It Wasn't Just the Goths who gave the Roman Empire trouble - there was also the Alamanni:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamanni

Conflicts with the Roman Empire
[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Karte_limes.jpg"]http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Karte_limes.jpg)
The Limes Germanicus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_Germanicus) AD 83 to 260.


The Alamanni were continually engaged in conflicts with the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire). They launched a major invasion of Gaul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaul) and northern Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy) in 268, when the Romans were forced to denude much of their German frontier of troops in response to a massive invasion of the Goths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths) from the east. Their raids throughout the three parts of Gaul were traumatic: Gregory of Tours (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Tours) (died ca 594) mentions their destructive force at the time of Valerian and Gallienus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallienus) (253–260), when the Alemanni assembled under their "king", whom he calls Chrocus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrocus), who "by the advice, it is said, of his wicked mother, and overran the whole of the Gauls, and destroyed from their foundations all the temples which had been built in ancient times. And coming to Clermont (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clermont-Ferrand) he set on fire, overthrew and destroyed that shrine which they call Vasso Galatae in the Gallic tongue," martyring many Christians (Historia Francorum Book I.32–34 (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gregory-hist.html#book3)). Thus 6th century Gallo-Romans of Gregory's class, surrounded by the ruins of Roman temples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_temple) and public buildings, attributed the destruction they saw to the plundering raids of the Alemanni.
In the early summer of 268, the Emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Emperors) Gallienus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallienus) halted their advance into Italy, but then had to deal with the Goths. When the Gothic campaign ended in Roman victory at the Battle of Naissus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Naissus) in September, Gallienus' successor Claudius II Gothicus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius_II) turned north to deal with the Alamanni, who were swarming over all Italy north of the Po River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Po_River).
After efforts to secure a peaceful withdrawal failed, Claudius forced the Alamanni to battle at the Battle of Lake Benacus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Benacus) in November. The Alamanni were routed, forced back into Germany, and did not threaten Roman territory for many years afterwards.
Their most famous battle against Rome took place in Argentoratum (Strasbourg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasbourg)), in 357, where they were defeated by Julian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_the_Apostate), later Emperor of Rome, and their king Chondomar ("Chonodomarius (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chonodomarius&action=edit)") was taken prisoner to Rome.
On January 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2), 366 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/366) the Alamanni yet again crossed the frozen Rhine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine) in large numbers, to invade the Gallic provinces, this time being defeated by Valentinian.
In the great mixed invasion of 406, the Alamanni appear to have crossed the Rhine river (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine) a final time, conquering and then settling what is today Alsace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace) and a large part of the Swiss Plateau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Plateau). Fredegar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredegar)'s Chronicle gives the account. At Alba Augusta (Aps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aps)) the devastation was so complete, that the Christian bishop retired to Viviers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viviers), but in Gregory's account at Mende in Lozère (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loz%C3%A8re), also deep in the heart of Gaul, bishop Privatus was forced to sacrifice to idols in the very cave where he was later venerated. Although this, it is thought, may just be a generic literary ploy to epitomize the horrors of barbarian violence.

Thoughts on what Western Martial Arts Weapons were used most effectively by these Germanic Tribes? What were the best ways they countered Roman military tactics and formations?

Thoughts on what Western Martial Arts Weapons were used most effectively by these Germanic Tribes? What were the best ways they countered Roman military tactics and formations?

Jonathan, isn't there another factor as well? By the time these Germanic peoples started making serious dents in the Roman military perimeter, is it not the case that the Roman army was pretty much a shadow of what it had been under, say, Claudius and Hadrian? This is far from any area of mine, but my impression is that it wasn't just new methods of warfare (including mass attacks on horseback, I think?) by Rome's `barbarian' enemies but also the depletion of supplies, training and in a sense committment in the Roman military...

I've heared recently that Rome fell more to weather and subsequent plagues, more than to any enemy.
Sean

Don't forget Battle at the Teutoburg Forest, Hermann the “Cherusker aka Arminius

I have not read this yet, but it is on my list.
The Enemies of Rome: From Hannibal to Attila the Hun
http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-Rome-Hannibal-Attila-Hun/dp/050025124X

Also
Rome’s greatest enemies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/enemiesrome_gallery_01.shtml

Don't forget Battle at the Teutoburg Forest, Hermann the “Cherusker aka Arminius

I have not read this yet, but it is on my list.
The Enemies of Rome: From Hannibal to Attila the Hun
http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-Rome-Hannibal-Attila-Hun/dp/050025124X

Also
Rome’s greatest enemies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/enemiesrome_gallery_01.shtml

You're right, XS---Armenius was quite unusual in defeating the Roman army while it was still approaching the peak of its strength... and not one elephant to his name! Guy was apparently a military genius. Do you know what it was that he did right, in that battle?

