Late Roman Army - Inferior?
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 03. 2019
- Support more videos like this / foojer
Made with iOS IbisPaint. Text here remembermylord.com/2019/03/24...
A video essay addressing the old idea that the Late Roman army was inferior to the Principate (early imperial Roman) army, focusing not on gear and tactics but rather on the bigger picture. Particularly exploring the idea that one was malleable and the other brittle, producing very different results. - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Pff... context. Context means nothing when you got pants.
ABSOLUTELY BARBARIC!!!
@@4ndr3c3s4r1n0 TROUSER WEARERS!!! GET OUT OF MY LEGION!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!
*PANTS ARE DESPICABLE!*
you forgot the lorica hamata... that used to be from the pant wearing and hairy gauls
@@theorypractice5162 PANTS ARE BETTER IN WINTER AND MARCHING!!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
Take a shot everytime he says "brittle" or "malleable"
Suicide is never the answer.
why is it i see u under every video i see haha
Pay for my funeral first
You owe me a new liver.
Disclaimer: I don't assume responsibility for any physical harm your body suffers during this challenge
The point of difference in the two armies was never the army itself. It was the system which supported the army. The era in which the Dominate army operated in, was full of political upheaval and civil strife. They had to deal with almost regular and constant internal and external threats.
The two were robust fighting forces that operated in entirely different political environments.
Couldn’t agree more, it was the context the two armies operated in. Different worlds, different jobs, different priorities -> different ways of doing things
what do you talk about rome never in its history got away from civil wars and political conflicts
seriously a bunch of yes sayers commenting a yes say video without any sense
@Aethel Wulf By the time the Dominate army was made in the 3rd century, the empire was not only suffering political and civil strife but also cultural rot. This rot manifested mainly in the fall of the imperial birthrate which nearly crippled the ability to replenish lost troops.
@@Riphagen1902 Rome's history prior to the emergence of the Dominate under Diocletian did not really face the kind of civil wars and political upheaval that was occurring in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Many legions were defeated, Severus Alexander was focusing on the Sassanids, and ultimately lost the respect of his troops with the way he dealt with the Germanics, which got him killed. There were 26 claimants for the title of Emperor in 50 years, the army fought against itself continually while there were frequent raids on the empire by the Germanic peoples, the Sassanids were attacking from the east, plague killing lots of people throughout the Empire, Emperor Valerian getting captured and dying in captivity, Gaul, Hispania and Britain breaking off from the Empire, Syria, Palestine and Egypt becoming independent, cities in the west were completely ruined and their populations dead or widely dispersed, the economy was ruined by breakdown in trade, cities that had formerly not needed walls now needed to build thick fortifications, and even the coinage used throughout the empire had basically collapsed.
This all occurring prior to the Dominate is what required the Dominate to deal with entirely different things compared to the army of the Principate. That's why the military reforms were enacted.
@@MisterKisk Well said. Some people just can't make actual comparisons or analyze situations and just say "hurr durr, it was the same before, hurr durr". It happens in many other subjects...
Very solid analysis, but I have a minor quibble. It's not the *armies* that were brittle or malleable, it was the Roman *state.* The armies of both eras were capable of impressive victories or disastrous defeats, but it was how the state dealt with those defeats or followed up on the victories that really determined the outcomes of Rome's various wars. Why is it that the Roman Republic could withstand disaster after disaster during the Second Punic Ward but the (Western) Roman Empire was dealt a mortal blow after a single defeat at Adrianople? I doubt we'll find the answers by the looking at the armaments or tactics of the armies of those respective eras.
Just be careful. The Eastern Romans are defeated at Adrianople and it's only well after Adrianople that those Goths become a pain for the Western Romans.
Eastern Romans were defeated at Adrianople. The reason why the western Romans were eradicated was predominantly down to economic decline due to the shifting of power to Constantinople. The Romans definitely were a great fighting force in all eras but without sufficient finance and a solid economy to upkeep one, therein is the problem.
