why had the legionaires of the 5th Century's equipment declined so much? When I see some reconstructions of finds from that era the soldiers equipment seems to have decayed loads in quality.
Afraid this is a common misconception.
Allow me to state this clearly: military equipment in late roman empire was
better than the one of early roman empire/republic.
- Cavalry equipment was better all around; I don't think I have to explain why.
- composite bow (and compulsory bow practice) was introduced, giving the soldiers an effective throwing weapon
-
Lorica Hamata was substituted by pressed linen tunic. Strange as it may seem, this was an
improvement in protection capabilities. You must not think to an ancient sword as a lasersabre cutting through steel and stone, but rather as a badly-sharpened cutlass which was often used as a club. If the blows you have to protect against are blowing rather than cutting in nature, then a pressed linen tunic is a better protection than a iron armour. And it is much lighter, too.
I agree that
Lorica Hamata and
Segmentata is more "stylish" and "cool" to see, but it is worse.
-
Gladius was substituted by the longer
Spatha. This, too, was an
improvement, caused by an improvement on forging techniques.
Gladius had to have a short wide blade, so that it would not break down. In late empire times, improved forging techniques allowed to make longer weapons that would not break down.
As any soldier will confirm you, a longer weapon is better.
- Hasta was introduced for all soldiers
- war machines (onagri, ballistae, carroballistae, scorpiones) were much more improved and were not only siege engines, but weapons to be deployed in the field, too.
- the smaller (500-1000 men) units of the later empire were much more effective than the enormous phalanxes (4000 + 5000 auxilia) of the early one (shorted chain of command)