Why does Veeky Forums prefer greatly the late Romans arsenal to the classic legionnaire? Really...

It's not a zero-sum game. Late Roman soldiers were better at some things than late Republican/early Imperial soldiers and vice versa.

>sometimes spear, mostly no thrown
Most soldiers who weren't limitanei would have been armed with swords and darts as well as spears. Plumbatae are actually more useful in the fast and loose fighting that characterised late antiquity than pila would be.
>scutum is abandoned, weakening the ability to utilize formations
Rectangular shields were abandoned because formation fighting wasn't utilised that much anymore and they weren't useful in the warfare the Late Romans most frequently found themselves engaging in. Also a late roman soldier would still have called his shield a "scutum".
>spatha instead of gladius, more reach but ditching the hide behind shield and gut them strategy
Yeah, because it stopped working. If you need to stop a band of marauding Germans from breaching your fortlet's border wall, if you approach them in a heavy formation with big heavy rectangular shields and short stabbing swords, they can just run away.
>abandoned lorica segmentata for mail which is debated as to it being better or worse, but noted as being much cheaper to produce
Everybody hated Lorica Segmentata. It fell out of use for a reason. It can take you up to an hour to put on, and you need someone else to help you, while you can slip on a mail or scale shirt in a few seconds.

OP here, reading up on the darts, it seems like a better thrown than spears, but would it have the disarming (destroying shields) capabilities of the pilla?

It didn't really need to be capable of destroying a shield. The first three ranks of soldiers would throw them all at once, and remember that every soldier carried around five of them so they could keep it up for a while, the enemy will either have to stop or blind themselves with their shields, which presents a pretty exploitable tactical opportunity for the Romans.

Because unlike the bitch principate era legionaries who fought in massive formations of 4500 troops, late Roman soldiers fought in tiny squad formations generally. It's like comparing a bunch of beta fags who literally just stand still hiding behind a shield in a field stabbing blokes and manly Germanic men fighting pretty much toe to toe with enemies almost as well armed as them in woods beyond the frontiers.

Didn't the late Roman army do quite well against its enemies if you consider that they lacked the material superiority of the early empire and that the Germanics had started to get more civilized or well armored at least?

Romans suck dacian dicks

>scutum is abandoned, weakening the ability to utilize formations
The late shield is better for that, because they're FLAT. Meaning you can lock them.

And sure enough, late legions actually fought in tight shield walls unlike the classical forces.

>mostly no thrown
Darts, nigger.

Also, they had better support form actual dedicated archers by this point.

>abandoned lorica segmentata for mail which is debated as to it being better or worse, but noted as being much cheaper to produce
Do you want thigh and arm protection, or not?

That whole idea is largely myth. Some Pila may have fucked with shields. They didn't all do this, and the whole idea is retarded-you don't throw your shield away just because it got heavier.

They tended to smash their enemies whenever they met in pitched battle, even when badly outnumbered, or put into awful situations.

>but noted as being much cheaper to produce
If it's not clear whenever one product is more or less effective than another product, though it is well known that product is cheaper than the other product, don't that make the product better?

You do realize the phalanx isn't some special greek thing, right?

Shield wall with spear is at least as old as the sumerians.

Segmentata is a meme armor desu

>instead of evolving into mail
Romans wore mail before and during the time Segmentata was in use. Possibly more than they used segmentata during the period that segmentata was in use as well.

No?

Why not? Why use a more expansive product if it's ambiguous whenever it's actually better or not?

Why not?

It's alright if you just think it looks cool. You can admit that and we won't think any less of you.

i meant no in terms of objectivity, situationally the cheaper armor would be more practical, but i was referring to which armor was better as an armor, without all the other variables.
Which I would still think the answer is romans using better metallurgy and using plate mail combinations, like a better formed rajput armor

But it's still ambiguous which was functionally better in the states that they were factually in. You're essentially saying the segmentata is better because of theoretical improvements that never actually occurred.

>Also, they had better support form actual dedicated archers by this point.
They had in the republican and early imperial period too. Auxiliaries have been a thing ever since the early city state days.
The point of pila and plumbata wasn't to act as ranged support, it was to stagger the enemy formation before clashing with it.

i was side noting that mail and segmenta would be nice
I think that segmenta was better than mail
What do you think of this statement

>why didn't the romans have tech from a thousand years in the future?