Also the movement of the Huns forced many Germanic tribes to move into Roman territory, a phenomenon that was only encountered by the late Roman military.
Emperor Valens blew it. He was terrible in his planning and showed that he had little battlefield experience. Marching his troops for days on fast march. Had little sleep or rest the night prior to battle and had marched his men who were in the heat of Day for the whole morning without pausing at noon to drink or eat. The men were very hungry at the start of the battle and his audacity and lack of respect of the Gothic defenses resulted in his own demise.
Battlefield discipline in the late Roman army was Tip TOP as the men that were fighting with Valens never broke rank and fought to the bitter end
The channel "Eastern Roman History" answers this very question.
It's basically the opposite of true, or a misconception. The late Roman army handled it better.
Ummm...it was the Eastern Empire that was defeated at Adrianople not the western one. And hell, it’s not like it was a single battle that lead to the fall of the Western Empire. After all it still won many important battles after adrianople. Stilicho, Constantius III, Aetius, and Majorian were all successful commanders who each whooped barbarian ass during their years as Emperor or Magister Militum. It was the instability of the Roman state that screwed them.
Personally I do not believe that the Principate army was any better or more malleable than the Dominate, but that the enemies Rome fought had substantially better organization by the end of the Empire than at the beginning. The German tribes of 400 AD were not the German tribes of 100 AD and appropriate care had to be taken when confronting them. The Sassanian Persians were also not the Parthians. After the Sassanians took over, they massively reorganized the Empire and urbanized it, while the Parthians had used a semi tribal structure that was much less efficient. This mean that in the year 400, both Persia and Germany were hitting much harder than they were in 100, and the Roman Army had to recognize that and respond accordingly.
Makes me think of US Russia China nowadays
But it didn't. Anyhow how "disorganized" was Hannibal? Shouldn't we rather compare the Republican Army and the Late Imperial one? The one that conquered and jumped back from outright slaughter with the one that sat behind walls waiting for problems to be solved on their own? The late Empire was total crap!
Another issue is population. The population during the dominate suffered from massive plagues that devastated the cities and the lower temperatures changed how much food could be grown at different latitudes.
@@HavanaSyndrome69 false , Rome never had manpower issues . Military reforms killed the empire . Just remember ceaser : he won a never endind civile war + barbarians .
Principate army fought in classical era. Dominate army fought in medieval era.
Awesome video, i totally loved it..... but it's clear that the Late Romans are better because they simply wear pants.
Agree, it’s just common sense to wear pants....
2nd Century and 3rd century Romans also wear pants.
Nodosa They sure wore the pants in Europe and Asia. Justinian showed us that...
Ah, but what happens when your pants fall down? It's clear that the Principate army can fight on without pants, hence their malleability, whereas the Domitian army must stagger and be struck down if their pants should fall - hence their brittleness on the field of battle and their need to avoid commitment. Also, hence their need to restrict recruitment to men with slender waists and and nice round glutes. They simply can't take those thick waisted, flat derriered guys anymore.
@@ReviveHF no it started in the 3rd century not the 2nd
Don't forget that when the empire split between east and west the manpower pools for both parts of the empire dramatically shrunk due to not being able to access manpower in each's area of control.
The splitting into East & West massively favoured the East. They got the richest provinces with the shortest borders to defend.
The Western capital should have been move West of the Rhone, to encourage the East to take more responsibility for defending the bit in between.
All the resources of East & West were needed to defend the West.
Not sure where this comes from. East and west never saw themself as two different individual empires. There is certainly no evidence for that. The romans saw these two as the same empire with two different administrational control. Both sides were often prepared and willing to help each other politically and militarily
@@fr0ntend Depended on who was in power & what was at stake at the time. There were plenty of civil wars that basically pitted East against West. Even in peacetime they both collaborated and competed for spheres of influence & economic gain. Stilicho in particular was able to play Eastern & Western Empires off against each other for his own benefit.
