Dark Ages Culture Shift

I have noticed that much of the tactics of the Classical and Roman world died out. Roman legions and Greek hoplites switched with footmen and knights, and grandiose columns and greco-roman design became mottle and daub and Germanic(?) stone castles. Tunics were still around, for a time, but were replaced with different clothing. Temples and other such buildings became Christian-style churches.

Now, I may be completely wrong on everything here, but I was wondering if these styles in dress, combat and architecture were replaced during the Dark Ages. If so, then why? I wanted to ask what replaced the uniforms of the Roman legionnaires with knight's armour and the clothes of footmen and peasant-soldiers. So essentially: Why all this change? How did it change?

Another important question was, "Who would win, a Roman legion or a high-medieval army?"
 
I have noticed that much of the tactics of the Classical and Roman world died out. Roman legions and Greek hoplites switched with footmen and knights, and grandiose columns and greco-roman design became mottle and daub and Germanic(?) stone castles. Tunics were still around, for a time, but were replaced with different clothing. Temples and other such buildings became Christian-style churches.

Now, I may be completely wrong on everything here, but I was wondering if these styles in dress, combat and architecture were replaced during the Dark Ages. If so, then why? I wanted to ask what replaced the uniforms of the Roman legionnaires with knight's armour and the clothes of footmen and peasant-soldiers. So essentially: Why all this change? How did it change?

Another important question was, "Who would win, a Roman legion or a high-medieval army?"
1. It changed because society changed. There was no more Empire or Republic encompassing everywhere, it was a patchwork of feudal states. Armies were typically a core of well-trained and armored knights and sergeants with a much larger body of feudal conscripts gathered up for the occasion. Not the professional military of the Roman period, that would've been too expensive in most cases. Although some armies did professionalize. Wattle-and-daub replaced typical Roman houses because it was easier to build. You don't want to have to build some fancy-shmancy Roman stone building with columns and all the fixings every time the Scots or English or whoever ride through town. That, and not everybody is rich. And castles are a hell of a lot easier to defend than your typical Roman palace or even a fort.

As for your second question, it depends on what time period the Roman army is from, what time period the medieval army is from, and what country the medieval army is from. I dare say Augustus's legions could do quite well against a Saxon shield wall from 1066, although it could get quite difficult. But I have my doubts about even them defeating a typical English army from anywhere between the 1270's to the end of the medieval age.
 
Also, uniforms were simply too expensive for smaller nations to supply; until the improvement of production in the Renaissance it was too infeasible.
 
Also, uniforms were simply too expensive for smaller nations to supply; until the improvement of production in the Renaissance it was too infeasible.
A lot of things were done because otherwise it would be too expensive. But as for infantry-to-cavalry that is an artifact of military effectiveness.
 
The first thing you have to keep in mind is that cultures change because they do. The image we have of Rome changing to barbarian squalor is in great part owed to misconceptions. The 'typical' Roman house in the Northwestern provinces *was* wattle-and-daub. The stone buildings were mostly what wealthy people had. Roman material culture as we are taught it was a fairly conservative attempt by an elite to copy a much older, Greek lifestyle. So the cultural change really wasn't in any meaningful sense sudden.

THe why is still a matter of MUCH debate. As to clothing, the current idea seems to be that the Roman military adopted clothing from the people it recruited, and the increasing importance of the military aristocracy made this respectable.

There never was a uniform in the legions, so it wasn't so much abandoned as simply grew in a different direction. The equipment was mostly a matter of cost. Not so much individual cost - a legionary in the second century was probably cheaper to equip than a sixth-century lancer - but of total cost. Heavy infantry is expensive because you need a lot of it. If you have fragmented political systems, small elites do better with horses.

Architecture remainewd very much in organic shift, but the Northwestern parts of the Empire lost the ability to fund buildings like the Hagia Sophia, St Apollinare in Classe or Old St Peter's. Though there were still such buildings created in Italy, just not very many.

Yes, a Roman citizen of the capital in 200 would consider the world of 600 or 800 barbaric beyond belief, but he would have thought much the same of the border troops of his own time.
 
Top