Carthage?

You're right, XS---Armenius was quite unusual in defeating the Roman army while it was still approaching the peak of its strength... and not one elephant to his name! Guy was apparently a military genius. Do you know what it was that he did right, in that battle?

To be completely honest not exactly, the Romans did consider him a friend and he did ambush them in the Teutenberg Forest and I think it was a terrain thing that much I remembered. Is that it?

I know he took the Roman legion standard and that really made Rome rather angry.

Don't forgert about Brennus sacking Rome with his Gauls in the 4th century BC. He is known for saying "Vae Victis" woe to the vanquished.

Jonathan, isn't there another factor as well? By the time these Germanic peoples started making serious dents in the Roman military perimeter, is it not the case that the Roman army was pretty much a shadow of what it had been under, say, Claudius and Hadrian? This is far from any area of mine, but my impression is that it wasn't just new methods of warfare (including mass attacks on horseback, I think?) by Rome's `barbarian' enemies but also the depletion of supplies, training and in a sense committment in the Roman military...


I think you're right. These folks would have fallen to Trajan's legions, IMO. However; I did need to tie it into WMA in some way, lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan

I think you're right. These folks would have fallen to Trajan's legions, IMO. However; I did need to tie it into WMA in some way, lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan

But you know, it's possible that the tactics, the WMAs, that had made the Romans so successful against the Germanic and Celtic peoples they had defeated were no longer usable under the degenerating conditions in the late empire. That the training of soldiers and the actual military expertise that had worked so smoothly from Claudius to Trajan no longer made it feasible to use that advancing triangle tactic---the one where you have a line displaying several `sawteeth' each side of which consists of a shieldwall with soldiers stabbing between the shields using their short swords, and those caught between two sawteeth cut to ribbons as the line advanced---which had crushed Bodicca's forces somewhere in the midlands
and pretty much doomed any resistance which relied on one-on-one fighting, as the Celts and the early Germanic opposition did. I suspect you had your best shot at the Romans fighting in dense forests where that formation was unusuable, which was probably why Armenius was successful even against a very capable Roman force.

The trick with that Roman `rolling wedge' tactic is that it requires tremendous discipline, and I suspect the training of the late-era Roman soldiers didn't enforce nearly as much discipline as you'd have found in a couple of hundred years earlier. I'm also not so sure about the use of cavalry against the late empire armies---my impression is that mounted assaults gave the legions a great deal of trouble...

... so really, the issue of WMAs is involved here, eh? :)

Germanic opposition did. I suspect you had your best shot at the Romans fighting in dense forests where that formation was unusuable, which was probably why Armenius was successful even against a very capable Roman force.

OK I cheated and went and looked it up, and I found that it was pretty much exactly that he trapped them between a marsh and tree covered hilly terrain which did prevent them from making the famous wedge formation.

The trick with that Roman `rolling wedge' tactic is that it requires tremendous discipline, and I suspect the training of the late-era Roman soldiers didn't enforce nearly as much discipline as you'd have found in a couple of hundred years earlier. I'm also not so sure about the use of cavalry against the late empire armies---my impression is that mounted assaults gave the legions a great deal of trouble...

... so really, the issue of WMAs is involved here, eh? :)

And form what I have read and seen in documentary the later armies of Rome where very much effected by the influx of non-Romans in the legion and the discipline did break down, some of that I imagine due to language issues (but language issues are pure speculation on my part).

Incidentally the fall of Rome could also have something to do with the collapse of the centralized religion on which they where based. They would not be the first major civilization to fall to this. The belief system changes as do the philosophies and goals that held it together. Of course it could also be the reverse too. The civilization begins to fail and then people look to other religions for answers.

In Non Commissioned Officers School while I was in the USMC we were told that it was the incest, syphillis, and lead poisoning that led to a whole host of medical problems that destroyed Rome.

Remember in WWI and II that more people died of disease and trench foot than of bullet. The same with things brought on in Korea and Vietnam.

Medicines and vaccines have gone a long way.

incest, syphillis, and lead poisoning that led to a whole host of medical problems that destroyed Rome.

Certainly a factor, I had forgot about this until you mentioned diseases

The plague
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/guide03/timeline34.html

Also just because one can drink wine from a lead cup does not mean one should, this is also suggested as a possible reason for the madness, bizarreness and/or brutality of the emperors, Nero and Caligula if I remember correctly

In Non Commissioned Officers School while I was in the USMC we were told that it was the incest, syphillis, and lead poisoning that led to a whole host of medical problems that destroyed Rome.

Remember in WWI and II that more people died of disease and trench foot than of bullet. The same with things brought on in Korea and Vietnam.