Lucas Crane stop saying this ludicrous bullshit. The Roman Republic never split. No Roman citizen of the time was under the assumption that an entirely new state was being carved out in the Eastern provinces. What happened was a co-dictator or proconsul was put in place to help with the bureaucracy as a single ruler wasn’t enough to govern such a vast empire
And people also fail to notice that the Roman republic managed to raise armies after armies during 2nd Punic war even though they had only Italy, southern Gaul and parts of Iberia. They don't had rest of Gaul, rest of Hispania, Britannia, North Africa and they definitely don't had any of the Eastern lands. The blame ultimately goes to what could be described as proto serfdom.
I might suggest that it wasn't the army that had become more brittle, but the Roman economy, which was weaker and could not easily raise fresh armies as quickly as it had in previous centuries. I would love to see a video on how the Roman economy changed over the centuries.
It's only natural for empires to grow reach their peaks and then fall.
Stefan Molyneux has an excellent presentation about it.
@@ThexXxXxOLOxXxXx I was under the impression that it was the Hun invasion which pushed the German tribes into Roman territory in full force.
@@MeidoInHebun Wars with Persia, corruption, infighting, and later the Huns are the reasons the Germans destroyed the western half of the empire. The Western Roman Province/"Empire" was already a skeleton when the Germans arrived. The Persians/Parthians along drained Roman money and manpower. Add Civil Wars on top and any savage could have conquered Rome. Otherwise, the Germans would have been destroyed and Latin and Mediterranean colonies would be in Germany and Central Europe to this day instead of the other way around. Heck, all of Europe could have been united, with maybe the middle east too
Then you should definatly check out Stefan Molyneux´s presentation on the subject, it is several hours long with a lot of information. You can watch it from day to day if you don't want to watch it in one sitting. It is brilliant as it pulls in political, economic and military reasons as to why the Roman Empire fell.
Early army was made to conquer, late army was made to defend
Yea but they failed to defend the sacking of rome from the Gauls
@@bogor1521 Which did not happen just because of tactics, which were not inferior, but because the roman economy that was supposed to pay for their training and recruitment was wrecked after centuries of civil war and social inequality.
@@MrAlepedroza i totally agree bud
@@bogor1521 all of rome's enemies attacked at once
Yeah, the early Republican army was made to conquer. The early imperial army, built by Augustus, was designed to defend, which is what they did. They sat in their forts until they had to put down a revolt. There were a few exceptions, such as Claudius, Agricola, and Trajan.
Meanwhile the late army was always working and fierce. They had annual training exercises called "civil wars," and routine engagements against the savages both in and beyond Roman territory.
You describe the symptoms well, but touch only briefly on the core difference. The early Imperial army presided over a period of robust demographics, whereas it's quite clear that the late army could not. In fact, one could even argue that the late army suffered for exactly the same reason that the early army was so successful. Turns out burning through your manpower endlessly _does_ have a limit and that would be the crisis of the 3rd Century and the beginning of serfdom.
Yeah that’s a good point. Plentiful manpower helped Rome weather a lot of storms in the republican and principate days, but it just wasn’t an option in the dominate days
@@foojer To put it another way, they were losing enough men to these wars that it was coming to a point of Pyrrhic victories on a generational scale. So many men were dying that the population growth ended up being negative due to not enough men to propagate enough to replace losses. So the willingness of the Principate Army to take the hit on the chin led to later era Generals thinking that this is the correct mentality to have, even though the facts on the ground showed that this M.O. was simply unsustainable. When you look at the Dominate Army you see that they are realizing the long term strategic reality and trying to adapt (too late in my opinion). The primary problem was that the elite tried to control more and more and decided to take that from other Roman elite when the Empire stopped expanding (and even before that if truth be known) thus the civil wars. The concept of "expand or die" came from this greediness of the elites of the Empire and the knowledge that they thirsted for more and more power. Unfortunately, the only solution I could come up with in my mind for this strategic issue was essentially what would be a decimation upon these families put to them by the emperor any time they engaged in this internal conflict. That would either pacify them, or just lead to more dead emperors.
