A question about late Roman infantry

One of the distinct advantages of Principate Legions over their non-Roman opponents was that they are able to cover their bodies against attacks easily with their large rectangular shields while being able to attack their opponents much easier using their short swords(their gladius).With the late Roman army however,infantrymen used spears,oval shields and much longer swords(the spatha). Were late Roman infantrymen actually disadvantaged compared to their predecessors in close quarter combat or did the changes actually increase their fighting ability in close quarter situations?

NOTE:I fully realize that overall,the late Roman army was actually better than the Principate one in terms of tactics,doctrine and equipment.
 
One of the distinct advantages of Principate Legions over their non-Roman opponents was that they are able to cover their bodies against attacks easily with their large rectangular shields while being able to attack their opponents much easier using their short swords(their gladius).With the late Roman army however,infantrymen used spears,oval shields and much longer swords(the spatha). Were late Roman infantrymen actually disadvantaged compared to their predecessors in close quarter combat or did the changes actually increase their fighting ability in close quarter situations?

NOTE:I fully realize that overall,the late Roman army was actually better than the Principate one in terms of tactics,doctrine and equipment.

The only real explanation I've heard on this is that the crisis of the Third Century was murder on the institutional knowledge of the Roman military. The Principate package, as it were, required that men be trained in a specific method of fighting that takes longer to train a man in then big solid shield wall or block of spearmen. Likewise, there is the need for men who know how to make the concave shields. The spatha may have been coming in early in the Principate; there's mixed evidence of on that.

Point being, you need men who know the method of fighting and can train it, men who know how to make the gear. Oval shields are simpler to make, shield walls are simpler to train. The Third Century is decades of all hands on deck civil wars. Likeliest explanation is that the men who knew the Principate methods died and did not pass on their skills before doing so. At the same time, the need for mobility means that any special training and gear fabricating skills is likely to go to mounted units, which can stay under the eye of the current emperor, while being mobile to get to trouble spots where you don't trust the local authority enough to give them a full up army.
 
The only real explanation I've heard on this is that the crisis of the Third Century was murder on the institutional knowledge of the Roman military. The Principate package, as it were, required that men be trained in a specific method of fighting that takes longer to train a man in then big solid shield wall or block of spearmen. Likewise, there is the need for men who know how to make the concave shields. The spatha may have been coming in early in the Principate; there's mixed evidence of on that.

Point being, you need men who know the method of fighting and can train it, men who know how to make the gear. Oval shields are simpler to make, shield walls are simpler to train. The Third Century is decades of all hands on deck civil wars. Likeliest explanation is that the men who knew the Principate methods died and did not pass on their skills before doing so. At the same time, the need for mobility means that any special training and gear fabricating skills is likely to go to mounted units, which can stay under the eye of the current emperor, while being mobile to get to trouble spots where you don't trust the local authority enough to give them a full up army.
Doesn't really answer my question,but to my knowledge,the change was mostly driven by a different style of warfare rather than losing knowledge.The late Roman army infantry was more suited to fight cavalry as well as other Roman infantry units--as well as the fact that there's more ''skirmish' style fighting than set pieced battles.What I wanted to know more though is whether the changes made the late Roman infantry as efficient in fighting close-quarter combat with other infantry or did they sacrifice their nigh invincibility in close quarter fights for greater mobility and in fights against cavalry.From what I've read,the late Roman infantry units actually require MUCH more training than the early ones since they had a greater emphasis on individual prowess in using a sword or spear(apparently,fights are more individual than as an organization in the late Roman army) rather than the early ones where individually a Roman soldier's pretty weak but as an organization is much stronger than an opposing force of equal size.

From what I've read,I get the feeling that if the early legion units ever met the late Roman legion infantry units in a set piece battle,the late Roman legion units are going to get butchered.
 
Last edited:
One of the distinct advantages of Principate Legions over their non-Roman opponents was that they are able to cover their bodies against attacks easily with their large rectangular shields while being able to attack their opponents much easier using their short swords(their gladius).With the late Roman army however,infantrymen used spears,oval shields and much longer swords(the spatha). Were late Roman infantrymen actually disadvantaged compared to their predecessors in close quarter combat or did the changes actually increase their fighting ability in close quarter situations?

NOTE:I fully realize that overall,the late Roman army was actually better than the Principate one in terms of tactics,doctrine and equipment.

First of all let me just point on thing, that sometimes appears on threads like this, the myth, yes myth, that the roman army became defensive after the 3rd century is a lie. I only mention this because I saw too many people claiming that the late roman army was using a defense-in-deep tactic, despite evidence of campaigning across the Rhine until the late 4th century.

Well, first both weapons were, originally, auxiliary weapons. This can be noticed on Trajan's Column were it can be seen auxiliary using oval shields. The spatha had also been used by the auxiliaries, especially by the cavalry and by Galic auxiliary.

But the reason for the change can be, on my opinion, on the need of soldiers.

If you ever held a sword in your life, you will notice that your first instinct will be to use it to slash and not to stab.

Now the gladius, as a small weapon, was not very good for slashing and required several months of training to become used to the weapon and to lose the "habit" of trying to use it as a slashing weapon.

