Why does /his/ prefer greatly the late Romans arsenal to the

File: image.jpg (24KB, 162x460px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 162x460px

Vs this guy

>>1511274
Because contrarians and Byzaboos.

>>1511279
That guy could be a fantastic representation.

Personally the imperial area legionary is my favorite, Lorica Segmenta is G.O.A.T.

From best to worst it would be this
>Late republic/imperial
>Manipuler/earlier republic
>Late imperial

>>1511303
>Lorica Segmenta is G.O.A.T.
Not if you need to field armies across the Mediterranean

>>1511303
This is how I feel
Us who are about to die, we like your taste

File: Late Roman Legionaries..jpg (522KB, 1321x900px) Image search: [Google]

522KB, 1321x900px

>>1511274
>scutum is abandoned, weakening the ability to utilize formations
shto?

Segmenta is objectively better to me, but it's harder to maintain and costly to make, if Romans had practiced metallurgy further, they could have supplied armies with a greater amount of segmenta, instead of evolving into mail
Tl;dr If romans were better at metalworking, we would be speaking Latin
Also why no segmenta and Mail combo

>>1511332
>in a Greek phalanx
What

File: 325610_20160721221914_1.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>1511274
>>1511279
It's not a zero-sum game. Late Roman soldiers were better at some things than late Republican/early Imperial soldiers and vice versa.

>sometimes spear, mostly no thrown
Most soldiers who weren't limitanei would have been armed with swords and darts as well as spears. Plumbatae are actually more useful in the fast and loose fighting that characterised late antiquity than pila would be.
>scutum is abandoned, weakening the ability to utilize formations
Rectangular shields were abandoned because formation fighting wasn't utilised that much anymore and they weren't useful in the warfare the Late Romans most frequently found themselves engaging in. Also a late roman soldier would still have called his shield a "scutum".
>spatha instead of gladius, more reach but ditching the hide behind shield and gut them strategy
Yeah, because it stopped working. If you need to stop a band of marauding Germans from breaching your fortlet's border wall, if you approach them in a heavy formation with big heavy rectangular shields and short stabbing swords, they can just run away.
>abandoned lorica segmentata for mail which is debated as to it being better or worse, but noted as being much cheaper to produce
Everybody hated Lorica Segmentata. It fell out of use for a reason. It can take you up to an hour to put on, and you need someone else to help you, while you can slip on a mail or scale shirt in a few seconds.

>>1511357
OP here, reading up on the darts, it seems like a better thrown than spears, but would it have the disarming (destroying shields) capabilities of the pilla?

>>1511390
It didn't really need to be capable of destroying a shield. The first three ranks of soldiers would throw them all at once, and remember that every soldier carried around five of them so they could keep it up for a while, the enemy will either have to stop or blind themselves with their shields, which presents a pretty exploitable tactical opportunity for the Romans.

>>1511274
Because unlike the bitch principate era legionaries who fought in massive formations of 4500 troops, late Roman soldiers fought in tiny squad formations generally. It's like comparing a bunch of beta fags who literally just stand still hiding behind a shield in a field stabbing blokes and manly Germanic men fighting pretty much toe to toe with enemies almost as well armed as them in woods beyond the frontiers.

Didn't the late Roman army do quite well against its enemies if you consider that they lacked the material superiority of the early empire and that the Germanics had started to get more civilized or well armored at least?

Romans suck dacian dicks

>>1511274

>scutum is abandoned, weakening the ability to utilize formations
The late shield is better for that, because they're FLAT. Meaning you can lock them.

And sure enough, late legions actually fought in tight shield walls unlike the classical forces.

>mostly no thrown
Darts, nigger.

Also, they had better support form actual dedicated archers by this point.


>abandoned lorica segmentata for mail which is debated as to it being better or worse, but noted as being much cheaper to produce
Do you want thigh and arm protection, or not?

>>1511390
That whole idea is largely myth. Some Pila may have fucked with shields. They didn't all do this, and the whole idea is retarded-you don't throw your shield away just because it got heavier.

>>1511819
They tended to smash their enemies whenever they met in pitched battle, even when badly outnumbered, or put into awful situations.

>>1511274
>but noted as being much cheaper to produce
If it's not clear whenever one product is more or less effective than another product, though it is well known that product is cheaper than the other product, don't that make the product better?

>>1511349
You do realize the phalanx isn't some special greek thing, right?

Shield wall with spear is at least as old as the sumerians.

>>1511279
Segmentata is a meme armor desu

>>1511344
>instead of evolving into mail
Romans wore mail before and during the time Segmentata was in use. Possibly more than they used segmentata during the period that segmentata was in use as well.

>>1511879
No?