TL;DR It wasn't the Army's fault that the Ruling Class couldn't be bothered to learn how to play nice and share.
@@Jeremiah90526 The plagues didnt help either. Better treatment of poor farmers - historically the backbone of the Roman army - would have helped a lot too. People dont feel like having big families when they are grindingly poor and trapped in servitude.
@@Jeremiah90526 Sounds like today's infinite-growth economy.
@@Jeremiah90526 it's worse when you see emperors who saw this coming. Hadrian and Antoninus were both anti-expansionist, knowing they could not continue to sustain crippling losses for (let's be honest) sparsely populated and worthless lands in the Middle East and Central Europe.
I just watched the first 40 second and I already agree with you. It wasn´t the army´s fault that the empire collapsed, it was the empire collapsing due to repeated infighting which made sustaining such an enourmous army impossible
It was both. Each failing fed the other.
Defeats in the field meant lost land and recruiting grounds. That put more strain and tax burden on the rest of the empire, fuelling unrest and rebellion.
I agree, with you and Lucas. But another key issue was over-expansion. The empire was huge and needed a huge army to defend it, which it couldn't afford due to civil unrest. So you could either re-enforce the front and be open to a coup (bad), or have vulnerable areas. Which in turn were lost, which meant less tax and more instability as the Emperor was seen as weak. Meaning more troops are needed at home to protect against coups, which means even more vulnerable areas.
Without the massive revenue from the east, the west was completely unsustainable. The east, with its riches, could ride out the storm and rule for another 1000 years.
@@Hemdael Hadrian recognised the empire couldnt expand forever, and chose defensible borders pretty well. However, once the significant qualitative edge of Roman forces had eroded, the Empire was doomed to try to match numbers with increasingly large and well organised tribal confederations in the 4th & 5th centuries.
Late> Early, hands down. No system matters if pants are missing. But yes, the two armies were set in very different situations and I’d probably compare them in terms of effectiveness since it’s so hard to create parallels.
Pants clearly wasnt needed if they conquered the known world
IMO principate army was a better expansionist force, Dominate army was better for consolidating. The only problem with the Dominate army is that it came too late. Ideally, it would have been introduced in the Nerva-Antonine dynasty around the time of Hadrian.
as an eastern roman ( greek) i have to make a correction constantinople didnt fall to the arabs they beat the arabs with greek fire eastern roman empire fell to the ottomans
The dominate army fell to the Muslim Arabs, sort of. That’s what I was referring to in the video. It was so shaken up by the 7th century upheavals that it evolved into something else
I think he was referring to the Muslim conquests of Africa and Middle East?
The Republican and early Imperial armies had healthy economies to support and arm them, plentiful manpower and the soldiers were actual Roman citizens instead of mercenary barbarians and newly-assimilated ones that were sometimes completely foreign units under foreign command that merely fought under the Roman banner.
The Roman's faced a different type of threat which was mainly cavalry heavy armies, hence they adapted. I would argue that the late Roman army was better equipped to deal with such threats.
Dominate survived! In the form of the Eastern Roman Empire.
It still sucked.
@@LuisAldamiz Still, it does mean that the Roman Empire lasted 1000 years more than people think.
@@damuni1 - It wasn't "Roman". Roman refers to the city of Rome. In the 3rd century the Roman Empire was de-romanized and also pre-feudalized, what means it was not anymore Rome. This is something I always contend: the Empire was built around Rome and Italy, to serve its needs of security and colonialism/imperialism. Moving the capital outside Italy was akin to Great Britain moving its capital to India, splitting the Empire in two, akin to giving India its independence, with all the British colonial posessions in Asia, East Africa and Oceania. I make this comparison so you realize the importance of such actions. We sure can agree that India is not Britain, right? And that Britain without colonies cannot be a great power anymore, right? Well, same thing for Rome, mutatis mutandi.