The spatha on the other hand is a slashing weapon. If you hold a sword in fighting position your wrist will be leaning slightly putting the weapon on a seventy-five degree angle (unless is a saber or rapier, because the grip is different), with that angle you will use it to slash some 3 out of 4 times. With the spatha you will mostly slash and it won't require much training to become battle-ready, given that all they needed to learn was discipline and how to form the several battle formations, you could skip much of the sword training.

Now on the scuttum vs oval shield.

One reason was economic.

It's easier and faster to make an oval shield and it also requires less materials.

image028.jpg


Another, was the way fighting had become in the 3rd century onward.

The army keep on the offensive but the way they fought change.

The desire now became to kill the enemy at a distance and not at close-quarters. This can be seen by the adoption of the spear, as the main weapon, and they also begun to transport half a dozen Plumbata (javelins).

This happened by two main reasons.

The first and primary was the constant need of soldiers. The Crisis of the Third Century killed many people and with the frontiers always under pressure, the roman army begun to prefer to rely on ambushes to destroy their enemies.

With this we arrive at the second reason. While the late army won most of their battles, roman generals begun to avoid open battle, unless they had a clear advantage in manpower.

With the rise of this type of warfare, it also begun a need for a more light and maneuverable shield and the oval shield had all the required needs.



On the end you can say that the changes happened because of the circumstances.

The need of more and more soldiers made the gladius a hindrance, given that the spatha was easier to use and train.

Likewise the scuttum wan't the best weapon for ambushes and fast marches. The scuttum was a shield designed for open battle and slow advances, were you relied on discipline and organization.

The oval shield was more adapted to the new realities. Many times roman soldiers ended fighting alone and the oval shield offered bigger maneuverability.

If i didn't explain something, or if you fell my explanation was weak on some point, point it out and I will fix it.

Hope this helped you.
 
My question was which method was far more effective in a set piece battle against other infantry in a group vs group situation and by how much,that's what I really wanted to know.

There's also another question I'm interested in:were most late Roman soldiers equipped with both a hasta and a spatha or were different units equipped differently?
 
My question was which method was far more effective in a set piece battle against other infantry in a group vs group situation and by how much,that's what I really wanted to know.

So a 5000 early empire legionaries vs 5000 late legionaries kind of situation? And if so are auxiliaries to be included?
 
So a 5000 early empire legionaries vs 5000 late legionaries kind of situation? And if so are auxiliaries to be included?
More like early/late legionaries vs other infantry.Auxiliaries are alright,but no cavalry.I am asking because infantry was still the main force of the army in the late empire.
 
KarolusRex and TheYoungPretender have explained why the answer which you already gave is right:
Your 5000 early empire legionaries would perhaps have an advantage over your 5000 late empire legionaries. Not because of the weapons and shields. The weapons and shields are just indicative of the underlying problem of the late imperial armies. These underlying problems would cause your late imperial 5000 guys to lose. (In a completely sanitised scenario, of course. Battlefield geography, leadership etc. etc. can of course tip the balance the other way.)
 
KarolusRex and TheYoungPretender have explained why the answer which you already gave is right:
Your 5000 early empire legionaries would perhaps have an advantage over your 5000 late empire legionaries. Not because of the weapons and shields. The weapons and shields are just indicative of the underlying problem of the late imperial armies. These underlying problems would cause your late imperial 5000 guys to lose. (In a completely sanitised scenario, of course. Battlefield geography, leadership etc. etc. can of course tip the balance the other way.)
I know this is difficult to answer as it's really subjective,but in your opinion,would the late Roman army infantry units be massively inferior in a set piece battle against other infantry units when compared to their predecessors or only slightly?
 
I know this is difficult to answer as it's really subjective,but in your opinion,would the late Roman army infantry units be massively inferior in a set piece battle against other infantry units when compared to their predecessors or only slightly?
This is yet another question.
Not just because Romans vs. Romans is different from Romans vs. e.g. Germanics.
Also because you ask for a quantitative answer.
How late in the late empire? Is it possible for you to narrow this down to two precise situations / armies?
 
Purely legionaries.

Ok.

So a full roman legion of the time of Trajan, some 5500 strong, against some five-six legions from the time of Dioclitian/Constantine (I say 5-6 because at this time each legion was one thousand men strong).

First the early legion, that will be called Legio I for now on, will have a clear advantage on organization and discipline. Their opponents, that will be designated as Comitatenses I, will be under the command of a Dux, and he would be on the defensive.

If we consider the scenario as being on flat ground, without any forests or hills, the Legio I with have the advantage.

The Legio would advance in two lines in testudo formation. The sight of the advancing enemy would have a tremendous physiologic on the Comitatenses. The end result would be a close-quarter fight that would end as a victory for the Legio, given that they had more training and experience on this type of fighting.



Now scenario two:


The Legio I advance into enemy territory. The Dux commanding the Comitatenses would chose his ground and would most likely wait until the Legio had to either cross a river or had to march throw a forest.

In this kind of ambush scenario the Comitatenses, would gain the upper hand, with the Legio being unable to fight effectively, while the Comitatenses would use their advantage on individual fighting.


