they defeated cavalry forces on a regular basis, right?
you know they sacked the parthian capital multiple times, right?
You know they beat the sassanids as often as they lost, right?
You know you're fucking uninformed, right?
>>833113
>I seem to remember the conclusion of most on the subject being that the Romans weren't particularly militarily skilled
That conclusion has no basis in reality.
>>834099
Tell you what.
You get a steel knige, and try to saw through a piece of iron with it.
Enjoy your edge going dull.
>>834287
>Rome was a military culture that designed its army to conquer tribal cultures. They made war about killing disorganized enemies as efficiently as possible.
Stop fucking posting. they spent an exceptional amount of time conquering hellenics, who were more organized rigidly in the field than any italian army, and spent the formative period of their military thinking killing fucking samnites, who were just as organized as the romans.
>all this shit about the stirrup
It's very, very clear you don't actually know what the stirrup is for.
>>835701
He had a lot of infantry and traditional cavalry as well.
The eastern empire always had pretty damn good infantry compared to contemporaries, even under the thematic system when the cavalry were considered the war winning arm.
>>836507
Holy shit that damage control.
>>834100
Eurocentrism.
>>836556
Yeah, no. Stating fact is not damage control.
Parthians got their asses beta by rome more often than not, and the sassanids ended up losing in the end.
Other cavalry powers didn't even do that well.
>>836601
>Stating fact is not damage control.
Sure thing, dude.
>Sassanids ended up losing in the end.
You know the ERE lost the previous two wars before the 602-629 war and sued for peace in the one before that and were constantly paying the Sassanids not to rape them.
You oversimplify a lot to make up your own bullshit, you come off pretty uninformed here faggot.
>>836507
>>836601
Rome was in the process of incorporating most of modern day Iraq into the roman sphere, but a series of mistakes halted the effort and allowed the native populations to reassert themselves which would plague the romans again with more border conflicts after the fall of the western roman empire.
Roman armies for the most part didn't really care for cavalry, it didn't matter what they faced on the field since the battle was determined by their logistics. Even after the crisis of the third century, and even as Honorious reigned and took the empire in the west to collapse the roman army comprised of over a million professional/semi-professional soldiers, not even counting the Limites (border-guards in towns defending them).
The problem was, there were only two field armies of note, wherever they were the empire was mostly safe but they had to roll around and hold court etc so they were quite slow and bled the land dry to support them. Additionally, the western roman empire still did not have its border defences finished before mass migrations. Those migrants were also turned off by Stilchos death by Honorius which caused a repeat across the empire of Landholders killing their german/hafu guards etc for being threats to rome.
>>835087
China's problem was that it had really, really, shitty neighbors. Fucking horsefuckers and jungleniggers. They constantly caused issues with China, and the chinese had to accept it and would routinely get cucked by them. The Jurchens, sedentary but horsefuckers regardless for example became emperor of china for a small period, and then became emperors of China again as the Manchurian people during the Qing.
>>836507
>You know they defeated cavalry forces on a regular basis, right?
You know the same cavalry forces from tribal backwater states like Celtic and Gaulic or Germanic horsemen the Romans fielded against the Arsacid and Sassanids always got wrecked by them right? Unless they were Iranic horsemen like the Sarmatians.
>You know they sacked the Parthian capital multiple times, right?
Its not hard to sack Ctesiphon when its relatively within earshot of the borders shared between the Roman/Byzantine Empire with the Arsacid/Sassanid Empire in the first place. Its literally always within proximity of those conflicts. Also what does this have to do with fighting heavy cavarly like cataphracts in the first place? These topics aren't even remotely related.
>You know they beat the Sassanids as often as they lost, right?
Actually Sassanids won more wars against pre-split Roman Empire and the Byzantines, but everyone always focuses on the final Byzo-Persian War.
>You're your'e fucking uninformed right?
I'd say you are, honestly. And you're hostility is pretty much a turn off and why so many /hist/ threads are shit.