Medicines and vaccines have gone a long way.

There's a lot of evidence that environmental factors such as illness and decline in public health did contribute mightily to the fall of Rome. But syphilis is unlikely to have been implicated---the current evidence, as I understand it, is that the first definite evidence of syphilis that we can identify places it in Europe, at epidemic scale, at the very end of the fifteenth century, and that it was brought over from the New World---substantially different from (and far more virulent than) what it had become by the mid-16th century.

I think a long-term factor that contributed to the decline in the quality of Roman life was the phenomenal amount of money that successive emperors wound up pouring into the gladitorial system. By the latter days of the Roman empire, a huge proportion of all surplus income generated by the state through taxes and conquest went to the importation of slaves and animals for the `games' from distant parts of the world and the production of elaborate acts of carnage on huge scales, particularly in Rome itself but throughout the empire. The cost of these shows was phenomenal, and the the whole setup was apparently demand-driven---much of the population seemingly driven by compulsive bloodlust to witness these staged massacres. I remember reading somewhere that when particularly long-awaited mass slaughters had to be cancelled for whatever reason, there were riots and serious political repurcussions.

So from this angle, the wealth of the empire, that should have been going into upkeep of infrastructure, of military security and support for the far-flung economy---food, at the bottom line---basically dried up. That had to have led to severe consquences across Roman society---certainly, it wouldn't have helped the army any, where many times soldier's pay is said to have been put on hold so that the imperial administrators of the gladatorial games had the bucks to stage their shows...

Incidentally the fall of Rome could also have something to do with the collapse of the centralized religion on which they where based. They would not be the first major civilization to fall to this. The belief system changes as do the philosophies and goals that held it together. Of course it could also be the reverse too. The civilization begins to fail and then people look to other religions for answers.

Which centralized religion are you referring to? Christianity? Before the adoption of Catholicism by Constatine, the Roman empire didn't have a centralized religion, unless you call a potpourri of different borrowed gods from various pagan groups, the Greeks, and Persians as a centralized religion. Christianity/Catholicism as an official religion was ascendent during the fall of the western Roman empire, as shown by the Theodosian edicts forbidding all other religions in 391 AD.

Lamont

Which centralized religion are you referring to? Christianity? Before the adoption of Catholicism by Constatine, the Roman empire didn't have a centralized religion, unless you call a potpourri of different borrowed gods from various pagan groups, the Greeks, and Persians as a centralized religion. Christianity/Catholicism as an official religion was ascendent during the fall of the western Roman empire, as shown by the Theodosian edicts forbidding all other religions in 391 AD.

Lamont

First that was kind of a side note, note the main focus of the post

But sorry, did not mean to offend by calling Rome’s original basic religion centralized.

How’s this the major religion on which Rome was based which are multiple Gods in a hierarchical system, they left that for monotheism and Rome may have already been in decline by then or it may have started then, that I would have to look up

Similar declines have happened to other societies when the original religion or religions that they had decline, Egypt went the same root.

How’s this the major religion on which Rome was based which are multiple Gods in a hierarchical system, they left that for monotheism and Rome may have already been in decline by then or it may have started then, that I would have to look up

Similar declines have happened to other societies when the original religion or religions that they had decline, Egypt went the same root.

XS---there's another take on that issue, which kind of reverses it. In a lot of cases, choice of religion reflects political realities (remember the Huguenot prince, Henri IV, who converted to Catholicism in order to become King of France, uttering the immortal words that are usually translated into English as `Paris is worth a mass'---a good tolerant King by all accounts, but what a cynic, eh?) So a change in religion may signal a shift in political interests, or social structure, or spiritual `mood', where the new religion is more consistent with the changed circumstances. Roman religion started out as a kind of translation of Greek religion, which was a perfect fit with a loose-knit network of city-states: Athena is the patron of Athens, Dionysus was originally a local Theban minor deity, and so on, over hundreds of communities. In ancient Italy the same conditions held, originally, but what happened there was quite different from what happened in Greece: the evolution of a superstate, with rulers of increasingly absolute power, and the emperors themselves eventually becoming gods with their own temples. The diversity and almost chaotic abundance of deities, minor deities, nymphs, spirits and so on reflected in Greek religion is increasingly replaced by a centralized state religion headed by a Big God who, though nominally Jupiter, was identified more and more as the empire grew with the emperor---in other words, a typical match between a centralized absolutist government and a centralized absolutist religious `pantheon' in which the Big God was increasingly the only player, as far as the state was concerned.