>>1511902
Why not? Why use a more expansive product if it's ambiguous whenever it's actually better or not?

>>1511902
Why not?

It's alright if you just think it looks cool. You can admit that and we won't think any less of you.

>>1511909
i meant no in terms of objectivity, situationally the cheaper armor would be more practical, but i was referring to which armor was better as an armor, without all the other variables.
Which I would still think the answer is romans using better metallurgy and using plate mail combinations, like a better formed rajput armor

>>1511979
But it's still ambiguous which was functionally better in the states that they were factually in. You're essentially saying the segmentata is better because of theoretical improvements that never actually occurred.

>>1511872
>Also, they had better support form actual dedicated archers by this point.
They had in the republican and early imperial period too. Auxiliaries have been a thing ever since the early city state days.
The point of pila and plumbata wasn't to act as ranged support, it was to stagger the enemy formation before clashing with it.

>>1512002
i was side noting that mail and segmenta would be nice
I think that segmenta was better than mail
What do you think of this statement

>>1511979
>why didn't the romans have tech from a thousand years in the future?

>>1512060
I think you're evading my point, and that you're 15 and really like Rome 2.

You've said nothing that points to the superiority of lorica segmentata beyond personal opinion and the possibility of theoretical enhancements that never happened.
If they're both of a quality that it's unclear which is superior, the difference of quality is quibbling to the point of irrelevance. An armor of equal or slightly lesser/greater quality at drastically lesser cost is superior when it comes to arming and fielding multi ten or hundred thousand troop armies.

History always comes down to economic reality. Check out Caesar's Commentaries, it's his log of the Gallic War. It has a lot of cool battles, but also is almost entirely about his daily concerns with the logistics of maintaining an army. I think it'll be an informative experience for you.

>>1512102
Not the guy you're arguing with, but wasn't the segmentata adopted because it was cheaper and quicker (much less labour intensive) to make than mail? Wasn't it dropped because it was considered hard to maintain, and less practical to wear?
Why are you debating about mail being of equal quality but cheaper?

>>1512129
It was information posited by another anon (albeit without a source) that the argument had been running off of. I'm actually glad you've posted this though.

>>1511274
They're more /fa/. "Classic Legionaire"'s look like they come from some shitty b-movie. Lorica Segmentata is ugly af.

>>1512206
It's something more gritty and grim about them.

File: late_roman_army_by_orestix-d72ar1l.jpg (148KB, 1024x520px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1024x520px

>>1512206
This.

>>1512206
Segmentata does look like shit (especially when worn together with the manica), but let's be honest here, rectangular scutum and imperial italic galea look much better than oval scutum and ridge galea.

File: 6e9d585a05166a307d1645cfa4185d1a.jpg (119KB, 494x650px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 494x650px

Outta the way losers, winners coming through.

>>1512258
who are these semen demons

>>1512258
Are those supposed to be clibanarii/cataphractii? Didn't those use two handed lances rather than a shield?

>>1511274
>legionnaire

IT'S LEGIONARY YOU FUCKING PLEB

>>1512267
Maybe he's French you fucking autist

What does it fucking matter when the Romans themselves would have called themselves something wholly different?

>>1512312
Do you normally insert another language's words into English sentences while speaking to English speakers on an English board? No? Then call the fucking soldier what it is in English, which is legionary, or legionaries as plural.

Also I'm not entirely convinced that legionnaire is the french way to say legionary, I'm pretty sure it's an entirely different word. I'm no french speaker but if you put "legionary" into google translate it comes out "de la légion" whereas legionnaire in English translates directly to legionnaire in French. I'm pretty sure they're two separate words: one for the Romans and one for the French Foreign Legion

>>1512263
There were different kinds.

>>1512323
They are two separate words, but you're all being autistic about it.

>>1512336
I'll stop being autistic about it when people stop calling roman legionaries "legionnaires"

>>1511332
Well , he said weakening , not droped/abandoned

>>1512323
No, I never do that.

>>1512341
Guess you'd better invest in some Sonic gear, because I sure do like the sound of Roman légionnaires. It has a certain je ne sais quoi.

>>1512323
Legionnaire IS french for legionary and there's no room for doubt. The legion etrangere and its soldiers are named directly after the roman legion afterall.
That said inserting foreign language words for no reason is shit form, and that guy likely wasn't trying to use a gallicism anyway, he just got the wrong word.

>>1512341
idgaf

>>1512361
If legionnaire is a french word then why is it also in English as a separate entity from legionary? Also I don't see why everyone likes calling legionaries by their french name-assuming it actually is the french way to say it-considering the romans weren't french and there's no reason to refer to their culture in french terms

>>1512377
Because English is the king of superfluous synonymous words, and because French was the 'smart' language for a number of centuries and you still see its impact on academia today.

