This is more due to hollywood and pop culture than anything else. Its cheaper to use a generic armor set despite it being historically inaccurate or inauthentic in films and tv shows. The actual Romans and medieval Europeans moved away from such archaic weaponry and for a practical reason. Medieval plate armor, Byzantine lamellar, Byzantine gambesons, mail, etc were far superior in terms of logistics an in terms of actual combat needs of the Romans compared to the overrated lorica segmentata armor used during the high Classical Empire.
We can agree about armor.
The late Roman Army formulated by Diocletian and Constantine was just as effective if not more so than the old Republican legions or the armies of the classical Empire at its height. Compared to what the late Roman Army was up against, and their combat record, I'd argue that the later evolution of the Roman Army was superior to the classical army. Keep in mind that it was because of this constant evolution that Roman civilization lasted for over 2,000 years (Rome founded in 753 BC). They no longer faced primitive tribes beyond the Danube and Rhine frontiers anymore. Centuries of contact with the Romans made them more sophisticated and Romanized to a degree. These Germanic tribes adopted Roman battle tactics, Roman style craftsmanship, Roman style cities and customs, etc. When the Emperor Valens met with Germanic envoys and crossed the Danube, contemporary accounts note how shocked he and his court were by the level of sophistication of their old enemies.
If I'm not wrong, the Gauls and early Franks were not that primitive nor brutish when fighting. The Carthaginians were on par of them both in armor, weaponry and as a society. Vercingetorix and other Celtic chieftains were trained in Rome.
Mail armor is cheaper to manufacture than the overly-complex lorica segmentata. The actual Late Roman Army when under good leadership managed to score a great many victories as well. Constantine and Crispus managed to stabilize the Empire and restore the integrity of its frontiers through this method. With this army, Crispus managed to score massive victories against the Franks. Also the scutum was abandoned because it was too outdated for it to work. Rome's new enemies were now more armored and thus a scutum that could bend and was less likely to penetrate their armor, was not effective.
Sorry but...what? Since when is a shield supposed to penetrate armor? Or do you mean that it was too flexible to work as a bashing weapon against the late germanic and persian armor? Or do you mean the gladius?
Well, its not like Rome's enemies were wearing any kind of plate armor, because lamellar and maille were almost useless against maces and other bashing weapons, including the scutum. Did those guys use gambesons that early?
Also the Justinianic army also had lamellar as well which was cheaper and offered as good protection as lorica segmentata. The gladius was also too short of a sword meant for fighting in close quarters with infantry formations. Rome's enemies were now nomadic and cavalry centric (Germans and Persians), and thus they needed to become more cavalry centric to succeed against their foes. The Byzantine Cataphract was basically the pinnacle of the armored horsemen until the advent of mounted knights in full plate armor which was only possible thanks to advances in metallurgy developed over the Middle Ages. The army of the Komnenoi and that of the Macedonians (dynasty not Ancient Greeks) was cavalry based and was likely the most effective fighting force within Christendom. One of the reasons most people don't hear about Byzantine military advances is because there was a Western contempt for the Eastern Roman Empire seeing it as an Empire of the Greeks. This goes back to the differences between the Orthodox Church and Catholic Church that started when the Pope crowned Western Holy Roman Emperors. The term Byzantine only really dates from a 15th century German historian, and it didn't help that people like Edward Gibbon in his book the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, slandered the Eastern Empire as basically nothing but Greek Schismatics. He also was pretty biased against Christianity, and since the Eastern Empire was a heavily Christian Empire, as compared to the Pagan Western Empire which he idealized, the East seemed inferior. Thankfully modern scholarship is slowly disproving this view with the history of the Eastern Romans being more prevalent and appreciated.
Ok, the last part was a bit reduntant. I still don't see how this is an argument against using the gladius and scutum along with increasing the number of cavalry troops. Was it really because they needed a congency measure to fight cavalry if the latter surprised infantry on the flanks?
Late Rome had state workshops, maybe they tried to manufacture a single kind of sword for the entire army? The later byzantines had different kinds of swords, for that matter.
What I envision is these new medieval legions using tapered european short swords with better penetrative power than the original gladius.
The classical Roman armies sucked when it came to cavalry. This was why they had such limited success against the Persians and the the more cavalry centric Germanic tribes. The Persians under the Sassanids were much more of a threat to Rome than Parthia ever was with its very effective army and government. Its cataphracts and cavalry based armies gave the Romans a lot of trouble, and the Romans had to adapt to their new reality. They adopted the Cataphract and hired Scythian and Hunnic Horse Archers for this reason. Justinian's army was so devastating because of these Hunnic soldiers and cavalry based troops which why he was able to steamroll the Goths and Vandals when he focused and put his army under good leadership. Emperor Maurice's army as covered in the Strategikon, was very cavarly oriented allowing for him to maintain the Empire's territorial integrity and nearly restore the Balkans to stability.
The early Empire managed to turn the tide against the Parthians and beat them in most battles without using more cavalry, but using slings and archers if I recall well. Granted, the Sassanids were better organized, but by that time Rome was on the verge of the Third Century crisis too. I can concede, however, that cavalry was getting strong enough to require the use of spears instead of the nimble pilum.
This is the classical Roman soldier:
This is a late Roman soldier from Justinian's time:
This is a Roman (Byzantine) Cataphract:
A roman comitatenses wielding an axe and a green shield. Now, that looks cool.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