Somewhere along the line, as the empire began to show definite signs of the rot setting in, the whole mood began to change and a lot of so-called mystery religions began to flourish---local cults centered on secret rites. At the time of the emergence of Christianity in Rome, my money would have been on Mithraism, based on the Roman soldiers' tutelary god, their protector, apparently originally Persian---a huge deal in the Roman army. But while some elements of Mithraism seem to have been incorporated into early Christianity, the Mithraists lost out in the competition. You have to ask why. My own guess is that Christianity, with its somewhat anxious emphasis on the condition of the individual soul, the central role of original sin and the helplessness of individuals to ensure their own salvation except through contrition and penitence, reflected the mood of an imperial society that already realized it was in some sense at the end of its tether. The soldier's god didn't really cut it. And while Jupiter and the emperor-gods fit well with the haughty arrogance of the Empire at its height, by the time Constantine embraced Christianity early in the 4th century, there was probably a sense that the game was up. So it might be useful to stand your correlation on its head: the `switch' in Roman religion from the (heavily Jupiter/emperor dominated) `pantheon' (where the others gods and goddesses became seriously subordinate to Mr. Big) to a Christian framework was a kind of natural outcome associated with the sunset mood of the late empire. Remember, Alaric the Visigoth sacked Rome less than a century after Constantine's conversion.

So maybe it wasn't the switch in religion that led to the drop in imperial morale and the will to defend the Western Empire, but vice-versa: the adoption of an introspective religion focusing on the individual soul reflected the sense of an imminent collapse of the cultural supremacy the Romans had taken for granted for so long?...possibly? Just an idea...

XS---there's another take on that issue, which kind of reverses it. In a lot of cases, choice of religion reflects political realities (remember the Huguenot prince, Henri IV, who converted to Catholicism in order to become King of France, uttering the immortal words that are usually translated into English as `Paris is worth a mass'---a good tolerant King by all accounts, but what a cynic, eh?) So a change in religion may signal a shift in political interests, or social structure, or spiritual `mood', where the new religion is more consistent with the changed circumstances. Roman religion started out as a kind of translation of Greek religion, which was a perfect fit with a loose-knit network of city-states: Athena is the patron of Athens, Dionysus was originally a local Theban minor deity, and so on, over hundreds of communities. In ancient Italy the same conditions held, originally, but what happened there was quite different from what happened in Greece: the evolution of a superstate, with rulers of increasingly absolute power, and the emperors themselves eventually becoming gods with their own temples. The diversity and almost chaotic abundance of deities, minor deities, nymphs, spirits and so on reflected in Greek religion is increasingly replaced by a centralized state religion headed by a Big God who, though nominally Jupiter, was identified more and more as the empire grew with the emperor---in other words, a typical match between a centralized absolutist government and a centralized absolutist religious `pantheon' in which the Big God was increasingly the only player, as far as the state was concerned.

Somewhere along the line, as the empire began to show definite signs of the rot setting in, the whole mood began to change and a lot of so-called mystery religions began to flourish---local cults centered on secret rites. At the time of the emergence of Christianity in Rome, my money would have been on Mithraism, based on the Roman soldiers' tutelary god, their protector, apparently originally Persian---a huge deal in the Roman army. But while some elements of Mithraism seem to have been incorporated into early Christianity, the Mithraists lost out in the competition. You have to ask why. My own guess is that Christianity, with its somewhat anxious emphasis on the condition of the individual soul, the central role of original sin and the helplessness of individuals to ensure their own salvation except through contrition and penitence, reflected the mood of an imperial society that already realized it was in some sense at the end of its tether. The soldier's god didn't really cut it. And while Jupiter and the emperor-gods fit well with the haughty arrogance of the Empire at its height, by the time Constantine embraced Christianity early in the 4th century, there was probably a sense that the game was up. So it might be useful to stand your correlation on its head: the `switch' in Roman religion from the (heavily Jupiter/emperor dominated) `pantheon' (where the others gods and goddesses became seriously subordinate to Mr. Big) to a Christian framework was a kind of natural outcome associated with the sunset mood of the late empire. Remember, Alaric the Visigoth sacked Rome less than a century after Constantine's conversion.

So maybe it wasn't the switch in religion that led to the drop in imperial morale and the will to defend the Western Empire, but vice-versa: the adoption of an introspective religion focusing on the individual soul reflected the sense of an imminent collapse of the cultural supremacy the Romans had taken for granted for so long?...possibly? Just an idea...

Yes I fully agree, that is why I said earlier in the thread that the belief system changes, as do the philosophies and goals that held it together. Of course it could also be the reverse too. The civilization begins to fail and then people look to other religions for answers.

However that statement "The civilization begins to fail" could just as easily be that the civilization begins to change and to accommodate that change the religion too had to change.

Yes I fully agree, that is why I said earlier in the thread that the belief system changes, as do the philosophies and goals that held it together. Of course it could also be the reverse too. The civilization begins to fail and then people look to other religions for answers.

