|
Post by u02rjs4 on Dec 7, 2011 0:06:27 GMT
I was wondering if someone could give me a reason for the decline of the roman style of fighting and armour. I can't see how for example a viking shield wall is superior to a scutum formation/ testudo etc. Its much later in history but seems less sophisticated. The romans did so much invading their armour and weapons weren't a secret. The large shield and short stabbing sword seems to change into a longer sword or axe and a smaller rounded shield.
For example say the crusaders fought a battle against the romans i'm assuming due to 1000 years of development of swords etc the roman's wouldn't win but i can't think of a strong reason why.
any thoughts or help
|
|
jhart06
Member
Slowly coming back from the depths...
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by jhart06 on Dec 7, 2011 3:27:53 GMT
Different countries have different terrain, and their people are of different stature. That, to me, would explain the decline. Rome died out, and as other cultures vied for supremacy, they fought in the weapon and armor that was best for them. Also, Rome didnt maintain a pure use of one type of armor/shield. The scutum went from square to round, etc.. They incorporate chainmail, and other designs from enemies and captured peoples.
Also, metal working techniques improved, and gave rise to other kinds of armor.. Just because somethings is 'less sophisticated' in one or the other ways, doesn't mean it's non-effective. All you have to do is look at the Zulu facing the British to realize sophistication and technology only carry you so far...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2011 4:06:08 GMT
I think that the Roman army's real strength at its height was its adaptability, logistical strength, and discipline. If they were to face the Crusaders then they would adapt their tactics accordingly. I'm convinced that a Roman legion would at least stand a chance, but they did have severe weaknesses against cavalry and shock troops. There's also a bit of a technology gap.
Roman weapons probably died out because at the time of their collapse there weren't any armies in the area with the logistical and economic ability to adopt the techniques of the Romans, which relied on cohesion of units over anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent Dolan on Dec 7, 2011 4:08:07 GMT
Jeremy pretty much hit the nail on the head. However, I'd like to add my input on what I believe to be a major factor: fighting style.
To my (pitifully inadequate) knowledge, the Vikings generally fought in a mob, whereas the Romans fought in an ordered formation. The Vikings were fast moving raiders who sailed to their battlefields; the Romans were slower moving infantry who marched to theirs. A generalization, I know, but bear with me.
A scutum (in this case meaning the large rectangular tower shield) is an excellent shield for fighting in formation with dozens of others, not so much in one-on-one combat. It was relatively lightweight, being only 5-6mm thick in earlier incarnations, but when they failed under heavy blows at Carthage, they were made thicker, reinforced, and, consequently, heavier. Again, great if you've got a guy to your left and right defending your openings, but not so much if you're on your own.
A round shield (in this case, the Viking shield) was light and maneuverable enough to be very useful in one-on-one combat with quite a bit of usage in formation, though with quite a bit less protection than the scutum. They could also be slung over the back when not needed, which would be very advantageous in a Viking longship where the large and relatively cumbersome scutum would not only be a hazard, but would also reduce the amount of plunder that could be stored in the ship; they also wouldn't be able to be deployed as quickly.
Then there's the sword tactics themselves: Romans were, as far as I know, taught several cuts and then a thrust; the thrust, in particular, was emphasized as dealing greater damage than the cut (particularly with the gladius). So you have this wall of shields coming at you with short, stabbing swords darting out, dealing death while revealing noting more than an arm.
The Vikings, who didn't fight in such a rigid formation and didn't have such protection from their shields, developed a much more sophisticated form of swordsmanship, often using their shield to manipulate and deflect blows away while creating openings for their own strike.
With armor, the Romans had several types: Lorica segmentata (plate armor), lorica hamata (chain mail), lorica squamata (scale mail), and then lorica plumata (chain & scale mail). The last was rarely used because of the cost, time, and skill required, so it was reserved for high ranking officers. That still leaves us with segmentata, hamata, and squamata, but I'm only going to focus on the first two. Segmentata was used from about 9BCE to late 200CE, while hamata was used from 200BCE to well after segmentata was discontinued. The Vikings used ring mail, but it was expensive, so many used boiled leather or padded clothing as armor; why they didn't use plate like the lorica segmentata could probably summed up with two reasons: a) cost; it would likely cost much more for something similar than it would a mail shirt and b) skill; simply put, they may not have had the know-how to produce plate armor.