>>1512377
Dude there's no if. Here, look at the wiki page in french: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9gion_romaine#.C3.89quipement_du_l.C3.A9gionnaire
The frogs use legionnaire for the romans too. And why wouldn't they afterall, it's the brits who chose to use a different word for them in spite of using legionnaire for all other organizations named after the legion. In italian it's the same: legionario for all uses. Same goes for spanish (still legionario) and german (legionär).

>>1512406
>>1512377
Also, learn your linguistics and don't be such a damn prescriptivist. You know what someone means when they say legionnaire, thus it is an effective word.

>>1512414
so instead of using the italian word legionario, which is only different by one syllable from legionary, everyone decided that the French word sounded the coolest and everyone started saying that?

Seems stupid to me. French might have been the gentleman's language in the past but now it's clearly English and I still don't see the need to use legionnaire. It'd be more appropriate to use italian pronunciation than anything else if you're going to diverge from standard English

File: 1461930534394.gif (2MB, 200x128px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x128px

>>1512427
Maybe, just maybe, he used "legionarie" of old habit?

File: roman eating bread.jpg (32KB, 615x410px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 615x410px

OP here
I really appreciate the feedback im getting but I'd love for it to be more on topic, maybe I was getting the question wrong.

Do we know if the late roman soldiers were better equipt than early empire, and if they were trained better, and over all better soldiers than the early empire? If we do know this, what is the answer.

>>1512263
In the image their shields are attached to their upper arm, so they could use both.

>>1512437
It's a matter of quality. The elites were top notch, but the border troops were okay.

Even then it still boiled down to leadership and morale.

>>1512427
You feel free to say legionary or legionario or whatever, but try not to get assblasted every time you hear legionnaire or your life will be very tiresome.

>>1512451
This
Romans were always good fighters, but under bad command they can be slaughtered. From republic to empire to late, they always had better supply lines and equipment, however if you were to pit a late republic legion against late, i think it would boil down to morale, which republic had lots of, I can't see mercs fighting for long if it actually got gritty.

>>1512437
It's complex.
We know that the late legion was kind of tiered as far as what you've mentioned: at the top you've got the scholae (basically the praetorians but bigger), then you've got the comitatenses (the main armies, the deployable expeditionary force that moves where needed), and at the bottom the limitanei (the local militia, mostly on border guard and reserve duty).
The comitatenses were about as well equipped and trained ad the early empire soldiers.
The scholae were the elite, veterans, but the equipment was the same (maybe kept more presentable for parade and palace guard duty).
The limitanei were a mixture of retired veterans and and local militia, so their training varied between amateurish and good. Their equipment varied a lot, but it was tendentially lighter and certainly lower priority than the comitatenses.

>>1512377
Because the Foreign Legion was cool enough to become a meme. I'm completely serious.

>>1512462
Unless we're considering a straight on legion vs legion fight without support (in which case I'd agree with you, morale advantage would favour the republican legion over a comitatenses legion), I'd say the late legion wins. They just had better and bigger cavalry and ranged support compared to the republic.

>>1512462
The cavalry would destroy the republican legion. There's a reason why they moved on.

>>1512485
>>1512488
Yeah a Republican legion had something like 1 horseman for every 70 infantry, while a Late Imperial legion was 1 horseman to every 3 infantry (at least on paper and in an ideal situation)

>>1511872
>That whole idea is largely myth.

Its been tested.

Also the Pila is supposed to get stuck with the spike inside, making it so you cant bring it closer to your body and making it tiresome to carry.

>>1512206
>>1512253

>Not liking polished steel, tight fitting articulated plates

What a massive pair of gaywads

>>1513576
Segmentata isn't really tight fitting. It clinks and clanks and the buckles come loose very easily.

>>1513630

Around the torso it is far tighter than other laminated armor. Segmentata is actually kinda form-fitting.

Late Romans were ugly as fuck desu

>>1514966
>t.Asterix

>>1511274

I think people here like it because it looks more medieval-looking compared to the lorica segmentata.

Personally I prefer the early imperial style, but late empire is pretty cool too. The early-to-mid Republican armies look stupid to me.

File: 1470492860129.jpg (155KB, 1024x702px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1024x702px

These helmets are sleek as heck

>>1511274
Personally the later army was way more flexible than. Than the pre constantine army. The mobile field armies were better suited to deal with the issues of the day (large Germanic raids and Persian autists riding around stealing sheep).