>>836817
Oh, and Chinese were terrible sailors. They were pretty great shipbuilders for freight, but they couldn't supress the Pirates at any time in their history. Pirates burned down Canton, the trade port in the south which traded porcelain and tea for pearls etc from Arab/Sindh merchants. Because of this, China never actually developed trade networks with other places itself which harmed it. Though chinese merchants did work abroad, the state was not conducting huge amounts of trade which could be used to control neighbors.
Sorry a little tired; in summary the chinese squandered their huge amount of coast which was also the most densely settled parts of China to be a naval and shipping power.
>>836838
Rome conquored from present day Kuwait to I believe the mountains of Afghanistan in a war and was developing them under Roman administration before a series of losses that had their control rolled back.
>>836848
>to the mountains of Afghanistan
>Rome
Never happened.
Roman armies under Trajan, Verus, Severus, Caracalla, Galerius, and Julian the Apostate all penetrated Persia and sacked the capital of Ctesiphon, proving that the Romans were fully capable of crippling their eastern rivals. The legions must have perfected some means of containing the lethal combination of light horse-archers and heavily-armored mounted lancers.
>>836891
>proving that the Romans were fully capable of crippling their eastern rivals.
But these gains were always Pyrrhic and in the end the Romans always ended up slinking home ingloriously without any war booty to show for it.
>>836891
>Trajan
>Caracalla
>Severus
Both their armies are noted as being being mauled and routed out of Iranian heartlands as soon as they overextended themselves and further weakening the Roman Empire in the long run with overly ambitious campaigns of conquest.
>Galerius
Galerius lost several battles against Narseh and never invaded Persian territory, the reversal was in Armenia. You are stretching the truth now and distorting facts. In fact the end result of this was the returning of Roman territory in the Levant and Caucasus areas back to them, not taking any lands from the Persians.
>Julian the Apostate
You mean the Eastern Roman Emperor whose vastly larger army was routed outside of Ctesiphon and his successor Jovian had to pay a literal ransom for himself and his remaining army to return to Roman lands across the borders out of Persian Mesopotamia?
>>836914
>Severus loots Ctesiphon
>no booty
Some ventures failed, but some, clearly, did not.
>>836891
>Trajan
As soon as he fell sick, the Parthians and Persians started to ambush the retreating segments of his invasion force and entire legions were reported routed or fragmented entirely.
This also should be noted when Arsacid dynasty was undergoing multiple civil wars and contextually the same shit happened when Caracalla invaded as well.
>Galerius
He was booted out of Roman Armenia and the entire province was lost until he returned with a veteran army from Diocletian and several other Roman provinces were returned. There was also never any invasion of Persia at this point.
>Julian the Apostate
He lost at Samara (lol at Roman sources claiming it was a "stalemate"), died shortly afterwards and his successor Jovian had to pay a huge economy debilitating size tribute to Shapur II the Great to return to Europe.
In fact if memory serves, wasn't Gordian III the very first Roman Emperor killed in battle and that was against the Persians? Or no?
>>836914
>After re-taking and burning Seleucia, Trajan then formally deposed the Parthian king Osroes I and put his own puppet ruler Parthamaspates on the throne. This event was commemorated in a coin so as to be presented as the reduction of Parthia to client kingdom status: REX PARTHIS DATUS, "a king is given to the Parthians"
>During the second encounter, the Battle of Satala in 298, Roman forces seized Narseh's camp, his treasury, his harem, and his wife.[19][21] Narseh's wife would live out the remainder of the war in Daphne, a suburb of Antioch, serving as a constant reminder to the Persians of the Roman victory.[19] Galerius advanced into Media and Adiabene, winning continuous victories, most prominently near Theodosiopolis (Erzurum),[4]:151 and securing Nisibis (Nusaybin) before 1 October 298. He moved down the Tigris, taking Ctesiphon, and gazing onwards to the ruins of Babylon before returning to Roman territory via the Euphrates
>The conditions of the Peace of Nisibis were heavy:[19] Persia would give up territory to Rome, making the Tigris the boundary between the two empires. Further terms specified that Armenia was returned to Roman domination, with the fort of Ziatha as its border; Caucasian Iberia would pay allegiance to Rome under a Roman appointee; Nisibis, now under Roman rule, would become the sole conduit for trade between Persia and Rome; and Rome would exercise control over the five satrapies between the Tigris and Armenia: Ingilene, Sophanene (Sophene), Arzanene (Aghdznik), Corduene, and Zabdicene (near modern Hakkâri, Turkey).