@@LuisAldamiz By the fifth century AD, "Roman" had ceased to be an exclusive term applicable only to the city and its inhabitants; it was a term that was used by people all over the empire to refer to themselves. The Romans of the west, while both empires coexisted, recognized the Eastern Romans as exactly that: Romans and vice versa. Likewise, the Emperor of the West recognized the Eastern Emperor as an emperor of the Romans as did the Eastern Emperor recognize the Western Emperor.
The "Byzantines" themselves never called themselves by that name; they were the Ῥωμαῖοι (Rhomaioi) id est, the Romans. They would, in fact, call themselves that all the way up to the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans, and some say even long after.
To summarize, my argument is this: the Roman Empire splits into the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire, the Western Empire falls and the Eastern Empire doesn't, then the Eastern Roman Empire continued on as exactly that: the *Eastern* Roman Empire. I'd also like to point out that by the 5th century AD, the Western Roman Empire didn't even have its *own* capital in Rome; it was in Ravenna.
Just out of curiosity, if you think it necessary for the Roman Empire to hold Rome in order to call itself that, wouldn't the Eastern Roman Empire aka the Byzantine Empire still be the Roman Empire at the very least during the reign of Justinian?
@@damuni1 - Yes and not. Since the Caracalla Edict, Roman meant any free person in the Empire. But the Caracalla Edict is precisely the first step into de-Italianization, followed by the Diocletian reform and the rather disastrous fourth century, which demonstrates IMO that Diocletian failed radically: that he severely damaged the Empire rather than consolidated it. It doesn't matter so much how the concept evolved since Diocletian (late 3rd century) because that's already the era of Rome's collapse, even if they were still not fully aware of what was going on. The Fifth Century, since around 410, the Empire was already dead in all but in name: it had not just lost control of the wealthy East but was also unable to control much of anything outside Italy.
Imperial Rome was built around Rome for the needs of Rome, and by extension Italy, the nation that Rome forged primarily, which had non-province (not colony) status. Even after the Empire (principate) was created, all emperors were one way or another rooted in Italy and enjoyed Roman citizenship as privilege not as something common with their colonial subjects. The whole expansion of Rome (imperial in nature but republican in form) was about defending and expanding the power of the city-state of Rome and of its national extension: Italy. What happened since Diocletian was the negation of that intrinsical nature of the Empire as something for Rome and Italy, and the result was that Rome and Italy (Western Empire as political entity) were deprived of maybe as much as 3/4 of their income, because that income was generated in the much wealthier East, directly and indirectly via trade with Asia.
The partition of Rome was a process of partial decolonization that surely favored some people, including the emperors who established their seat in the area of Greece-Asia Minor, but destroyed Rome as such. The Eastern Empire destroyed the Western Empire, the Greek Empire's independence destroyed Rome.
If in 1945, India would have achieved its independence under a branch of the British royalty, with all the British colonies from Capetown to Hong-Kong and New Zealand... how "British" would be the resulting empire, even if it called itsefl "Eastern British Empire" or whatever'? And how would be the chances of the "Western British Empire" have at remaining a major global power with only Nigeria and Canada as significantly sized colonies? Seriously! That's almost exactly what happened to Rome since the disastrous reforms of Diocletian.
Even prior to definitive partition, how legitimately "British" would be a "British Empire" with capital in Mumbay? Seriously... none.
Nomenclature is irrelevant, what matters is that after some point in the 3rd or 4th century, Italy stopped being the center of the Empire and would never ever be again such thing, not even with Mussolini! Neither the Eastern Roman Empire (Greek or neo-Hellenistic) nor the Holy Roman Empire (German) were Rome, as it was not Rome the various Turkish Empires that also carried the name, from the Rum Seljuks to the Ottomans themselves (who claimed to be the legitimate Roman Emperors, reasoning for casus belli and jihad against Germany).