They get a bad rep because they are associated with the fall of the empire but considering they faced such massive problems supplying the army and looking at the issues they had to deal with (highly organised and we'll equipped enemies) they did surprisingly well keeping a collapsing empire together. Also the border troops get a bad rep for being shit tier but apart from the massive raids it seems they weren't too bad. Also they had much better support troops and cavalry because they actually trained men for these roles.

Generally the whole unreliable smelly German soldier is a meme. While the majority of the army was foreign this wasnt new. Even by trajan a large part of the army was made up of non italliens.

Basically the difference is the early legionary was suited to dealt with the enemies of the time ie massive tribes who'd charge you head on and for inviting territory. The late one is much better for holding it and defending. Also remember the late roman empire adopted a defense in depth policy.

>>1512258
the sassanids got rekt by the turks too didn't they?

>>1516075
What's the deal with the metal crests?

>>1516119
I'd wager they were worn either by veterans/elites or low ranking officers, while the high ranking ones and generals would wear the plumed ones.

>>1511274
how is mail cheaper to produce than a coat of plates? Mail takes a shitload of work

>>1516250
I think it's a typo, from what I heard segmentata was cheaper to produce.

>>1516119
Multi-part construction. The skull bowl is actually 2 or 4 pieces riveted to the central ridge

>>1516093
Beyond this, many of the Rome's problems were born purely from greed. The empire, under a strong emperor, was more than capable of rebuilding itself as long as there wasn't someone interfering. Unfortunately this isn't a realistic expectation.
Majorian, for instance, was extremely competent and probably would have reconquered all the land that was lost by the 470's, but instead he got killed by Ricimer in 461 because the aristocratic senators disliked his reforms.

>>1516250
>>1516294
Mail takes longer to create but segmentata is, by all accounts, a straight up bitch once you try to wear it and keep it usable.

>>1516327
Depending on how the plates are attached together, I can imagine one dent at the wrong place kinking the whole thing up.

>>1516327
From my own experience, trying to wear a mail shirt and lorica segmentata

Mail shirt
>bunch up shirt
>position hands at sleeve holes
>jiggle about a bit
>hey presto, it's on
Total time, maybe like 5 seconds

Lorica Segmentata
>drape one half over my shoulder
>it falls off as I'm picking up the other half
>have to heave both halves onto my shoulders at once
>adjust front buckles to be perfectly in line
>buckle up the front
>stretch and contort myself trying to reach the back buckles
>the front buckles come loose while I'm doing this
>try to use a mirror
>doesn't work, it's physically impossible to reach some of the buckles
>have to go ask my girlfriend to help me
>the front buckles have come loose again from my fidgeting
>finally, with someone else's help, manage to do up the front and back buckles and secure them with some leather strips
Total time, like 30 minutes

Obviously I'm not a professional soldier who would be doing this every day so they'd be able to do it a lot faster, but when Gaius runs over the ridge with an arrow through his taint telling you that the Germans are to raid our camp, fuck our wives and eat our oats, I'd rather have armor at hand that takes seconds to put on rather than minutes

>>1511274
>lorica segmentata
There is no good evidence this was ever actually used in the field

>>1516338
Also this, holy shit. I was moving house and one of the shoulder plates got dented in transit and the whole thing basically just locked up and made this awful scraping noise when I tried to get it loose.

And maintaining it is a killer. You have to take the plates apart and clean them individually.

>>1516689
I meant "widely" not "actually" used sorry

>>1511274
>abadoned lorica segmentata for mail which is debated to it being better or worse
Because a certain eastern power and major rival used chainmail very effectively.

>>1516111
The Sassanids wrecked the Goturks in the first two wars and in the third Turkic war the Goturks still abandoned Herculius because of the Persian winter, Persian scorched earth policy and the fact that the Persian military was still too strong for them even when weakened and on the losing end of the war by the last year. Also they wrecked the Huns twice in the Caucasus and Armenia (the main reason Attila and his brother invaded the Romans/Byzantines was because the Persians were too strong for them to attack) and crushed the Hephthalites as well before their wars with the Goturks.

Also that image is of a late Byzantine Catarphractoi, not a Persian Grivpanar or Savaran.

File: battle-of-the-teutoberg-forest.jpg (55KB, 640x420px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x420px

doesn't matter because they're all bitchbois

mail is good shit.

File: Battle of Mediolanum.png (59KB, 320x676px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 320x676px

>>1516993
Don't pretend like the Romans didn't routinely push in the Germanics asses regularly, Olaf.

>>1516993
oh fuck those dungmonkeys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d39FBRxBM8k

File: Roman_legionaire_with_manica_01.jpg (2MB, 2918x4378px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2918x4378px

>>1516689

Almost everyone in Trajan's wall uses it.