Scenario three:


The Comitatenses position themselves on the top of a hill and face the Legio I.

Now this scenario can go both ways.

If the Legio advances uphill they will tire themselves and will lose some of their organization and the Comitatenses might use some gap to charge and break the first line in two, were their individual advantage will show. Here the problem would be the second line. If the second line of the Legio rushes and manages to close the gap, the Comitatenses will find themselves surrounded by the Legio and will be annihilated.

If the Comitatenses stand and wait for the Legio to advance, their spears and javelins will allow them to keep the Legio at a distance and will be able to force them to retreat from the battlefield and claim a tactical victory.

The problem with this scenario is the fact that each Legio had its own artillery train. If the Legio uses, and they would, the artillery they have the Comitatenses would be crushed.

So in the end on a front to front scenario the Legio would win in most cases, except if they were ambushed in which the Comitatenses would most likely win thanks to their individual advantage.

Also notice that no legion would fight alone so if auxiliary units are added you have more scenarios were the Comitatenses would win.
 
This is yet another question.
Not just because Romans vs. Romans is different from Romans vs. e.g. Germanics.
Also because you ask for a quantitative answer.
How late in the late empire? Is it possible for you to narrow this down to two precise situations / armies?

I am more into Romans vs Germanics.As for late empire,I am talking more of the time of Constantine.Situation would be 5,000 Roman soldiers fighting a horde of 5,000 Germanic infantrymen in a set piece battle.I am really asking for a qualitative answer here.How much more difficult would the late Roman force have fighting this horde compared to the early legion?
 
Last edited:
I am more into Romans vs Germanics.As for late empire,I am talking more of the time of Constantine.Situation would be 5,000 Roman soldiers fighting a horde of 5,000 Germanic infantrymen in a set piece battle.I am really asking for a qualitative answer here.How much more difficult would the late Roman force have fighting this horde compared to the early legion?

In a set-piece battle, the early legion would do better, although probably not hugely better. (The later army was capable enough to win most of its set-piece battles, after all.) Aside from their heavier equipment, their system of organisation and tactical doctrine was more geared to this sort of large-scale combat than that of the late Roman army, which focused more on ambushing and raids.
 
I am more into Romans vs Germanics.As for late empire,I am talking more of the time of Constantine.Situation would be 5,000 Roman soldiers fighting a horde of 5,000 Germanic infantrymen in a set piece battle.I am really asking for a qualitative answer here.How much more difficult would the late Roman force have fighting this horde compared to the early legion?
If you ask "How much?", you always ask for a quantitative answer.
Frankly, I don`t know. Imperial armies under Augustus and Marcus Aurelius had their difficulties fighting against Germanics, although they were generally superior, and that concerns the infantry as much as anything else. In late imperial times, Germanic warfare had adapated and improved, but late Romans had much more experience with fighting against Germanics, too. A pure infantry vs. infantry fight is highly speculative, especially for the later scenario.
 
The rectangualar scutum combined with the short stabbing gladius, the pilum and the lorica segmentata was imho the optimal equipment for close quarter infantry attacks against infantry. The scutum provides best possible protection, the segmentata is slightly superior against attacks to the shoulders, if the hamata is not very well padded, and the gladius, well trained, is a butcher's knife.

So the late roman infantry, even if still superior to all foes at its time has to be inferior in such a special kind of battle.

The romans changed it perhaps due to changed requirements (cavlry armies, small assymetric encounters, ....) or whatever other reasons (centralized mass production, training effort, disappearance of status differences, ....). We will perhaps never know. Obviously, the equipment of the late roman army increased the flexibility of the heavy infantry. The average roman soldier had perhaps one open field battle in 10 years in average. So 99.9% of his time in service, he had to fullfill ofther duties with other requirements to equipment.

Fact is, that the equipment of the heavy infantry is not the critical succes factor for an army. It is the tactics of combined arms adjusted to the enemies army and various other aspects. Look at the better documented battles of Arrian or Agricola. But just to answer to your very specific question: Yes, the heavy infantry of the principate was most probably superior in this kind of encounters. But just this kind of encounters. And just the legionaries. Remember there was a lot of heavy infantry in the auxiliaries of the principate. Looking to all the other types of encounters and versatile duties of the roman army the late roman soldier and the almost equally equipped auxiliary soldier of the principate was most probably better suited.
 
Last edited:
I am asking because infantry was still the main force of the army in the late empire.

In terms of numbers, yes. You know, cavalry is much more expensive, training intensive, and in worst case slower in the long run. Even if the cavalry increased from 5-15% during the late republic/principate to 20+% in the late roman army. In a campaigning army perhaps even more, because every roman commander took all cavalry and special forces (archers, ...) he could get, but let some standard infantry back in the province.

But tactically the cavalry became the main and decisive force in late roman warfare. Julius Caesars cavalry had just to hold the line, while the infantry does its job. In the battles of the late empire it was often vice versa. Of course this is a simplification. But there was obviously a change in tactics, roles and the use of combined arms. No, the infantry was not longer the "main force". I doubt, there was something like a main force at all from a late roman commanders point of view.
 
Last edited:
Top