However that statement "The civilization begins to fail" could just as easily be that the civilization begins to change and to accommodate that change the religion too had to change.

So the question is, what factors would have led to to that sense of decline and being at the end of the line?.. I kind of think of the tenor of the times for Rome in the fourth and fifth century as being something like what comes across in Bob Dylan's song `Knockin' on Heaven's Door'. And what I wrote about earlier, the massive misguided channeling of $$$ into the gladitorial `exhibitions', again strikes me as one sign a society that desperately want to be distracted from its own rotten state of being---one factor that probably accelerated the downward spiral, but wasn't the ultimate cause, more a reflection of whatever else was really sucking the lifeblood out of Roman society. The cause(s) of that sense of things falling apart are still elusive...

So the question is, what factors would have led to to that sense of decline and being at the end of the line?.. I kind of think of the tenor of the times for Rome in the fourth and fifth century as being something like what comes across in Bob Dylan's song `Knockin' on Heaven's Door'. And what I wrote about earlier, the massive misguided channeling of $$$ into the gladitorial `exhibitions', again strikes me as one sign a society that desperately want to be distracted from its own rotten state of being---one factor that probably accelerated the downward spiral, but wasn't the ultimate cause, more a reflection of whatever else was really sucking the lifeblood out of Roman society. The cause(s) of that sense of things falling apart are still elusive...

Nope it was just one guy named Claudius Klutzius at mediocre sandal maker from South Rome, he is responsible for the whole thing going to Hell in a hand basket :)

You pose a good question and I doubt that we will ever be able to say without question it was these particular events and no others that led to the fall of Rome, but it is an interesting study.

However I would tend to think that it was not just one thing but there were several contributing factors as you have said.

Pouring money into the gladiatorial games, trying to control such a vast empire, the occasional insanity of its rulers, disease, war, etc. I believe all played their part.

Nope it was just one guy named Claudius Klutzius at mediocre sandal maker from South Rome, he is responsible for the whole thing going to Hell in a hand basket :)

You pose a good question and I doubt that we will ever be able to say without question it was these particular events and no others that led to the fall of Rome, but it is an interesting study.

However I would tend to think that it was not just one thing but there were several contributing factors as you have said.

Pouring money into the gladiatorial games, trying to control such a vast empire, the occasional insanity of its rulers, disease, war, etc. I believe all played their part.

It's pretty scary, when you look at it---it wasn't that long between the great days of the all-conquering legions and the chaotic last days right before the Visigoth occupation of Rome.... Claudius Klutzius has a lot to answer for!! :D

It's pretty scary, when you look at it---it wasn't that long between the great days of the all-conquering legions and the chaotic last days right before the Visigoth occupation of Rome.... Claudius Klutzius has a lot to answer for!! :D

I Know if Claudius Klutzius only made better sandals we would still be speaking latin today :)

Something else that I was thinking about as a possible contributing factor;

Rome was incredibly successful with the shield wall and the use of the gladius but was it still effective as a military strategy by the end of the empire?

A modern example, and forgive the comparison to a navel battle but I think it explains what I am trying to say… hopefully

When the Bismarck went up against the HMS Hood, the Hood was the pride of the royal navy and at one time the most technologically advanced ship on the sea. But it was far behind the Bismarck and really did not belong in the water against a ship of the Bismarck’s design and was sunk by the Bismarck

Now is it possible that the Roman hung on to their way of war just a little too long? It was in the beginning a great advantage but did it later become a disadvantage against a more tactically advanced enemy.

This of course is pure speculation on my part since I am far from an expert on Rome or warfare of the era.

Now is it possible that the Roman hung on to their way of war just a little too long? It was in the beginning a great advantage but did it later become a disadvantage against a more tactically advanced enemy.


Many historians believe that the discipline of the Roman army declined, and it was the discipline that was the difference rather than the technology difference that made the Roman military strong. If anything the Romans were noted for adopting (and adapting) military traits of their opponents if it proved worthy. Take a look a the cataphracts, which the Romans adopted from the Greeks and Persians and then used them in the western empire.

Lamont

I don't care about it's a very old thread... :D
...
According to those we asked and what we read, the Roman Empire used more mercenaries in and nearing it's endtime than before.
Most of these mercenaries were from the same ethnic groups as against whom they defended. Now, a merc never has that much of heart in the fight as a non-merc has. This would give the edge to the attackers even if the two armies would be the same size. Now add the factors of unfamiliar discipline (I'm not saying that the attackers were undisciplined, I'm saying they used different methods for different goals), the growing amount of corruption, sicknesses and such... now add in the moral-lowering factor of not paying the mercenaries... the captains who would've better liked to be at the more central areas... and we got a very low quality army.
On the opposing side, we have the beginning of the migration... huge ethnic groups pushed towards the west by stronger groups, all wanting a safe home, fearing more behind them than those before them. All this when in some areas inhabitants start to grow tired of aforementioned problems with the Romans.
...
Btw the growing usage of mercs and the increasing need for them is the most likely reason of the increasing lenght of the swords. The mercs wanted to use what they were familiar with, and Romans most likely couldn't allow themselfes to ignore this "wish".