It's both lighter and more protective against strong blows than mail, it probably had a very specific application. You could consider the soldiers that used it to be "shock" troops, meant to assault or face more formidable enemies like the Dacians in pitched battles, sacrificing the logistic and practical advantage of Hamatas to have at least a little edge over.

>>1516689
>There is no good evidence this was ever actually used in the field
Yes there is, there is very strong evidence that it was very widely, there is a shit ton of archaeological evidence. We may never find full ones but we find the little bronze buckles constantly.

Stop believing memes by idiotic historians who have no idea about military issues, the sort of morons who think every single thing with a bit of embroidery or fancy is ceremonial.

File: plumes.png (3MB, 1152x1294px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1152x1294px

Who wore it better?

>>1519657
The fanbase has made me hate the ebin Spartan look
So Romans win by default

File: 1spartan-hoplite-pilos-helmet.jpg (168KB, 1424x1712px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1424x1712px

>>1519683
>>1519657

Spartans didn't even use the Corinthian helmets, those were phased out long before the battle at Thermopilae at least.

they used Konos

>>1519349
>Trajan's wall

What? If you're referring to Hadrian's Wall, then no. Hadrian's Wall was garrisoned by auxiliaries, not legionaries.

>>1519844
Why were those helmets phased out? They seem like they would provide better facial protection

>>1519906
I haven't really studied the period but having worn one I can hazard some guesses. It makes you completely deaf and more or less blind.

It looks really cool but I imagine that's probably a secondary consideration.

Why they abandoned gladius and went back to spear?

>>1519922
I outlined the specific reasons earlier on in the thread but to put a long story very short: the style of warfare the gladius was designed for just wasn't practiced anymore.

>>1511357
Why formation warfare was abandoned?

>>1519933
formation warfare wa good in great battles, but the late roman army only saw a lot of skirmish and assault of frontier forts and cities by raiding parties (there was a few battles but only against massive tribes, like the huns, the goths or the franks)

>>1519914
I can see that... I heard this was also the reason why the us army changed their helmets. They used to be a lot bigger but now i think theyre smaller. There is a lot more to be said why and iM not going into it but i can see why they would change helmets if they limit sight or hearing

>>1519349
>>1519890
He meant Trajan's column, which is one of our main sources for knowledge about the Roman legion (especially during Trajan's reign).

>>1519844
How did they prevent the helmet from falling off?

>>1519933
I should preface this by saying that my speciality is in the late Western Empire and as I understand it old habits died a bit harder in the East but I'm not an expert on that by any means.

Fighting in a tight formation in the manner of late republican and early imperial Legionaries as standard operating procedure is great when you're conducting an offensive war against another people. The enemy is either going to engage you in a big battle or lose ground.

By the Late Imperial period, the Roman Empire was as big as it was ever going to get, and the prospect of conquering more territory just wasn't feasible considering the difficulty they had in administering the territory they already had, so warfare became less focused around massive battles in the name of conquest, to, as anon says here >>1519961, defending the empire's borders. Because you only had so many armies to defend a massive number of forts, fortlets, and camps, an army's mobility became key, both on the march and in combat, and arms, armor and tactics all changed to reflect that.

Remember that in an offensive war the enemy is either going to engage you or lose ground? On the other hand, if a small band of enemy raiders are encroaching on your border to either steal from you or just try to get from Point A outside your borders to Point B within your borders, if you approach them in a big massive formation with your heavy scutums locked and your pila ready to throw, they can just run away. It's no skin off their nose. They can just try again. So you gotta be fast, and so organization and discipline aren't necessarily the most important things in the world anymore.

>>1519962

Being able to see and hear really well was more important than protection from blows coming in odd, unusual angles, if you didnt know what was happening in your formation or battle line you were in far greater risk of getting into an unfuckable situation of certain death.

Romans could make fully covering helmets for gladiators but legionaries needed to see and follow orders to survive.

>>1519985

the strap is not shown.

most of these helmets were actually very well designed to fit comfortably and deflect hits from common angles.

>>1519844
the ancient greeks were weird. Some of their helmets looked great (cornthian, thracian ect.) and some were just fuck-ugly

>>1519996
For Gods sake, stop this meme, early and imperial legionaries did not fight with locked shields in a shield wall, they had about a meter between each man.

personally my beef with the late roman empire is always an aesthetic one. It bugs me that the Romans basically started looking indistinguishable from the barbarians they were fighting (with the obvious caveat that the Romans were much better equipped. The standard arms and armor for a Roman heavy infantryman would have been the equivalent of a barbarian chieftains equipment

Earlier Roman armies had the cool-looking contrast of being uniformly outfitted armored fuckers fighting enemies that generally had a more motley and uneven appearance. It's just a cooler look than a bunch of guys running around who all seem to have the same helmet, same cavalry spear, same long sword, same oval shield and same tunic and pants combination

File: thraco-phrygian2.jpg (122KB, 736x1031px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 736x1031px

>>1520100

Phrygians are my favorite

>>1520122
This is a dumb post. You know that the Romans adopted chain/mailed armor from "barbarians" even during the very early stages of Republican Rome because the Celtic/Gaulic tribes who developed it saw the advantages of it vs scale armor right?