I think you're evading my point, and that you're 15 and really like Rome 2.

You've said nothing that points to the superiority of lorica segmentata beyond personal opinion and the possibility of theoretical enhancements that never happened.
If they're both of a quality that it's unclear which is superior, the difference of quality is quibbling to the point of irrelevance. An armor of equal or slightly lesser/greater quality at drastically lesser cost is superior when it comes to arming and fielding multi ten or hundred thousand troop armies.

History always comes down to economic reality. Check out Caesar's Commentaries, it's his log of the Gallic War. It has a lot of cool battles, but also is almost entirely about his daily concerns with the logistics of maintaining an army. I think it'll be an informative experience for you.

Not the guy you're arguing with, but wasn't the segmentata adopted because it was cheaper and quicker (much less labour intensive) to make than mail? Wasn't it dropped because it was considered hard to maintain, and less practical to wear?
Why are you debating about mail being of equal quality but cheaper?

It was information posited by another user (albeit without a source) that the argument had been running off of. I'm actually glad you've posted this though.

They're more Veeky Forums. "Classic Legionaire"'s look like they come from some shitty b-movie. Lorica Segmentata is ugly af.

It's something more gritty and grim about them.

This.

Segmentata does look like shit (especially when worn together with the manica), but let's be honest here, rectangular scutum and imperial italic galea look much better than oval scutum and ridge galea.

Outta the way losers, winners coming through.

who are these semen demons

Are those supposed to be clibanarii/cataphractii? Didn't those use two handed lances rather than a shield?

>legionnaire

IT'S LEGIONARY YOU FUCKING PLEB

Maybe he's French you fucking autist

What does it fucking matter when the Romans themselves would have called themselves something wholly different?

Do you normally insert another language's words into English sentences while speaking to English speakers on an English board? No? Then call the fucking soldier what it is in English, which is legionary, or legionaries as plural.

Also I'm not entirely convinced that legionnaire is the french way to say legionary, I'm pretty sure it's an entirely different word. I'm no french speaker but if you put "legionary" into google translate it comes out "de la légion" whereas legionnaire in English translates directly to legionnaire in French. I'm pretty sure they're two separate words: one for the Romans and one for the French Foreign Legion

There were different kinds.

They are two separate words, but you're all being autistic about it.

I'll stop being autistic about it when people stop calling roman legionaries "legionnaires"

Well , he said weakening , not droped/abandoned

No, I never do that.

Guess you'd better invest in some Sonic gear, because I sure do like the sound of Roman légionnaires. It has a certain je ne sais quoi.

Legionnaire IS french for legionary and there's no room for doubt. The legion etrangere and its soldiers are named directly after the roman legion afterall.
That said inserting foreign language words for no reason is shit form, and that guy likely wasn't trying to use a gallicism anyway, he just got the wrong word.

idgaf

If legionnaire is a french word then why is it also in English as a separate entity from legionary? Also I don't see why everyone likes calling legionaries by their french name-assuming it actually is the french way to say it-considering the romans weren't french and there's no reason to refer to their culture in french terms

Because English is the king of superfluous synonymous words, and because French was the 'smart' language for a number of centuries and you still see its impact on academia today.

Dude there's no if. Here, look at the wiki page in french: fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Légion_romaine#.C3.89quipement_du_l.C3.A9gionnaire
The frogs use legionnaire for the romans too. And why wouldn't they afterall, it's the brits who chose to use a different word for them in spite of using legionnaire for all other organizations named after the legion. In italian it's the same: legionario for all uses. Same goes for spanish (still legionario) and german (legionär).

Also, learn your linguistics and don't be such a damn prescriptivist. You know what someone means when they say legionnaire, thus it is an effective word.

so instead of using the italian word legionario, which is only different by one syllable from legionary, everyone decided that the French word sounded the coolest and everyone started saying that?

Seems stupid to me. French might have been the gentleman's language in the past but now it's clearly English and I still don't see the need to use legionnaire. It'd be more appropriate to use italian pronunciation than anything else if you're going to diverge from standard English

Maybe, just maybe, he used "legionarie" of old habit?