Just adding that confusing mercenaries and conquered then assimilated tribes may cause problems. The separating line becomes less and less well-defined nearing the end of the empire, and there are always exceptions, but mainly those who were assimilated for a longer time tended to be equipped more like a "normal" Roman, while mercenaries or those assimilated only recently most likely wanted to stuck to weapons THEY preferred. Paying in weapons MAY have been a useful way to sate their hunger, but forcing foreign to them weaponry on them is a sure way to ensure low moral. Imagine a modern soldier being forced to abandon his beloved and fine-tuned weapon (or his favourite weapon type) for something ordered by the contractor.

There are some interesting factors to consider in this whole situation. Firstly the Roman Empire was far from the politically secure beast it had beenin the 1st and 2nd centuries. There were effectively two Romes, and one didn't really care what was happening on the northern frontier. Secondly, the political realities of the empire saw a contraction of that empire. In AD410 Britain was told it could no longer rely on Imperial protection and this was just as the Saxons and company had began to harrass the province (provinces more properly as Britain had been divided into four by this time).

The army had seriously suffered from this as it was now a locally raised beast using local men and probably local interpretations of Roman training and tactics. Combine with this the fact that equipment was being massed produced to make it cheaper and you have a very different army to that of Caesar, Claudius, or Trajan.

The Germanic tribes, however, had always frightened the Romans. If you look at the shape of the Empire, it stopped at the Danube. They never really tried to push past that line. Those few occasions when they did the Germans crushed them. A combination of terrain and appropriate fighting techniques made the forrests north of the Danube a no-go zone for Rome.

Yep, Rome made a huge number of errors. :)
However, mass-produced equipment is not really a bad thing given the stage of technology of the Romans, especially that the gladii was seen by them as a tool rather than an object with spiritual links. The decline of the level of organization, the growing number of mercenaries (see Machiavelli), the loosening of central control and the growing level of decadency had more to do with the decline of army quality.

"The Germanic tribes, however, had always frightened the Romans."
Partially that's what I meant at not forcing Roman equipment on foreign mercenaries is a wise idea. You don't want to upset those Germans who would join, especially not if they are not positioned on the borders.

A few years ago at a LARP event we were playing mercenaries and the contractor forgot about this very good idea. We got angry (they wanted us to use shortswords and shields instead of our poleaxes and dopplehanders and they tried to show themselves much more intelligent than they really were), and "killed" everyone at the area. The disparity of force was much smaller than in the Romans/Germans case. Now if that particular alliance would have been better organized with a standard, well-drilled army, we wouldn't be able to easily massacre them.
Funny how often you find LARP cities and alliances follow real-world patterns and commit real-life errors with having the knowledge and possibility not to do so. This I think is true for some real countries as well, but that's politics which I don't like. :D

I think the point I was trying to make about mass-produced weapons was that shoddiness crept into manufacture. Compare the quality of the equipment from Tiberius' armies to those of Constantine. Armour, in particular, suffered. Weaponry had become regionalised so they are difficult to compare effectively.

Decline of armour quality was something I never could understand... I mean, if I'm working like a madman, I can pump out 2 functional (that's to mean it can stop an arrow from 10 meters) lorica segmentatas daily even with my minimalistic workshop, but making for example mail is much, much slower and the resulting armour is inferior in many aspects... Do you have any ideas why did they abandon it? I don't have any and I'm confused at this since... well, since I knew they abandoned it. :)

Decline of armour quality was something I never could understand... I mean, if I'm working like a madman, I can pump out 2 functional (that's to mean it can stop an arrow from 10 meters) lorica segmentatas daily even with my minimalistic workshop, but making for example mail is much, much slower and the resulting armour is inferior in many aspects... Do you have any ideas why did they abandon it? I don't have any and I'm confused at this since... well, since I knew they abandoned it. :)

I understand it had to do with the difficulty of getting consistent sheet metal in iron. It's "easier" to hire someone to draw wire than pound Iron into sheets.

Sheet metal became popular again after they learned more about metallurgy and steel.

There are mercenaries, and there are mercenaries.

One of the problems with using Free Roman Citizens as legionnaires is that they have to go home and plant in the Spring and harvest in the Fall. If you want to get into world conquest in a serious way you need to either make a bunch of slaves to handle the farmwork or hire someone else to do the fighting. The Romans did both.