You ask about whether I "think it necessary for the Roman Empire to hold Rome in order to call itself"... Let me clarify, you can call whatever what you want, but the genuine Roman Empire did not just hold Rome (as if for holding Macedon they could have called themselves the Alexadrine Empire, or by holding Egypt they could call themselves "pharaoh") it was actually centered, built, centralized, monetized in Rome, from Rome and for Rome. Or if you wish to be slightly more flexible, in Italy, from Italy and for Italy. If they would have moved the capital to Naples, probably the change would not have been too meaningful, or even to Syracuse or Ravenna maybe. But the cetrality of Italy was crucial for the whole concept, Byzantium could not care less about Gaul: it was a conquest made with the interest of Italy and not of Greece in mind. Never mind Britain, of course. Byzantium (and earlier Nicaea) was chosen not with Gaul and the Rhine border in mind, but with Persia and the Syro-Armenian border in mind, as well as the trade routes to India and "Serdica" (China). Naturally once your focus is on the East, and not anymore in Italy, the West can be let to collapse: it was never even remotely a fraction as profitable, it was captured because Italy needed it for security and hegemony, not for "Greek reasons".
It's not a matter of nomenclature, it's a matter of geoeconomics and geopolitics, of why was the Roman Empire conquered to begin with? Because of Rome's and Italy's needs, not because of some sleepy Greek outpost by the Black Sea.
Glad to find this on my Recommendations. You earned a sub. 💯
Please make more video essays like this, they are great!
I love these videos. Thanks for taking the time to create and share this with us.
Thanks mate
Some of the Roman soldiers you drew looked like metal slug soldiers
Speaking of context, when talking about the brittleness of the late antique Roman army (I personally dislike terms as Dominate and Principate, they are considered outdated) one could really do with speaking of the general condition of the Respublica. By the end of the fourth century the population (or the young male part of it) had dwindled so low that in the century to come they had to recruit barbarians. The late antique Roman army wasn't brittle as much as late Roman society was. In the case of the Western half of the Respublica this proved fatal.
I dont know why I clicked on this video but i'm glad I did :) a real breath of fresh air good job!
Cool vid man, looking forward to more content
Just to clarify: I'm not claiming that the Eastern Empire fell to the Muslim Arabs near the end of the video. I'm saying the dominate army / military system fell to the Muslim Arabs - it was so shaken up by the 7th century upheavals that it evolved into the thematic Byzantine armies
The video is clear, and great, i am glad youtube recomended it to me
I love your video! I have been following a lot of your art (since not to many people focus on the byzantines) and I am very pleased with what I have seen so far. As much as I wish you elaborated on the usage of cavalry that the late roman army had, I liked the overall theme of context that you decided to go with this video. Please make more videos on the subject of Roman history as a whole.
it doesn't matter how op your troops, if they are not paid and fed.
just like the Tiger II or Jagdtiger are useless, if there are no: fuel, repair kits, ammo production.
The worst enemy of Romans was corruption (and ecological disasters in 4th-5th centuries), yet considering that double F (Justinian and Belisarius) were able to reclaim about 50%-60% of WRE + the number of battles and war won by Byzantine Empire's commanders, it is clear that strategy and tactics + military doctrines of late roman army are not inferior to ancient Rome legions (actually superior, when it comes to range units, arty and cavalry and about equal when it comes to elite heavy infantry, yet the infantry core of late Roman army is much weaker than ancient's).
And despite Cape Bon, ancient roman fleet was no match for WRE/ERE fleets (improved greek fire throwers + upgraded arty would have clearly outclassed ramming/abordage doctrine)
It doesn’t help when there’s a civil war/military coup every couple of years when the current emperor bites the dust. If only the Constantinian dynasty had been more stable and if adrianople hadn’t happened then perhaps the empire could’ve been able to catch a breather and recover.
CZcams out of nowhere decided to provide me an interesting video on history trying to answer a good question I never asked which was answered by a small yet interesting channel. I love this site
I learned that the core of the Dominate army was cavalry because the Romans of the late roman armies needed to counter their enemies heavy emphasis on light cavalry, like that of the Huns.