>>1520122
You know that the Germanics copied the Romans right?

File: shrug.jpg (27KB, 616x402px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 616x402px

>>1520115
>For Gods sake, stop this meme, early and imperial legionaries did not fight with locked shields in a shield wall
I didn't say they did

File: Tropaeum_Traiani.jpg (297KB, 800x1067px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 800x1067px

>>1519349
Trajan's column is pure artistic garbage. The Tropaeum Traiani actually built in Dacia has far better representations of the legionaries. They mainly use mail and scale with a mix of helmets.

File: 325610_20160807235819_1.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>1520122
the Late Romans were /fa/ as heck you pleb

>>1520358

they look pretty plain and forgettable

>>1520365
We aren't talking about your mum kid

File: 325610_20160808002306_1.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>1520365
thats where ur wrong kiddo

>>1520374
>>1520416

>guys with hauberks and generic celt helmets
>zero uniformity, officers not being the only ones to stand out with crests

it's trash

So, if Segmentata was so awful, how'd it ever come into use?

>>1516250
Mail rings are pretty easy to make, and mail shirts are easy to put on. Segmentata, on the other hand, was very high maintenance -- it's leather strips that held it together broke all the time.

>>1511274
I just really hate lorica segmentata.

>>1519906
Your eye-view was very limited, you couldn't hear that greatly (which made it pretty bad for Calvary); it was pretty expensive -- mostly the rich had it made for themselves. It probably didn't get phased out -- just not as popular as time went on.

The hoplites of those armies had to buy their own gear too, so many probably could only afford cheap bronze-style helments instead of fancier ones, like Corinthian or bearded-Phyrgian, instead of no-helmet.

>>1520609
It wasn't awful. It offered a good amount of protection and was fairly easy to manufacture.

It was a nightmare to use in a personal context though. It's uncomfortable, it's bulky, it's heavy, it might take even a trained man several minutes to put it on, you need to take it apart to properly clean it, the buckles that physically hold it together could snap, and it might not even fit you properly if you're a big guy (IV v).

It simply wasn't worth it. It might've given you a slight advantage in terms of protection compared to mail, sure, but compared to segmentata, mail is light, it's comfortable, you can sleep in it if you want, you can slip it on in a few seconds, you can just take it off and scrub it if it gets dirty, you can repair it fairly easily yourself if it gets damaged, and it's pretty much one size fits all.

It was used over a period of 250 years, but we have no idea how widely it was used or who exactly it was given to. It's possible it just never caught on.

>>1521208
>it might not even fit you properly if you're a big guy (IV v)

That would be extremely painful.

When was it used? What campaigns might have seen it fielded in any significant quantities? Why is it considered the iconic look of the Roman legions?

>>1511274
The late legionnaires don't look so different from other soldiers in the surrounding regions or centuries. It contextualizes and humanizes them, whereas the classic style just calls up movie cliches.

>>1516855
I know that the regular medium calvary/cataphracts like the Saravan Savar extensively used chainmail armor but what did the heavier shock troops like the heavy Persian cataphracts Grivpanar use?

>>1521224
>It contextualizes and humanizes them

no, it just strips them from their identity as Rome's legions.

only people who can't see the classic era legionaries as humans in their own context are those that believe movie cliches about them being mindless stormtrooper goons, ironically enough.

File: decline of the roman empire.png (66KB, 342x236px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 342x236px

>>1511274
early rome had a point to existence
later rome was sheer cuckery

File: 1468190253351.png (64KB, 1004x912px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1004x912px

>>1520572
Actually its a game with a graphics enhancement. Im sure in real life you would have seen a difference in crests and armors within a unit if they were say Limitienie, who happened to be either militia, retired veterans or off-time infantry.

>>1520572
>Celt helmets

Buy a gladius replica and fall upon it to save the little masculinity and pride you still have.

>>1520609
It wasn't awful, it was better, whoever says it was awful has no clue what they're talking about. IT wouldn't have had 3 centuries of use if it was awful.

>>1521208
Segmentata is lighter than mail.