OP here
I really appreciate the feedback im getting but I'd love for it to be more on topic, maybe I was getting the question wrong.

Do we know if the late roman soldiers were better equipt than early empire, and if they were trained better, and over all better soldiers than the early empire? If we do know this, what is the answer.

In the image their shields are attached to their upper arm, so they could use both.

It's a matter of quality. The elites were top notch, but the border troops were okay.

Even then it still boiled down to leadership and morale.

You feel free to say legionary or legionario or whatever, but try not to get assblasted every time you hear legionnaire or your life will be very tiresome.

This
Romans were always good fighters, but under bad command they can be slaughtered. From republic to empire to late, they always had better supply lines and equipment, however if you were to pit a late republic legion against late, i think it would boil down to morale, which republic had lots of, I can't see mercs fighting for long if it actually got gritty.

It's complex.
We know that the late legion was kind of tiered as far as what you've mentioned: at the top you've got the scholae (basically the praetorians but bigger), then you've got the comitatenses (the main armies, the deployable expeditionary force that moves where needed), and at the bottom the limitanei (the local militia, mostly on border guard and reserve duty).
The comitatenses were about as well equipped and trained ad the early empire soldiers.
The scholae were the elite, veterans, but the equipment was the same (maybe kept more presentable for parade and palace guard duty).
The limitanei were a mixture of retired veterans and and local militia, so their training varied between amateurish and good. Their equipment varied a lot, but it was tendentially lighter and certainly lower priority than the comitatenses.

Because the Foreign Legion was cool enough to become a meme. I'm completely serious.

Unless we're considering a straight on legion vs legion fight without support (in which case I'd agree with you, morale advantage would favour the republican legion over a comitatenses legion), I'd say the late legion wins. They just had better and bigger cavalry and ranged support compared to the republic.

The cavalry would destroy the republican legion. There's a reason why they moved on.

Yeah a Republican legion had something like 1 horseman for every 70 infantry, while a Late Imperial legion was 1 horseman to every 3 infantry (at least on paper and in an ideal situation)

>That whole idea is largely myth.

Its been tested.

Also the Pila is supposed to get stuck with the spike inside, making it so you cant bring it closer to your body and making it tiresome to carry.

>Not liking polished steel, tight fitting articulated plates

What a massive pair of gaywads

Segmentata isn't really tight fitting. It clinks and clanks and the buckles come loose very easily.

Around the torso it is far tighter than other laminated armor. Segmentata is actually kinda form-fitting.

Late Romans were ugly as fuck desu

>t.Asterix

I think people here like it because it looks more medieval-looking compared to the lorica segmentata.

Personally I prefer the early imperial style, but late empire is pretty cool too. The early-to-mid Republican armies look stupid to me.

These helmets are sleek as heck

Personally the later army was way more flexible than. Than the pre constantine army. The mobile field armies were better suited to deal with the issues of the day (large Germanic raids and Persian autists riding around stealing sheep).

They get a bad rep because they are associated with the fall of the empire but considering they faced such massive problems supplying the army and looking at the issues they had to deal with (highly organised and we'll equipped enemies) they did surprisingly well keeping a collapsing empire together. Also the border troops get a bad rep for being shit tier but apart from the massive raids it seems they weren't too bad. Also they had much better support troops and cavalry because they actually trained men for these roles.

Generally the whole unreliable smelly German soldier is a meme. While the majority of the army was foreign this wasnt new. Even by trajan a large part of the army was made up of non italliens.

Basically the difference is the early legionary was suited to dealt with the enemies of the time ie massive tribes who'd charge you head on and for inviting territory. The late one is much better for holding it and defending. Also remember the late roman empire adopted a defense in depth policy.

the sassanids got rekt by the turks too didn't they?

What's the deal with the metal crests?

I'd wager they were worn either by veterans/elites or low ranking officers, while the high ranking ones and generals would wear the plumed ones.

how is mail cheaper to produce than a coat of plates? Mail takes a shitload of work

I think it's a typo, from what I heard segmentata was cheaper to produce.