Two of the most important groups were the Sarmatians and the Parthians or Scythians depending on exactly which dialect and time you're talking about. The Sarmatians were the model for the later Western mounted Chivalry. They had heavy armor, heavy horses and favored the lance. The Scythian/Parthian/whatever were classic horse nomads. They had lighter armor, lighter faster horse and used the bow primarily, the lance and sword secondarily.

The mounted archer style of warfare was without a doubt the best and most successful in history up until the widespread adoption of firearms. Their weapons and tactics conquered almost the entire Old World. When it wasn't geography or microbiology that beat them (cf. Japan and Indonesia) the only people who effectively resisted did so by adopting their techniques and equipment (Korea, the joint Christian/Arab defeat of the Horde in the Near East). No infantry force ever stood against them. Heavy cavalry was slaughtered.

Hiring Scythians was a very rational decision even from what the Ancients would have known.

If we want to get into the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire there are many. We haven't even touched on balances of payment, inflation, changes in the political and economic system, environmental changes, the speed of communications compared to the size of the Empire or any of a number of other things. But they aren't nearly as fun and sexy as weapons, armor and the Purity of Roman Fighting Manhood :shrug:

I have only one thing to add, Tellner. My ancestors relied heavily (almost exclusively) on mounted archers, yet at some time around 1000 (I could cite exact dates, but I don't really want to unless someone is very interested) we have been defeated on more than one occasion. We were defeated to the level where our only chance of survival as a nation was to take up Christianity, get papal approval, and try becoming a European nation as much as possible.

Of course reasons of our defeats were almost as complicated as the reasons behind the fall of Rome, but the bottom line is this: we likely had the best light cavalry in Europe in the 9-10th century and in the end they were slaughtered by heavy cavalry regardless of the individuals' skills.

And yes, these reasons are more interesting than those you mentioned (of course this isn't true, I simply know almost nothing about them :D)

thardey: uhh, yes, most likely you're right. It's just strange to me that they used the same amount of steel in an inferior design.
Consistent quality... well, pre15th century armours were inconsistent in steel quality as well, ranging from extremely good heat-treated high-carbon steel to cheap and extremely low quality... things. But even the latter had more chance against an arrow or a sword than mail, otherwise they wouldn't have used it.
Or it's simply my too modern mind that causes lacking areas in my understanding. :)

Decline of armour quality was something I never could understand... I mean, if I'm working like a madman, I can pump out 2 functional (that's to mean it can stop an arrow from 10 meters) lorica segmentatas daily even with my minimalistic workshop, but making for example mail is much, much slower and the resulting armour is inferior in many aspects... Do you have any ideas why did they abandon it? I don't have any and I'm confused at this since... well, since I knew they abandoned it. :)

I think that Thardey has covered the essential reason for the move away from the lorica segmentata, but I would like to add something. Rome had been using mail (lorica hamata) since the early Republic (a 'gift' from the Celts along with the gladius hispaniensis). Julius Caesar's legions were equiped with mail as it was the best available before the lorica segmentata became available. The point is that mail production was something that occurred throughout the western empire so there would have been plenty of people to carry out the tedious manufacture.



One of the problems with using Free Roman Citizens as legionnaires is that they have to go home and plant in the Spring and harvest in the Fall. If you want to get into world conquest in a serious way you need to either make a bunch of slaves to handle the farmwork or hire someone else to do the fighting. The Romans did both.

This is likely a large part of the reason behind the increase in the number of auxilliaries in the army. Poorer citizens who signed on for 25 years and didn't have anywhere else to go. Of course, they were never stationed in their home lands, that could cause a revolt or something.

Interestingly in Britain in the 3rd, 4th, and early 5th centuries the majority of troops manning Hadrian's wall were auxilliaries. Most of them came from Europe but there were some interesting stand outs. Cavalry from Syria (the Sarmatians had served in the same region in the 2nd century), infantry from Bulgaria, and, most interesting of all, boatmen from Mesopotamia.

Hows that? An Iraqi contingent in the occupation of Britain. Weird huh?

"Hows that? An Iraqi contingent in the occupation of Britain. Weird huh?"
Now THIS part I understand... one of the very few good things under communist rule here was the good organizing of police. They served totally elsewhere than where they lived. This way relatives, friends, local guys and the like didn't have any effect on their work, so their work became what it was - a work. No chance to help your family otherwise than sending money, no chance to put someone one didn't like into jail. Worked well.
Oh, and they were sent to different areas about twice a year to avoid getting friends there.
...
Now if you place soldiers at a place where they don't even really understand what the local population says... and even if they understand, they have nothing in common with them... it becomes even better. In theory, that is.