>>836935
All of which was a moot point by the reign of his successor, Hadrian.
>>836935
>Trajan meme
He literally fell sick and died, his army and expeditionary force never built any new fortifications or garrisons in those "new" affixed borders he claimed he took from the Parthians, and the Iranians deposed his handpicked king and puppet, Parthamaspates, and murdered him and Hadrian returned everything back to the status quo.
No permanence at all.
>>836943
You seem to be laboring under a delusion that the Parthion kingdom was superior to Rome, if this was the case, it would have conquered Rome, instead of being relegated to a footnote in history.
The roman empire never fell and it rules most of the world including U.s and is still the basis of statutory law. The vatican and the roman cult are still in control.
>>836817
Only Chu gave early Sinitic speakers a hard time,Qin assimilated the Rong of Shaanxi/Gansu,Zhao colonized parts of Inner Mongolia,Yan expanded into Liaoning and Qi destroyed Dong/Huai Yi polities.
Southern natives were often employed as mercenaries they never held any dynastic ambitions or they were quashed before their aspirations reached fruition e.g. Nong Zhigao.
Sinitic speakers really didn't care who sat on the dragon throne you have plenty of ethnic Han fighting for the highest bidder.(Compare the mass surrender of military personnel in the Southern Song to the resistance shown in Dai Viet)
>>836935
Why do you ignore Shapur I the Great making the Romans pay him 500,000 denarii and seizing Roman Syria and Armenia for years?
>>836957
No one is laboring under any "delusion" because the Arsacids were reactive to Roman aggression typically in those wars, which is the opposite of their Sassanid successors. Also you are being universally obstinate here by thinking either Rome/Byzantine or Parthia/Persia could wipe each other off the map.
The logistics make it impossible for either side so get over it.
Also why do you cherrypick when there are multiple times the Persians have booted the Romans out of large parts of Mesopotamia, the Levant, and the Caucasus region? Or the fact even the Byzantines were wary enough of the Sassanids military prowess and aggression that they agreed to often pay the Persians tribute to maintain affixed military fortresses in the North and East to keep barbarian hordes like the Huns away from their lands.
>>836972
Facts are the Parthian capital got sacked numerous times, how many times did Roman cities in the east get conquered by the Parthians?
>No permanence at all.
>Persians have booted the Romans out of large parts of Mesopotamia
Again you are delusional, the Romans pretty much kept to the boundries that Augustus created. When they did attack their neighbors, it was not to conquer, but to dominate and loot. Thats why they retreated and were easily ambushed, they were weighted down with loot.
>>836987
>Facts are the Parthian capital got sacked numerous times
I never disputed this
>how many times did Roman cities in the east get conquered by the Parthians?
I have no idea but the Persians frequently razed Roman cities and depopulated them back to Iranian lands, which the Romans never managed in turn.
>Again you are delusional
No, I am not.
>the Romans pretty much kept to the boundaries that Augustus created.
No, they didn't. The actions of many of the Roman emperors in the 2nd and 3rd centuries show how much you are lying through your teeth on this.
>When they did attack their neighbors, it was not to conquer
Lying again.
>but to dominate and loot
And conquer.
>That's why they retreated and were easily ambushed
No. They were easily ambushed because Romans have zero actual knowledge about the core heartlands of the Iranians and Persians and their more suited to horse archery and cavalry battles which usually wrecked Roman lines.
You are a liar.
>>836987
>the Romans kept to the boundaries Augustus created
Not in the East they didn't, you fuckwit. The majority of these pointless wars between Rome and Persia were typically because the Romans wanted Persian Mesopotamia or the Persians wanted the Roman Levant and Caucasus which they viewed as a critical threat to their own lands.
>>836987
>When they did attack their neighbors, it was not to conquer but to dominate and loot.
>they kept pretty much to the boundaries that Augustus created.
No? They only kept to the boundaries Augustus fixed in Europe with Germania, they were constantly in Roman history from the principate period onwards trying to continually expand consistently in the Near East and Asian continent.