Multi-part construction. The skull bowl is actually 2 or 4 pieces riveted to the central ridge

Beyond this, many of the Rome's problems were born purely from greed. The empire, under a strong emperor, was more than capable of rebuilding itself as long as there wasn't someone interfering. Unfortunately this isn't a realistic expectation.
Majorian, for instance, was extremely competent and probably would have reconquered all the land that was lost by the 470's, but instead he got killed by Ricimer in 461 because the aristocratic senators disliked his reforms.

Mail takes longer to create but segmentata is, by all accounts, a straight up bitch once you try to wear it and keep it usable.

Depending on how the plates are attached together, I can imagine one dent at the wrong place kinking the whole thing up.

From my own experience, trying to wear a mail shirt and lorica segmentata

Mail shirt
>bunch up shirt
>position hands at sleeve holes
>jiggle about a bit
>hey presto, it's on
Total time, maybe like 5 seconds

Lorica Segmentata
>drape one half over my shoulder
>it falls off as I'm picking up the other half
>have to heave both halves onto my shoulders at once
>adjust front buckles to be perfectly in line
>buckle up the front
>stretch and contort myself trying to reach the back buckles
>the front buckles come loose while I'm doing this
>try to use a mirror
>doesn't work, it's physically impossible to reach some of the buckles
>have to go ask my girlfriend to help me
>the front buckles have come loose again from my fidgeting
>finally, with someone else's help, manage to do up the front and back buckles and secure them with some leather strips
Total time, like 30 minutes

Obviously I'm not a professional soldier who would be doing this every day so they'd be able to do it a lot faster, but when Gaius runs over the ridge with an arrow through his taint telling you that the Germans are to raid our camp, fuck our wives and eat our oats, I'd rather have armor at hand that takes seconds to put on rather than minutes

>lorica segmentata
There is no good evidence this was ever actually used in the field

Also this, holy shit. I was moving house and one of the shoulder plates got dented in transit and the whole thing basically just locked up and made this awful scraping noise when I tried to get it loose.

And maintaining it is a killer. You have to take the plates apart and clean them individually.

I meant "widely" not "actually" used sorry

>abadoned lorica segmentata for mail which is debated to it being better or worse
Because a certain eastern power and major rival used chainmail very effectively.

The Sassanids wrecked the Goturks in the first two wars and in the third Turkic war the Goturks still abandoned Herculius because of the Persian winter, Persian scorched earth policy and the fact that the Persian military was still too strong for them even when weakened and on the losing end of the war by the last year. Also they wrecked the Huns twice in the Caucasus and Armenia (the main reason Attila and his brother invaded the Romans/Byzantines was because the Persians were too strong for them to attack) and crushed the Hephthalites as well before their wars with the Goturks.

Also that image is of a late Byzantine Catarphractoi, not a Persian Grivpanar or Savaran.

doesn't matter because they're all bitchbois

mail is good shit.

Don't pretend like the Romans didn't routinely push in the Germanics asses regularly, Olaf.

oh fuck those dungmonkeys

youtube.com/watch?v=d39FBRxBM8k

Almost everyone in Trajan's wall uses it.

It's both lighter and more protective against strong blows than mail, it probably had a very specific application. You could consider the soldiers that used it to be "shock" troops, meant to assault or face more formidable enemies like the Dacians in pitched battles, sacrificing the logistic and practical advantage of Hamatas to have at least a little edge over.

>There is no good evidence this was ever actually used in the field
Yes there is, there is very strong evidence that it was very widely, there is a shit ton of archaeological evidence. We may never find full ones but we find the little bronze buckles constantly.

Stop believing memes by idiotic historians who have no idea about military issues, the sort of morons who think every single thing with a bit of embroidery or fancy is ceremonial.

Who wore it better?

The fanbase has made me hate the ebin Spartan look
So Romans win by default

Spartans didn't even use the Corinthian helmets, those were phased out long before the battle at Thermopilae at least.

they used Konos

>Trajan's wall

What? If you're referring to Hadrian's Wall, then no. Hadrian's Wall was garrisoned by auxiliaries, not legionaries.

Why were those helmets phased out? They seem like they would provide better facial protection

I haven't really studied the period but having worn one I can hazard some guesses. It makes you completely deaf and more or less blind.

It looks really cool but I imagine that's probably a secondary consideration.