War actually changes

>Romans discarding the well-engineered pilium for a convential spear

Please tell me this image is inaccurate.

>>2702005

You say 'advancement' as though there is a clear line of improvement, which there isn't. Strategy is relative, you may have a strategy capable of defeating countless hoplites yet you could still be dominated by a smaller force yielding foreign tactics.

>>2702022
The pilum was replaced by smaller darts called plumbata which were stored in pockets on the inside of the shield. It's thought most soldiers carried about five or six plumbata.

This allowed Roman soldiers to be more effective skirmishing troops and carry a spear as well, which made them much more effective against cavalry.

>>2702028
This anon is right. Will do a more extensive writeup in a bit but Late Roman soldiers looked the way they did because the nature of warfare was changing dramatically and the kind of soldier than image 3 depicts wasn't as effective anymore.

>>2702045
kinda makes sense really

>need range attack
>throw spear
>cavalry charge happens
>no spear so you're fucked

>>2702173
Exactly, that's using your noodle anon

Were there any ways in which Byzantine trroops were inferior to their late or mid Roman counterparts? Did military technology just get better for them, or were there losses and regressions due to things like the Byzantines not having access to the scale of resources and money that the Romans had?

>>2702005
Why did #3 get ingrained in popular culture as the roman soldier?

>>2702005
Everything after 3 is terrible

File: BattleofPelagoniaminiature.jpg (152KB, 1502x940px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1502x940px

>>2703759
There were such massive improvements in terms of things like metallurgy and organisation that it's very hard to directly compare them. I would say for the most part that the Byzantine military is pretty much a straight upgrade over the Classical Roman military in everything except in terms of size. In the 5th century the Roman army fielded nearly half a million men, by the 15th century it was down to twenty thousand. Though the late Palaiologan army was a bit of a shambles in general.

>>2703769
Possibly because it's the most well-attested in terms of art, if I had to make a guess.

>>2702045
>>2703803
But why was number 3 not effective anymore? And what metallurgical and strategical improvements happened? I would like to know something more about that, I don't know if there is some good material about this that I could find.

>>2703977
>But why was number 3 not effective anymore?
A couple of factors

1. Cavalry had become the decisive force on the battlefield, and with a huge unwieldy shield and a short stabbing sword, classical legionaries weren't really equipped to deal with that.
2. Large pitched battles and sieges were becoming less important than defensive smaller skirmishes, and classical legionaries were more suited to warfare that was more aggressive and large-scale.
3. The Roman state started to play a more direct role in the outfitting of their troops, with most equipment of the Late army being produced in state-owned factories rather than private commissioned workshops. To this end, there was a desire for equipment that could be mass produced and equipped by everyone, from light skirmishers to heavy infantry to cavalry. The equipment of the classical legionary is only really suited for heavy infantry.

> And what metallurgical and strategical improvements happened? I would like to know something more about that, I don't know if there is some good material about this that I could find.
The works of John F. Haldon, Mark C. Bartusis and Warren Treadgold are pretty good for an overview of the development of the Byzantine army.

>>2704102
Very interesting. Thank you.