>>836987
>Trajan specifically tries to emulate and model himself as the second coming of Alexander the Great with the specific goal of conquering Parthia and making it into a client state
>"It was just to loot some money for realsies though"
>>836891
>Caracalla
Are you forgetting what the end result of his "invasion" was? Romans take some territory and then end up paying the Parthians a shit ton of money after he got assassinated by his own soldiers.
This is long term pyrrhic shit like the other anon mentioned.
>>837053
Don't forget Caracalla's actions lead to the rising of the Sassanid dynasty. Who would be much worse for the Romans and Byzantines then the Arsacids ever were.
>>837020
Let's face some facts. The largest threat the Persians (Parthians, Sassanids, etc.) ever put to the Roman Empire was the failed siege of Constantinople in 626 in cooperation with Avars and Slavs(and that was against the feeble Byzantium successor state) . Meanwhile Rome was sacked several times by its northern barbarian neighbours (by Celts in early 4th century BC - 390 BC is the traditional date, by Goths in 410 AD, by Vandals in 455 AD) and the Roman empire was crossed multiple times by barbarian pillaging raids, destroying and looting everything they could
>>837060
The Persians never directly siegedConstantinople themselves, you silly fuck. The Avars and Slavs were the ones doing the sieging of the city while the Sassanids attempted to send a small army with their engineers to those people so they could sap the city's walls and defenses.
You are still grossly cherrypicking events to manipulate facts here and deny actual historical fact with your bias. Constantinople and Rome were both thousands of miles from the borders with the Arsacid and Sassanid Empire territory.
Ctesiphon was literally always within striking distance. And even when it was sacked or occupied by the Romans or Byzantines, it never broke either dynasty.
>>837060
>the largest threat
So one Roman Emperor being killed in battle with a Persian Emperor, while another is captured, and a third is subjugated into a submissive status while the Romans are forced to pay huge tribute and turn over some of their most fertile and prosperous provinces in the East wasn't a big deal?
Besides dude, the Persians didn't directly attack Constnantiple, that was the Avars and their Slavic allies. Persians tried to send their siege specialists to their allies in the war but the Byzantine fleet intercepted them and prevented that. Majority of Byzantine Persian Wars weren't based around annihilation but political superiority unlike the prior Roman/Parthian-Persian Wars.
>>837060
That's because I already mentioned earlier that that a) the Arsacids/Parthians were reactive to Roman aggression and never really instigated any wars with them; b) the main overall strategy of the Iranians were to remove the Romans and Byzantines from Asia, not outright destruction; and c) location and context is a major factor which you keep ignoring because there are multiple wars, especially involving the Sassanids were they obtain territory for longer periods of time over the Romans and Byzantines then vice versa unlike the Arsacids/Parthians which you keep bringing up ad naseum)
>>825356
I think the bigger issue was no one could amass armies as big as before. For instance, around 20 BCE or so there were something like 65 Roman legions; around 60 BCE there like 25. That's crazy growth.
>>837060
I'm pretty sure even Tacticus rates the Parthians and Persians both as the greatest threats to Roman world and he's fully aware of what the Goths, Huns, and other tribal people can do in Europe.
>>837087
>the East wasn't a big deal?
Apparently not to the Romans who kept about 20 legions on watch of the Rhine and only 6 legions in Syria.
The Parthians were always considered a distant minor threat, no doubt due to their unmanly avoidance of hand to hand combat in favor of shooting arrows from horseback
>>837113
>Apparently not to the Romans
Reminder that the most prosperous, populated, affluent, and revenue generating provinces in the Empire where all in the East and this was during a period of stability because Parthia and Rome had a period long peace from Nero's time.
Also pretty sure there were more legions once the Sassanids emerged.
>>837113
>Only 6 legions in Syria
You know they had at least a similar in Anatolia alone as well as other provinces like Armenia too, right?
This meme that the Sassanid Persians were a superpower comparable to Rome needs to end. They were the only enemy given a level of respect and were considered public enemy no. 1, but they never posed an existential crisis to Rome in the way that Rome did to them.