|
|
|
Post by u02rjs4 on Dec 7, 2011 11:03:40 GMT
ok that makes sense. Especially that no-one at the time was able to adopt it. As regards to the zulu wars i take your point there were some military disasters from terrible leadership and one of the best armies in the world was knocked about by tribesman. However the British did win and Rorkes drift would be a classic example of technology and training winning the day. What made the romans vulnerable to cavalry and shock troops was it a lack of pikes/spears? or did they have limited cavalry? Anyone ever sparred alone with a square roman shield against a smaller shield or spearman etc. How bad is it?
|
|
|
Post by Ninjadave89 on Dec 7, 2011 12:20:09 GMT
I have and it didn't work very well :lol: . If the spearman is quick on his feet and keeps you at a distance there's not much you can do. The only times i managed to win was when I rushed in with the shield, past the spear and knocked my opponent slightly off balance. Then go in with the gladius, but 9 times out of 10 the spearman would win by going for the lower legs or face, as the roman shield can't protect both at once .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2011 15:34:50 GMT
Their relatively slow movement. Cavalry and shock troops could circle the Romans, fire arrows into the formations, and cause mayhem quicker than they could react. The only way to be entirely protected from missile fire in that situation was to assume a defensive square formation. The auxiliaries (non-citizen corps) made up most of the cavalry and archers. They weren't ineffective but most of the army's focus was on infantry and the legionaries. Later in the empire they learned how to better coordinate cavalry, archers, and infantry. Probably because there were an increasing number of axillary troops.
I read somewhere that Roman soldiers would pretty much do that, but angle the shield upward and crouch slightly for entire body protection. I'm not sure how effective that was though, charging someone that you can't see in a slightly crouched position sounds a bit awkward.
|
|
jhart06
Member
Slowly coming back from the depths...
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by jhart06 on Dec 7, 2011 16:53:08 GMT
The angled shield worked well against me with a friend using it. But he was VERY short (barely 5ft even) and when he crouched and did that, I had issues getting to him, and he could usually see my feet and stab
|
|
|
Post by Elheru Aran on Dec 7, 2011 19:50:49 GMT
To add a quick comment on the armour issue:
After the peak of the Western Roman Empire, obtaining enough steel to make large chunks of armour was quite problematic. As the technology for rolling mills didn't exist, and mines with high enough productivity to create a large supply of iron to make steel weren't really out there in this time, you had to make plates of steel like for the lorica segmenta by hammering out chunks of iron. Slow and expensive in man-hours. It was more economical to either a.) make swords out of the steel, or b.) turn it into wire for chain-mail, which was easier to make and maintain than the rather complicated and weighty lorica.
A big part of the decline of the legions, as has been pointed out, was their vulnerability to cavalry and fast, mobile troops. In a military you can have either well organized formations or speed-- not necessarily both, and it was both the heavy cavalryman and the light infantryman that brought down the Western Empire. The heavy cavalryman developed gradually into the mounted knight and reigned supreme until the infantryman used his sneaky little brain and came up with lovely things like halberds, pike squares, muskets, and the longbow...
|
|
|
Post by Svadilfari on Dec 7, 2011 20:16:15 GMT
Another possible reason for breakdown of the classic legions was general decay and collapse of parts of the roman logistical systems. Legions were pretty well standardised units, one much the same as another..you could swap from one to another, and know exactly what you were doing. But as the supply systems broke down, things changed, Shortages in one area led to local modifications to keep functional..in time, legions became less and less uniform and interchangeable. Also more and more legions were relying on local levies, with their own particular weapons and styles. Basicly..the roman empire just got too big and buerocratically ( sp??) hidebound to function as well as it had in republican /early empire days and the system collapsed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2011 21:48:14 GMT
My understanding of why the roman military system did not carry on being used by later societies was because of economic and social reasons.
The Romans centralised state which was able to raise taxes and maintain and arm a large standing army, having a standing army gave an advantage that a lot of time could be spent training that army to fight as a unit, the Romans could also afford to produce a stand armour. They could therefore develop a fighting stile that made the most of a highly trained infantry which was able to work in co-ordination.
Later societies particularly in northern Europe were initially tribal and later feudal in nature and lacked a centralised government. The did not maintain standing army they instead relied upon local elites to raise armies at times of need. (in fact England did not have a standing army until the English civil war in the 17th Centaury when Olivia Cromwell raised the New Model Army) The majority of those raised to fight in this way would be responsible for their own weapons, armour and training. Most armies with have a core of well trained and disciplined wealthy aristocrats who could afford to buy the best armour and spend time training to fight but the remained of the army would be made of ordinary people who had little in the way of arms and armour and probably even less training. With such an army it would have been impossible to use the tactics of the Romans which required discipline and coordination.
|
|