>>1521219
It was used quite widely. I'm really sick of these idiots saying we don't know how much it was used or if it was popular, they're going off such outdated history. Recent archaeology has been finding segmentata buckles literally fucking everywhere, all across the empire, sometimes more than mail.

>>1524468
If you're just holding it then sure but segmentata feels much heavier to wear. Unless maybe the reproduction I have isn't of great quality or something

File: images (4).jpg (7KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 259x194px

>>1512323
>shhhhh no tears now....

>>1520572
Those are Sarmatian helmets. The Republican and early-mid imperial armies used Celtic helmets.

>>1520572
>zero uniformity
Anon please don't be a killjoy, uniformity is boring

Early Empire
>hey Centurion can I wear this sweet ass crest on my helmet in battle
>REEEEEEEEEEEEE

Late Empire
>hey Hekantontarch can I wear this sweet ass crest on my helmet in battle
>sure thing my dude

>>1517409
Funny how they never took Germania, yet Goths and Lombards did take the Italian peninsula

Theres pretty solid evidence to suggest that alot of late period legionaries didnt even wear armor save a helmet and a few other small pieces.

>>1525720
They did take lower Germania actually for a long period of time. Also they lost the overwhelming majority of their wars with Rome even with surprise on their hand and even when the Western Roman Empire was on its last legs, they basically had to have the Goths running to the fatigued Romans to beat back Attila.

>>1525776
The borderlands that were Germania Inferior and G. Superior were half-Celtic to begin with and had no influential Germanic tribes iirc.

And face it, Rome made no offensive campaign that truly subjugated Germania. Gothic was the rulers language over much of former western Rome by its end.

>>1525806
>half-Celtic to begin with
This meme never gets old.

>>1525822
Seriously, wasn't that region a mixture of Celtic and Germanic tribes?

There were even a few Celtic tribes in Magna Germania iirc

>>1525806
>No influential Germanic tribes
Clarify what you mean here? The Alemanni and Franks both resided on the border.
Regardless, at the end period of the empire it wasnt so much a case of Germanic military might in terms of taking Italy, but rather deceit and cunning. The Germans who manipulated the empire at the end did so through weak puppet emperors and assassinations rather than threats of barbaric invasions. Consider too that one of the reasons they were so prevalent in the Roman army (and why they came to dominate as military figures) was because the Germans were the most easily accessible, being right on the border, as troops both in a mercenary and foederati standpoint.

>>1524979

uniformity makes you and your pals look cooler when your armor is polished, your formation is precise and your footsteps are in unison.

File: 52a8feb2ecd75fa689f1b5024fe35257.jpg (49KB, 525x700px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 525x700px

>>1511357
>It fell out of use for a reason. It can take you up to an hour to put on, and you need someone else to help you, while you can slip on a mail or scale shirt in a few seconds.

>>1525835
Weren't the Franks and Alemanni invading Roman Gaul from across the border?

And yeah, Roman infighting encouraging Germanic mercenary troops to prevent factional mutiny did much, but winning is winning no matter how you slice it.

>>1525742
No, there isn't.

>>1525853
What you posted provied unparrleld protection to your full body, makes you nearlly immune ot all one handed stieks, laughs at lance,s and can save you form guns.


Segmentata can be defeated by literally every weapon on the field.

One is worth the time. The other is not.

Speaking of Late Roman Army, can you guys recommend me a good academical book on the subject? I'm curious and want to read about it more

>>1525948
Yes there is, both in art and writing.
Vegetius states that legionaries fought more often than not with little armor, and a lot of columns provide visuals of Romans fighting without armor.
Furthermore, Maurice in the Strategikon implies that often times it was not possible to give every, or even most soldiers mail coats and greaves.
Overall, it is stressed that they always carried shields and helmets, but not armor. Its worthwhile to mention as well that a lot of Germanic tribes are described as fighting with no armour, so its possible it is a trend of the period.
You can choose to believe it or not, but the evidence is there to suggest (note: not affirm) the idea that legionaries often, or at least more often than expected, would've been fighting without armor (save the helm and shield).

>>1525832
No, it wasn't. Celtics were pushed out by the Germanics after they migrated from Jutland peninsula area southwards toward Germania and Western Europe. Celtics might've developed in Southern Germania but they were pushed out.

>>1526010
>Maurice in the Strategikon
Dates after the time period which OP is more than likely thinking of. He also implemented reforms. Using Maurice to try to figure out how the legions were equipped before him is questionable.

>vegetius
Vegetius was consistently full of shit and should be taken with several grains of salt.

I absolutely love muscle cuirasses, how effective were they?

>>1526076
Very, but they don't cover much.