>>837143
No
>>837471
too true. plus the persians loved fighting each other almost as much as the romans did, it's how trajan ended up taking mesopotamia and why hadrian gave it up right after. if that's the case they didn't needed to deploy huge numbers of troops to the east. plus the tough terrain to march across, and proxy allies to buffer each empire.
>>832134
They declared war on Parthia as if they were nothing. They saw them as an empire they can take shit from. It wasn't the cataphracts that wrecked them at Carrhae, it was horse archers shooting from a distance with a non stop supply of arrows.
Also they weren't the most feared, I think that goes to Germans.
>>837471
>This meme that the Sassanid Persians
it arises to counter the meme that Rome was all-powerful mega-state who could have conquered the middle east, India, and the rest of Europe if it hadn't been for those pesky Christians and their weak, womanly "morals"
>>837531
That picture is a misnomer. Even at the height of its prowess, Lorica segmentata would have been reserved only for elite troops, and the reason why Rome stopped using them was because they were a logistical nightmare, requiring specialized replacement pieces which could only be manufactured in Italy, and having multiple straps exterior to the armor which were notoriously prone to getting cut and mangled.
Maille was far simpler and more rugged, any blacksmith worth his anvil could squeeze out a few replacement rings and patch it without effort, and it provided a uniquely suited defense against the kind of injuries that Romans had a difficult time treating (a broken bone or a dislocated shoulder could be re-set, but an infected laceration nearly always proved fatal.)
A single suit of lorica segmentata probably wouldn't even last a single campaign, verses a maille shirt which might last the legion decades and go through many soldiers. Half the reason why late period soldiers preferred locally manufactured equipment was because of how shoddy their Italian manufactured equipment was.
Hol up, are romeaboos in this thread seriously saying a Roman army would beat a late 15th century army?
>>836838
>Actually Sassanids won more wars against pre-split Roman Empire and the Byzantines, but everyone always focuses on the final Byzo-Persian War.
They focus on it because it gave Rome the last laugh. The Muslims didn't conquer Persia so quickly because they were some sort of mythic army - the Sasanians were so weakened by that last war (on top of 500 years of intermittent fighting before that) that the Arabs mopped them up with ease.
Rome managed to live on for almost another 1000 years.
>inb4 Eastern Romans weren't Roman
>>836848
The farthest Rome ever got was to Mesopotamia, roughly the modern Iraq-Iran border, under Trajan.
And they were never able to properly consolidate and defend it, which is why Hadrian gave it up.
>>834255
It's easy to have the 'largest palace on Earth' when it's just reed/wood buildings spread out over some land surrounded by a wall. Again, not a great achievement.
>>836838
>"And you're hostility is pretty much a turn off and why so many /hist/ threads are shit."
>goes on 4chan and can't handle the bantz
Back to your hugbox you go, autist.
>>837531
Nice bullshit butthe Parthian and Persian cataphracts numbered only about thousand to less then fifteen hundred at Carrahae that were used smashed Crassus' men, not the horse archers.
>>838133
The Byzantines lost 2/3rds of their territory and were knocked out of the initial fighting with the Caliphate Arabs earlier then the Sassanids were, the Arabs were unable to take Constantinople ultimately that saved the Byzantines.
>moped up with ease
You have zero idea of what you are talking about. Even after the fall of the Sassanid Empire in 651 AD, most of the eastern territories never submitted for centuries and frequent Arab incursions failed.
>>838500
Persian culture survived (albeit influenced by Islam) and persianate kingdoms broke free from the Caliphate fairly quickly.
The same cannot be said for Roman Egypt, Syria, or Africa
>>838958
Considering Persians still venerate their pre-Islamic holidays and traditions to this day like Nowrooz and retain their language and ethnic/cultural identity, that's very much true.
>>838133
I'd argue precisely the opposite
Persians got the last laugh because after their conversion to Islam in the 6th century, their civilization would go through a golden age that would last until the Mongols burned everything to the ground in the 13th century, never to recover as all the brains and wealth fled west to the last civilization in Eurasia that the Mongols hadn't put to the torch.
meanwhile, Italy would get burned to the ground during the Gothic war in the 6th century and would not recover until the 13th century... Right around the time they became great mercantile powers due to the capital flight being pointed precisely in their direction.