Partly, but mostly because cavalry was more mobile, which suited a patrol, anti insurgency army not required to do hard fighting against peer opponents.
Gibbons and other Victorian writers believed that Heavy Cavalry was the dominant weapon system of the late empire period, and that non Roman Heavy cavalry was superior to any form of Roman Infantry and crushed them on the battlefield.
That's not true, and has been widely debunked.
1) The Romans had excellent armoured cataphract heavy cavalry - but they still lost battles.
2) There are many cases of Roman Infantry beating enemy heavy & light cavalry.
At Strasbourg, Julian thought he had the winning ace up his sleeve with a detatchment of elite Roman cataphracts. They turned out to be pretty useless because his enemy knew they were coming and prepared accordingly. Julian still won the battle - just - because his infantry positioning was good and crucially a couple of elite Roman heavy infantry units were able to counter the German breakthrough.
Was the gateway to medieval knights
Cav is the killing force
@@davidquezada50 Cavalry is utterly devastating in open ground against poorly equipped, poorly trained or unprepared infantry.
However, cataphracts & other heavy cav were routinely rebuffed by well prepared heavy infantry. Caltrops, spikes in the ground, hidden ditches, can all play havoc with a charge and a shield wall with long spears sticking out held by quality infantry men isnt going to crack easily.
@@Lucasukx *cav was the killing force for some of the eras battles
Cavalry didn't really come to dominate until the late 5th, and 6th century, with Roman Bowmen, fully armored, able to deflect missiles, armed with sword, spear, and bow, and able to fire whether advancing or retreating.
Just found (and subscribed) to your channel! I like to break the Dominate into a few different time periods, because at certain times, the Dominate just WORKED and at others (especially later on) it was terrible. The military and economic reforms done by Diocletian and Constantine for example went quite well for a time. The centralized state-owned factories known as Fabricae spring to mind. It's also important to remember that Rome's population was in trouble in the 4th-5th centuries, particularly in the Western provinces. We don't know how many people the Antonine Plague killed, but it's reasonable to assume that this is partially to blame for the fact that Rome was 1. having trouble ruling the whole empire at once, 2. plugging gaps on its borders, and 3. filling its fields. There was also probably climactic change, which was also one of the driving factors for the Barbarian Migration.
sick video man! please keep it up :)
An underappreciated difference between these armies is *how they were recruited*, which I'd argue explains most of why Rome was so "durable" early on compared to by the end.
The pre-Marian Republic used citizen soldiers who provided their own equipment (or had it donated by other citizens). One benefit of this was that an ambitious general would have a hard time just seizing power, because his soldiers would have good reason to prioritize the Roman establishment. The corresponding reduction in internal conflict left more Romans alive to fight external enemies. The fact that regular Romans were prepared even in peacetime to join up meant that they had a huge pool of manpower to draw upon in times of trouble, while by the late empire most Romans would have needed serious training to get up to the standards of a typical legionary. The drawback, though, was that outside of those dire situations you'll have a hard time maintaining long campaigns or garrisons with citizen soldiers.
After the Marian Reforms and into the Principate, the typical legionary changed from a Roman citizen to either a landless Prole or a non-Roman enticed by citizenship and land. On the one hand, this opened up a huge pool of manpower to garrison far flung outposts, but on the other it slowly frayed the connection between the Roman army and the state, leading to several civil wars. However, Roman citizenship was still highly valued, so leading a civil war basically required that you be ludicrously popular.
By the Dominate that connection was basically gone and legionaries had few loyalties beyond those to their generals. Whereas the Republic's legions came voluntarily and the Principate's legions could be bought with citizenship and prestige, the Dominate's could only be bought with hard cash and land. On the one hand, this meant that any old bum with an army could take control without much fuss, leading to constant civil wars, but on the other it meant that the perpetually cash strapped Empire struggled to replace losses without resorting to just letting the barbarians in. Arguably they were the *better army* in that they made the most of what they had and probably avoided defeats that the Principate or *especially* the Republic would have blundered right into, but the cost of how that army was supported (and the society around it) was such that it was irreplaceable in a way that any Republican legion wasn't.