>>1526046
Both of those facts are true, but that does not mean said works can be simply disregarded.
The direct quote from Maurice is "The picked men should have mail coats, all of them if it can be done, but in any case the first two in the file". Maurice advocates for more armor if possible, but implies that a fully armored Tagma was not typical. Of course, Maurice is writing far into the future, but his discussion on the topic implies that at some point between the 3rd and the 6th century, the legionaries started to ditch armor.
As for Vegetius, I understand he is to be taken with a grain of salt, but that fact that he mentions the issue means that it must have been in some way prevalent.
Of course, there are still artistic representations as well, which display armored and unarmored legionaries.
Overall, i do not believe it is correct to say that all legionaries didnt wear armor, nor that all legionaries did wear armor. What is more likely is that some did and some did not in the late period.
Just my thoughts and something to think about.

>>1526088
>Of course, Maurice is writing far into the future, but his discussion on the topic implies that at some point between the 3rd and the 6th century, the legionaries started to ditch armor.
What?
No it doesn't. It indicates an inability to acquire armor to give them. The forces in use at the time were sitll professionals, choice was a non-issue in terms of equipment.

You're talking about a force that would resort to using WOOD for shin defenses soon, anon. This is a money issue, not one of soldiers not wearing extremely useful gear because they're stupid.

>As for Vegetius, I understand he is to be taken with a grain of salt, but that fact that he mentions the issue means that it must have been in some way prevalent.
Except it doesn't.

I can write an ill-informed treatise on the US military calling for reforms based on a past that I don't actually understand, criticize current practices I don't know much about, and suggest thjings that make no sense if I want.

Doing this would put me on par with vegetius. It would make me an idiot. The passage of time would not make my work less idiotic.

Vegetius is useless unless you find other works saying the same things.

Some of the shit he said is just baffling, especially in regards to archery.

>>1526099
You mistake my quote for stating that the legions voluntarily got rid of their armor. Perhaps my wording was a little faulty.
Clearly a lack of armor is most closely due to issues with paying for it rather than personal preference.
As for Vegetius, disregarding an entire work because of some mistakes is absurd. Vegetius talks about the troops disregarding armor due to laziness, and while this conclusion may not be true, it is true that he must have been aware of an issue of legionaries not using armor in some respect.
Your argument hinges on the assertion here that Vegetius is entirely false in everything he says, which is not true. The main issue here is that there are no (or rather, very few) works of the time period about the subject which can be use to cross examine. Point me to a primary source that says that all legionaries were armored at all times and we can have a discussion, but currently one of our only sources says differently.

>>1525861
As far as I recall the Franks were mostly Roman foederati with half of the Roman officer corps made up of them, e.g. Merobaudes and Arbogast.

Alemanni seized the Agri Decumates (a little salient into Roman territory that existed between the Rhine and Danube) in like the 3rd century but Julian crushed them pretty decisively in the late 4th century. They didn't cross the Roman limes like so many other barbarian tribes except for some minor raiding.

>>1525969
I can't think of anything specific on the Roman army of Late Antiquity, but AHM Jones and people like that (despite being a bit outdated) are good for a inquiry into military history of the time.

>>1526151
Vegetius was wrong like 90% of the time. He wasn't a military man, and it shows.

All the big name scholars of late antiquity, from Pat Southern to Kate Dixon to MJ Nicasie all emphasise "don't trust that nigger Vegetius"

>>1526151
Disregarding a work that is consistently false in an easily demonstrable manner is entirely logical.


Vegetius gets so many things wrong that it's easier to list what he gets right.

Does anyone know when the western empire stopped having a 'professional' army? It's hard to find any mention of the whole comitatenses/Limitanei structure from about the 5th century - and the bigger battles of the 5th century seem like they only ever mention auxiliaries or mercenaries? I mean, take the battle of the Catalaunian Fields, it seems like Aetius only had a few auxiliaries - was there a professional Roman army by this point, and if so - where was it?

>>1525955
>Segmentata can be defeated by literally every weapon on the field.

So can any other armor the Romans used, since they went bare legged.

The point is to protect against specific attacks and angles so the legionary can perform.

>>1527287
>Does anyone know when the western empire stopped having a 'professional' army?
On paper never, you find updated army lists right up until Romulus Augustulus was deposed.

In practice, with the Crisis of the Third Century, generally armies became more associated with their generals than the state. It was increasingly up to generals to equip and train their own soldiers, and even take control of the logistical side of things. You can see this as early as Gallienus, he pulled a bunch of vexillationes from various cavalry units all over the empire and formed them into his own personal army, which historical sources mostly refer to as, you guessed it, "Gallienus' Cavalry". There's a bit of debate on how long it took for more generals to start doing this but by the end of the Western Empire it was standard operating procedure.