>>838970
Though you could very well make that argument about the West, considering that we celebrate "Christmas" the same way that pagan Romans celebrated the Saturnalia (both holidays that fall on the winter solstice): by putting a pine tree in your house and decorating it with tinsel, then hanging mistletoe overhead and anyone who walks underneath has to kiss. Did I mention gift exchanges, or how celebrating Christmas as we do was vehemently opposed by the rapid Bible-thumping Christians of their day, who thought that it was sinful to mimic the practices of pagans?
And don't even get me started on the Yule.
>>839947
Pretty sure native Iranians celebrating a cultural holiday that's been in existence for thousands of years in their societies is a bit different from a pagan tradition adopted and assimilated into Western culture around a specific religion.
>>839918
Iranians didn't convert to Islam till the 10th century or so when the majority of the populace would be in consensus actually Muslim. Also:
>Mongols
Safavid and Afrashid Empires had a resurgence for Persians.
>>839918
You could say the Persians got the last laugh because unlike the Romans they still exist.
>>825368
>>825376
Sure thing, bros.
Roman cavalry would get rekt so hard by heavy medieval cav in plate it's not even funny. Then you have things like handcannons and real cannons and a much more advanced metallurgy.
Seriously people comparing knights to cataphracts says it all. These niggers neither had plate nor even stirrups. No stirrups no heavy cav in our sense.
Romans were nice and all but they can't battle such a technological advantage.
>>840120
>every knight ever had gothic styled armor
Nice meme
>>840129
You are referring to the picture? The artist really likes it and you are factually wrong, there are other armor types on the picture
>>840143
>cataphracts
>had no plate
Wrong.
>nor even stirrups
Not needed, their saddles were usually better.
>>840155
Show me an example of a cataphract fully enclosed in metal plate with moveable joints then.
Oh I see, their saddles were better that's why they didn't need stirrups. Must be why their lances seem much lighter, too.
This is a non debate, a cataphract from Roman times couldn't fullfill the heavy cav role in the same way a knight from the high or late medieval era could. Everything else is just fanboying, sorry.
>>839997
>Pretty sure native Iranians celebrating a cultural holiday that's been in existence for thousands of years in their societies is a bit different from a pagan tradition adopted and assimilated into Western culture around a specific religion.
which has also existed for thousands of years
>>840168
>Show me an example of a cataphjract fully enclosed in metal plate with moveable joints then.
Have you not read eyewitness accounts from Roman writers in the 4th or 5th centuries? Or seen the engraving at Rostam of typical heavy cataphracts?
Also does this look like "scale" armor to you?
>>840176
Nowrooz is older.
>>840373
Looks like a small cuirass with some fancy plumes, a bit of scale and some chainmail.
NOTHING on the level of a completely enclosed gothic plate. And I didn't even take the inferior material into account and the possibility that this depiction is from later times.
Roman eye witness accounts, more like vague Roman propaganda and soldier tales, amirite.
>>837868
>Lorica segmentata would have been reserved only for elite troops
Then why are Centurions never shown wearing it?
>>840485
Because not every centurion was elite.
That's like asking why there are Sergeants in the army who don't have their Ranger tab. Pick a reason
Because of his decent wage, a centurions preferred armor of choice was scale mail, because it could be polished to a nice mirror shine and because replacing damaged scales was much easier and cheaper than mending a cuirass.
Pic related, HBO's Rome came very close to historical authenticity, and Centurion Vorenus's armor is reflective for what a typical legion Centurion would be wearing.
>>840503
I'd pick mail over segmentata if I had the means to purchase both desu. Groin and armpit protection seems nice and you already got a fuck hueg shield.
>>840515
You'd pick mail for the simple matter that Segmentata was a fucking bitch to maintain, and if you broke a piece and the nearest replacement part was 200 miles away, you were fucked. You had to keep Segmentata meticulously clean, while chain mail literally cleans itself (the friction of the chain links removed rust), and any asshole with an anvil could rivet a few iron rings together. Sometimes when you were feeling fancy you replaced a few of the iron chain links with bronze ones for added protection.
