Why was roman weaponry so limited? They didn't use axes or maces or anything other than javelins...

Why was roman weaponry so limited? They didn't use axes or maces or anything other than javelins, swords and bows as far as I know.


Also why Romans neglected cavalry?

That's all they needed really.

short swords w/ shields were absolutely perfect for their shield formations
have god tier cover then stab at the greasy gaul wherever you picked due to maneuverability of such a small weapon, as most of rome's enemies were less armoured then they were
alsso, javelins were pretty damn good, intermediate range weapon that would easily take out an enemy for the battle, if not take his life
it was really useful at taking the wind out of an infantry charge, and idk, might even be useful against cavalry harassment
btw, afaik, roman javelin = pila and roman sword = gladius, roman long sword = spatha

for anything further than that distance, only some ballista, bows (if late rome), catapults and slingers were used, but romans always like hand-to-hand melees because that was their specialty, and the ballistas and catapults would be kept for fort/city defense/siege

Spears too

Axes are shit and practically no one in history used them as their primary weapon, they were cheap sidearms carried alongside a bow or lance.

The Romans didn't use maces because they didn't spend much time fighting heavily armored adversaries. Swords are far more effective at cutting down lightly armored celts and Persians.

>Also why Romans neglected cavalry?
Not invented here.

>They didn't use axes or maces
They used both of those things
>Also why Romans neglected cavalry?
They didn't, they recognised its importance in Auxilia troops and then in the Late Roman Army the entire military was 1/4 cavalry

Could you do at least a cursory amount of fucking research before asking dumb questions? They used both maces and axes in some capacity and in the later empire their cavalry was basically the best in the world, and they had a whole fucking lot of it.

>lightly armoured Persians
>Persians
>Ligthly armoured
nigga

>Why was roman weaponry so limited?
It wasn't. They used swords, spears, shields in close combat. javelins and darts for ranged support. They had a wide choice of mobile artillery both for sieges and infantry support. They had specialized archer and slinger auxiliaries for further ranged support. They had as much variety as anyone else.

>Also why Romans neglected cavalry?
They didn't. Roman armies always came with appropriate cavalry support.
Early on said support was formed out of the patricians and the first class, after the marian reforms it was mostly celtic and numidian auxiliaries, plus eastern heavy cavalry in imperial times.
Roman native cavalry is usually considered to have been shit, but there's literally nothing whatsoever to support this idea.

"The legionary infantryman was usually equipped with two long javelins called tela, and a medium length cut and thrust sword generally referred to as a gladius, but sometimes known as a spatha.

Specialist fighters might be armed with multiple short lanciae, or lead weighted mattiobarbuli. When fighting fully armored heavy cavalry, swords and javelins would be substituted with heavy wooden clubs or iron maces.

Legionary cavalrymen, depending on their speciality, were armed with swords, javelins, long maces, axes, and lances."

they had an effective way of fighting and it showed.
why bother getting morningstars when a boardshield, sword, spear and javelin is enough to turn your enemies into mush?

they had an established tactic, so why use things that are not necessary to that tactic?

they had a much more valuable asset, which is that they could march a lot, form cohesive formations and construct anything in a matter of days (fortifications, barriers, bridges, ramps)

>Implying those are typical Persian soldiers

>why bother getting morningstars when a boardshield, sword, spear and javelin is enough to turn your enemies into mush?

>hey look a cataphract is hurtling towards me at full speed, I better throw my javelin, then stab him with my sword

>oh no, my weapons have bounced harmlessly off him

It's a good thing they actually did use maces and clubs and axes against heavily armored opponents otherwise you'd look pretty silly

>Axes are shit and practically no one in history used them as their primary weapon
well hatchet-sized axes were extremely common, especially in early medieval warfare
if they weren't a common first weapon, they were an extremely common secondary weapon

Your whole post just screams low bait. None the less I'll answer it. First off the roman state's type of warfare changed drastically over the two millenias it existed.
The classic early imperial roman legionaries used the weapons best suited for the type of warfare they excelled at which was brutal meatgrinder-like hand to hand combat. A short stabbing sword is great for that purpose and works well in combination with a large shield to take cover behind. The pilum as a heavy javelin have the added advantage of also bending easily which means that it will likely get stuck in any shield it pierces. The wielder of the shield will then either have to ditch his shield or continue on with a cumbersome piece of equipment that will snag and get in the way.

The roman army at the time also made ample use of auxillary and allied troops from all over the empire aswell as some from beyond. These troops' equipment varied wildly and allthough some units were equipped in the roman manner alot of them still maintained their native equipment and special proficiences. As such the roman army was composed of a central element of legionary heavy infantry supplemented by forces from peoples who excelled in other segments of warfare such as cavalry or missile support. As the empire (and its foes) evolved so did its armies.

they hired alot of native auxilia to cover up for their weaknesses
Rome bribed the Numidians who gave them such an ass whooping and proceed to shit on Carthage at Zama
They also swiped some skirmishers of their own to counter the Parthians

>Numidians
LMAO ROMANS GOT REKT BY NIGGERS

>Numidians were niggers.

they were niggers

Yeah and Hannibal was a black christian.

Veeky Forumstory channel

Roman cavalry for much of its history was were the rich guy went to in war, similar to many greeks, so they didn't have a whole lot of cavalry. They never developed much of a cavalry tradition.

I also heard from some guy that Roman cavalry had a problem of them discounting to fight on foot too often.

The specific weapons comments I'll have to mostly ignore, it really depends on when in the Roman period you focus on. I'll just say; pitch the question against a modern army and a specific weapon system. I bet you can come up with reasonable explanations quickly.

Regarding carvery; institutional focus. Roman society was best at producing tough infantry via various carrots and sticks. As such they focused on their strengths. Other nations made better archers, better horse men... they focused on that.

Gotta remember the Legions would originally have been militia drawn from... kinda middle class farmers. They wouldn't have been the types of people to really go in for cavalry. Standing in a block of infantry and tenderising the shit out of some "Barbarians", better suited

>some black

Another black

>a bunch of blacks with some other blacks

>modern black people

If you squint your eyes and take LSD the guy on the right looks like Biggie Smalls so yeah Numidians were black.

This thread is a kind of microcosm of what's wrong with Veeky Forums

Some anons give authoritative answers in the first couple of posts, proving that the OP is wrong about their assumptions

Then the rest of the thread is spent inventing incorrect or dismissive answers on the mistaken assumption that the OP is being accurate

The regular Persian infantry even stretching back to the Achaemenid era were only "lightly" armored compared to the Greek Hoplites, and nothing else. Which isn't even contemporary with Roman Legionaries who wouldn't exit from the Grecian Hoplite system themselves until around the Punic Wars, regular Parthian and Persian soldiers were just as armored as their Roman/Byzantine counterparts, you moog.

And to add, Persian soldiers in the Achaemenid period were using scale armor which isn't "light" until you compare it to very new chainmail which the Celtics invented later on and the bronze/iron platted armor. Even Herodotus points out Persian soldiers were anything but "lightly" armored.

>wicker shields

What does that have to do with fully wearing scale-armor?

Achaemenid era ! = Arsacid/Sassanid era

they did use other weapons in their auxilia, which where about half of their army

Most of the Roman weaponry comes from the Celts

Be it the gladius(shitty version of the cladios) or the tunica and the braccae

Its believed most people got chainmail and more advanced metallurgy from the Celts weren't just the Romans. The Iranics, the Greeks, Armenians, etc...