How did this

How did this

...turn into this?

>better protection
>more flexibilily
>shorter weapons better fit for closer combat in wars where your opponent was at a much closer distance

just my guess desu

t. someone who doesnt know anything about war

God that's depressing, but I think it's because their armies became less of an aggressive conquering fighting force and more akin to a garrison

>shorter weapons
Weapons became longer
Gladius to spatha and pilum to spear

How is it depressing, his equipment is better in basically every conceivable way.
>but I think it's because their armies became less of an aggressive conquering fighting force and more akin to a garrison
Also the opposite of this happened. The mobile field armies were equipped with more up-to-date weaponry while the garrison troops on the borders were given antiquated equipment that was used in previous centuries.

Its depressing because before Roman troops had standardized armor and weapons always with armor protection all around while during the middle ages they turned into random feudal levy #1864. Even barbarian norman armor looks more civilized than byzantine ones. Also roman armor had better standardized leg, neck and shoulder protection while byzantine troops were poorly armored due to mail getting far more expensive for some reason that it was only reserved for nobles.

Romans and greeks pioneered the sallet helmet until it was lost for shitty conical ones.

But infantry in formations is far better than a free for all rabble. Foot troops seem to have declined in quality in the middle ages and that is why armored horsemen dominated the battlefield then, because the tactics for stopping cavalry as infantry were forgotten. The reason why europeans also suffered against horse archers is because they forgot how to make testudos.

Testudo is just the latin word for a shield wall, which is an intuitive technique that was never "forgotten". Testudos didn't save the Romans at Carrhae.

Because most Roman soldiers didn't wear the segmentata and instead wore a chain coat that looked boring like the second picture.

>poorly armored due to mail getting far more expensive for some reason that it was only reserved for nobles.

Mail was standard among pretty much all soldiers in medieval armies. One of the only well-preserved 14th century weapon finds, the one on on Visby, shows that pretty every soldier in that backwater had it. The Bayeux Tapestry shows the same for the Normal and Saxon troops in the 11th century. The exception would occur during civil wars or emergency garrison situations, not expeditionary warfare. In that case semi-professional soldiers were usually equipped with a padded jack, helmet, and bits of mail and plate rather than full-body, as during the War of the Roses.

Non Roman Auxilliaries becoming a majority of Roman army

How can one person be so wrong?

The quality of infantry only declined in parts of Europe, the parts were greater localisation forced the primary use of part time soldiers in proto-manorial systems (think the Saxon fyrd). Where centralised organised states remained, like the Byzantine Empire, professional armies still existed and of a "higher quality" that earlier Roman armies.

Armoured horsemen did not dominate the battle field in the Middle Ages, they could certainly do the most damage and could best deliver a decisive strike but were not totally dominant. Middle Ages shock cavalry is also more "powerful" than those the earlier Roman faced due to high back saddles, stirrups and superior breeds.

Infantry did not forget how to withstand cavalry, that's ridiculous.

Testudos are not generally helpful in a battle. I cannot picture anything more stupid that a bunch of testudo's slowly chasing after horse archers, gradually getting their feet nailed to the floor Carrhae style.

The Romans didn't chase horse archers at Carrhae, they just stood and died. The Persians had unlimited ammo because their commander had purposely set the trap and had an entire baggage train loaded with thousands upon thousands of extra arrows.

>Mail was standard among pretty much all soldiers in medieval arm

NO it wasn't.

You can't base a view on Bayeux but ignore all the other art that explicitly shows fighting men not in mail.

I was referring to the arrow nailed feet.

...turn into this?

Didn't most medieval foot soldiers only have padded or leather armor, and only have metal helmet if they got lucky, while an average roman legionnair with lorica segmentata also had foot protection. There are numerous accounts, especially during the wars between the scots and plantagenet kings that most footmen were so poor that they brought only knives and maybe an axe if they got lucky to battle, rarely with shields.

>Infantry did not forget how to withstand cavalry, that's ridiculous.
There were no armored shielded pike phalanxes during the early middle ages, so yeah they forgot how to deal with cavalry until armored professional pikemen and halberd troops appeared in the 14th century. Also midieval shield walls were immobile and soldiers didn't know how to keep formation making them a rabble when they were mobile, thus increasing the time to make a shieldwall.

that's a german barbarian

bloomin' shame

the fire went out of the roman spirit long ago

>Didn't most medieval foot soldiers only have padded or leather armor, and only have metal helmet if they got lucky,

No. Henry II Assize of Arms required all freemen to possess a helmet, most arm also depicts mainly helmeted men fighting.

>There are numerous accounts, especially during the wars between the scots and plantagenet kings that most footmen were so poor that they brought only knives and maybe an axe if they got lucky to battle, rarely with shields.

Citation desperately needed.

>There were no armored shielded pike phalanxes during the early middle ages,

wut

Why do you think only pike blocks stop cavalry? Spear and shield armed men in blocks also do.

German nigger mass immigration.

Lovely how modern europoors think they're being invaded and shit on when that's what they did most of their history, live in mudhuts, wipe their asses with their hands, and invade and undermine better civilizations.

Warfare changed.

You're correct, it's actually all of the non-whites that the globalist liberals, Jews, and cuck Christians are bringing in who are introducing civilization to white people.

odowns

Most footmen only brought any vague sharp object they could find, most of those being farm tools. Why do you think the bill became so popular? because they were too poor for halberds.

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

No, fuck off.

>midieval shield walls were immobile and soldiers didn't know how to keep formation making them a rabble when they were mobile,
YOU LITERALLY WALK FORWARD AT THE SAME PACE. FUCKING CHILDREN CAN LEARN IT IN A DAY.

Maybe not civilization, but at least some culture besides hollow consumerist drivel

>compares ancient germanic mass immigration to modern a few refugees came on a boat

Do you also think the white race is gonna go extinct?

They were literally required to own a spear by the Assize of Arms I mentioned earlier.

Billhooks as weapons came later as a means of breaking armour that became better and more common. It was nothing to do with poverty.

>while during the middle ages they turned into random feudal levy #1864.
The late Roman army consisted of professional field armies whose job it was to be on alert 24/7 to rush into any part of the Empire that was being assailed.

The only reason why you think they look medievalshit is because you think Roman military equipment goit "Germanized." When really it was the other way around.

Most Roman soldiers in late antiquity were fighting guerilla battles beyond the frontiers as opposed to the early imperial period.

Segmatafags are truly the worst.

>Romans and greeks pioneered the sallet helmet until it was lost for shitty conical ones.

what the fuck do you think a Sallet is

you massive imbecile

I think you're wrong about squamata being better protection than segmentata.

t. someone else who's relatively clueless about war

Romans borrowed trousers, boots, longer mail coats etc from other groups. It was not a Roman invention but an adoption.

>while an average roman legionnair with lorica segmentata also had foot protection.

the average legionary had a Hamata and a cheap, likely worn Cassis helmet, the Romans only used Segmentatas and shinny reinforced Galeas during the Dacian war when the economy was at their best.

It has lots of gaps dude. A blade could easily slide between them.

Mail also protects more of your body; arms, upper legs and neck.

The helmet is also smaller and can deflect blows away from it. Its still reinforced along the top. The older helmets have lots of places for weapons will catch.

Why does the order of one king translate to the entirety of Medieval Europe?

We dont need terrorist attacks and rape in our culture.

Jesus user please read some books before you post