It was lighter, it was easier to move around in, it was protective where you needed it to be protective, and it was practical and functional to maintain. Unless you were rich enough to afford a bronze cuirass (not you, lower %99), chain mail was what you wanted.
And you're right, most of your protection is actually coming from your shield and your helmet.
>>840431
>gothic plate armor represents all medieval armor
top kek
>Roman propaganda
top lel
>>838121
No. You're being told that if two pike-dominated armies fought each other, the ancient one may well win if it's against a force that wasn't heavy on the use of guns and which had notoriously few cavalry to support them.
Are you illiterate?
>>840168
>Must be why their lances seem much lighter, too.
The kointos is so fucking long and heavy it REQUIRES two hands to use.
Stop posting.
>This is a non debate, a cataphract from Roman times couldn't fullfill the heavy cav role in the same way a knight from the high or late medieval era could.
They did the same shit.
>>841295
But Roman armies weren't pike dominated.
>>841343
And the only actual discussion is about a macedonian army against a swiss army.
>>840168
Iranian cataphracts used a fucking lance that was described as being so fucking heavy the rider had to use both hands to maintain balance with it and typical results involved the fucking said lance/spear known as the kontos as ripping through multiple heavy armored infantry like a god damn hot knife through butter.
>>840532
>Sometimes when you were feeling fancy you replaced a few of the iron chain links with bronze ones for added protection.
Wat? How is bronze more protective than iron?
>>825356
Britonnic troop quality was on par with the Romans.
Alemanni and Saxons were powerful as well, but they didnt have the organization that the Roman empire had.
Franks and Spain were also on par with the Roman empire, but didnt have the funding to fight off all the barbarians and acheive anything noteworthy.
Vandals and the Huns were probably the only two barbarian groups that were superior due to their tactics alone.
>>841517
Roman body armor was made, typically, of either iron or bronze. There were a few reasons for this
*Cost--soldiers supplied their own equipment and steel, being more labor intensive, was costlier.
*Recycling--armor was repaired, reused, recycled as long as possible, passing from one owner to the next. Thus, new versions wouldn't be immediately available to the common soldier.
*Availability--there are some accounts of the bronze and copper statues of conquered nations being seized and melted down to make new armor for the conquering Romans. Whether this was out of necessity, or merely symbolic is unclear.
*Steel, unless tempered (which was much more labor intensive than bronze/iron work) can be very brittle. The reason so many helmets were made of bronze or iron was because it could be made "soft", meaning it would absorb a blow by crumpling--kind of like a crumple zone on a car.
>>841682
>soldiers supplied their own equipment and steel
Not after the Marian Reforms they didn't. Cogent points, otherwise.
>>825376
It would be interesting how they would handle High Medieval cavalry and an enemy who (much like the Romans) favored set battles based on shock.
>>841682
Roman soldiers stopped bringing in their own gear once Marius completely modernized the Roman army and the transition was made from "citizen-soldiers" to professional soldiers.
>>825356
>Did troop quality in Europe fell after the Roman Empire had fallen?
The quality of the kit improved, but the training did not really get pulled out of gutter till well into the Carolinian dynasty. Romans did not have pattern wielding or stirrups.
Charlemagne and his armies is the first medieval ruler that I say would give a good showing against a 100 AD era legion. All good late 12th century armies would kick the shit out of that same legion.
>>840129
>a salet makes it gothic armour
e n d y o u r s e l f p l e b
>>841306
>They did the same shit.
>>840155
>>>nor even stirrups
>Not needed, their saddles were usually better.
We are getting into the Great Stirrup Controversy here. Personally I go with what experimental archaeology has show on the subject. It does very little to help the balance of the lancer, but lets the user have a more effective and powerful hold with just one arm used. This lets the rider use a actively griped shield rather then a slip mounted shield. The other big impact is that is gives better stability for striking in melee after the initial cavalry charge. Lynn Townsend White was right in the fact that stirrups were a important military technology but he was wrong on the nature of the benefits.Also side note...