[quote=Ahriman;982989Now if you place soldiers at a place where they don't even really understand what the local population says... and even if they understand, they have nothing in common with them... it becomes even better. In theory, that is.[/quote]

The Romans certainly thought it was a good idea. Except for the Praetorian guard, which was barracked outside Rome, all legionaries serve far from their homeland. The praetorian guard is actually a good example of why this policy was useful. They became intimately embroiled in the politics of the empire, going so far as to effectively choosing emperors in the 1st and 2nd centuries ("pay us and we will support you, don't and we will support a rival"). Two legions (10000 to 12000 men) of experienced troops on the doorstep is very persuasive.

I think that Thardey has covered the essential reason for the move away from the lorica segmentata, but I would like to add something. Rome had been using mail (lorica hamata) since the early Republic (a 'gift' from the Celts along with the gladius hispaniensis). Julius Caesar's legions were equiped with mail as it was the best available before the lorica segmentata became available. The point is that mail production was something that occurred throughout the western empire so there would have been plenty of people to carry out the tedious manufacture.





This is likely a large part of the reason behind the increase in the number of auxilliaries in the army. Poorer citizens who signed on for 25 years and didn't have anywhere else to go. Of course, they were never stationed in their home lands, that could cause a revolt or something.

Interestingly in Britain in the 3rd, 4th, and early 5th centuries the majority of troops manning Hadrian's wall were auxilliaries. Most of them came from Europe but there were some interesting stand outs. Cavalry from Syria (the Sarmatians had served in the same region in the 2nd century), infantry from Bulgaria, and, most interesting of all, boatmen from Mesopotamia.

Hows that? An Iraqi contingent in the occupation of Britain. Weird huh?


By the time of Ciaus Julius Caeser, the Roman army was a professional force, with the standard enlistment being 16 years (a few Legions went well past that, due to the Civil wars. Octavian set enlistments for 20 years and later it became 25 years.
When looking at the Roman army, their were 3 phases and its easy to confuse them, people make generalizations about them, it would be like saying "The American army did this" well what period?
Army of the Republic- Citizen force, this was the way they were set up from the founding of the Republic through the Punic wars and the invasion of Macidonia and Greece (these were largly the vets of the Punic wars, so the standards were as high as the later professional army.)
The army went through a change due to Marius allowing the poor to join the Army asnd by the time of Sulla, they were a full on professional army.
Army of the Principate- The Army of the Ceasers or the Imperial Army
and then the Army of late Antiquity.

Adrian Godlsworty's The Complete Roman Army, Caeser Life of a Colossus and Stephen Danoo-Collins' Caeser's Legion, The History of the X Legion (Legio X) are great factual resources, that are also great reads.

Of coarse I was not trying to step on your great point about the Auxilliary or Ala forces of the army. It's amazing how these guys got around.

The more I learn about the Roman Army, themore I want to learn.
It's why I start Western Civ 101 this fall and start my long , slow climb to PhD in History, I want to study them and their similarities to our History.

By the time of Ciaus Julius Caeser, the Roman army was a professional force, with the standard enlistment being 16 years (a few Legions went well past that, due to the Civil wars. Octavian set enlistments for 20 years and later it became 25 years.
When looking at the Roman army, their were 3 phases and its easy to confuse them, people make generalizations about them, it would be like saying "The American army did this" well what period?
Army of the Republic- Citizen force, this was the way they were set up from the founding of the Republic through the Punic wars and the invasion of Macidonia and Greece (these were largly the vets of the Punic wars, so the standards were as high as the later professional army.)
The army went through a change due to Marius allowing the poor to join the Army asnd by the time of Sulla, they were a full on professional army.
Army of the Principate- The Army of the Ceasers or the Imperial Army
and then the Army of late Antiquity.

Adrian Godlsworty's The Complete Roman Army, Caeser Life of a Colossus and Stephen Danoo-Collins' Caeser's Legion, The History of the X Legion (Legio X) are great factual resources, that are also great reads.

Its a good point to make as it goes to the heart of equipment development for the Roman legions.

The citizen legions of the early and middle republic had to supply their own equipment which meant that they were rank according to both age and wealth. Age produced the classic division of principes, hastati, and triarii, while wealth produced the velites and accensi (auxilliaries deployed behind the triarii) which were made up by poorer citizens.

Later as the army became more important the state supplied equipment so it became standardised. You see the troop distinctions disappear because wealth stopped being a factor and the qualification for being an auxilliary became non-citizenship.

Then in the late empire, when everyone had citizenship the distinction between legionaire and auxilliary became quite blurred and equipment started to standardise across that distinction, but equipment was also locally produced using faster, cheaper methods which led to quality inequalities.