>>840373
That picture is of 5th century Sassanid soldiers, not Romans
>>837868
Which is why its been found on remains of auxilia camps. It's much more likely this stuff was issued based on availability kind of like you said. I'd imagine the bureaucracy developing as the Empire went on just tossed this shit wherever they could.
>>843138
I imagine you're right, and as anyone here who's been in the military knows, even modern logistical capabilities can struggle to get certain kit out to every unit all the time.
>>843366
We try to view history with our modern eyes because we like typology and order. We use the Oakeshott to try and make sense of what sword was used when and what it was called and argue about the differences between a pollaxe and a halberd til we are blue in the face. I think they were far from that anal about that back then.
Technology and logistics didn't move as fast like they do these days. I have a hard time imagining a centurion coming to camp and going "All right guys, everyone hand in your old Mainz-type gladii, the new model is just in and we'll be using exclusively this from now on!"
>>842837
>That picture is of 5th century Sassanid soldiers, not Romans.
That poster was talking about Sassanid cataphract armor, and those are from the 6th and 7th centuries, not the 5th century.
The question to be answered is, can Roman javelins/gladius penetrate heavy knight steel or heavy infantry mail?
>>844896
>The question to be answered is, can Roman javelins/gladius penetrate heavy knight steel or heavy infantry mail?
That's not how fighting with armor works. You don't actively try to destroy the armor with bladed weaponry. Only a mace or hammer would be used like that.
>>844924
But don't medieval weapons and tools take precedent over Roman ones? Like medieval longbows and crossbows harass the legionaries? Or can Roman shields withstand those projectiles? I guess my point is that medieval metallurgy and advances will trump Roman technology?
>>844964
The technological advantage that late medieval men-at-arms would have had over classical Roman legionaries would have been considerable.
The oldest meme in history is that the Romans were great at first but then grew fat and lazy until their armies could no longer keep out the teeming swarms of barbarians, until the day came that the levees fell and the unwashed masses came swarming into the civilized lands ushering in a dark age of mud, illiteracy, poverty, war and suffering that would last until Europeans heroically rediscovered knowledge during the renaissance. It was invented by a guy with an obvious Protestant agenda to make the Catholic church look as bad as possible, and picked up by atheists who wanted to make ALL religions look as bad as possible.
Ignore this meme, it was created centuries before modern forensics and archaeology. The truth is much more nuanced, more of a gradual transition and adaption to circumstance than anything else. And knights in full plate have almost a thousand years worth of refinement and fine tuning in the fields of medicine, law, metallurgy, and more.
>>845583
>Law
>Medicine
>Knights
What?
>>845634
>Law
The legal system supporting knights was far more stable than the system supporting legionaries. Granted its an indirect advantage and wouldn't mean much in the melee, but a medieval knight would have had a lot more reasons to remain true to the status quo than a Roman legionary.
>Medicine
It should be obvious why advances in medicine might be useful for a knight
>>845793
Reminds me of that time a wounded knight was treated with a poultice by an arab physician, when a Frankish doctor came by and immediately amputated his leg. The knight died.
>>845829
Aah, the source of that was an arrow to the knee if I remember correctly.
>>845829
And by the time that the late medieval knight existed, western doctors would have translated that Arab physician's works and studied them at one of the Catholic universities
>>844964
>Like medieval longbows and crossbows harass the legionaries? Or can Roman shields withstand those projectiles? I
Of course they can. Wood didn't exactly change.
>I guess my point is that medieval metallurgy and advances will trump Roman technology?
In that the weapons will be longer and stronger, yes, typically. You're not going to see arming swords hacking through hamata, however.
The romans also remain better equipped on average than a lot of armies, simply because everyone has metal armor and helmets.
Everyone chill the fuck out
here's a note that is sobering
the Roman military had a million paid soldiers on active duty in field armies during 400 AD
Their military was fine, coordinating across such a huge empire was the problem.
>>846886
>million
No
>>845583
The romans were actually developing localized fortification systems in-mass until the system was shocked by the breakdown in control over the provinces, the nuisance of the huns, and the slow adaption in the west along the Rhine. Then the western empire went bankrupt and was sacked by germans by political incompetence and the lack of strong men rising to control the government.