In short: Rome's early armies allowed their enemies to shape them into the perfect tool to defeat their enemy, whereas later on, they weren't able to shift to fight a new enemy.
broseph, good art work! ill be sub.
The (eastern) Roman Empire was a major power for almost 1000 years after the fall of Rome, so I think it's unfair to say the late army was so much worse. Justinian's reconquest was an impressive feat, considering they reclaimed much land from former barbarians who had set up formidable kingdoms in the ruins of the Western Roman Empire. I think it's more a matter of the other states gradually becoming stronger than the Romans becoming weaker. The Romans were also often seen as saviors in the early days and achieved much success because of collaborators. The Diadochi states hated each other more than the Romans and happily watched as the Romans delivered knock-out punches to Macedon and the Seleucid Empire.
I totally agree but the army of late empire was not the army that the eastern empire used for the thousand years post fall of the west. That army disappeared during the days of heraclius and his successors. Still, it’s the army that kept the east safe. It defeated numerous foes, retook lands, and often fought on multiple fronts at the same time.
The middle to late republic army was Captain America. Gets beat to shit, promptly stands back up and says "I can do this all day"
An interesting point you 've just earned a new subscriber good sir.
Really like your style of drawing
Superb. Thanks for this.
The late army had pretty much the same doctrine as the empire from star wars (a weird connection I know). When you have as much territory as you can possibly administer efficiently, your standing armies turn into a police force. Mobile and lightly armoured with weapons more suited to shock tactics for quelling a riot than fighting large armies (and by that point, most of Rome's opposition were long gone). There was also the problem of money, so professional legions were whittled down into once again militia and levied peasants and separated into regional forces instead of a state army. This meant that you wouldn't see a Spaniard fighting in Gaul, whereas before, the manpower pool was one entity. But since there was no land left to give a soldier for his pension and citizenship was universal instead of earned through military service, he was already a citizen and was easier to just let him be stationed closer to home with his family.
It's like comparing a soldier to a police officer, but in general, yes. The army was inferior, the government was corrupt, the military leaders were too soft as they had not experienced war for at least a couple centuries apart from minor skirmishes on the borders, and they were completely unprepared and unequipped for dealing with the Germanic migrators and the huns. A Roman from its height would have rather died than see a united empire crumble, but after 200-300 AD, it was a shadow of what it used to be. Roman identity no longer existed, and patriotism was all fizzled out. The emperor's were a joke, and the senators were fighting over the scraps of past glory. The byzantines or eastern Romans were really the only ones prepared for what was coming, and I believe the west just assumed the huns would have to go through there first, assuming they were safe with their other half doing all the work. But nope, the huns completely dodged turkey and went through Germania and the Balkans instead.
Brilliant summary.
Yes, the LRE military was great at putting down angry peasant mobs complaining about conditions, or intimidating the odd noble behind on his taxes, but absolutely rubbish at fighting & winning set piece pitched battles.
Localised troops was a major issue. Julian got to be Emperor by promising his Gallic troops they would never be used in the East. Unfortunately when he died fighting the Parthians, he probably wished he could have brought some of those handy Gallic chaps with him!
Splitting the Empire was fine in peacetime but disastrous in war. The East had short borders, inferior opponents and rich provinces. The West had powerful opponents, long borders and generally run down poor provinces. All the Roman resources everywhere were needed in the West to stem the tide.
The Eastern Empire did send help to the West, but it was always too little, too late. The great expedition of 450 ish was a massive attempt by the East to do what they should have done decades before: attack the major enemies of the West with the best troops and all the resources they had. The West ended up too feeble to defend itself, and the East allowed barbarian nations to take good territory too easily. Imagine the Eastern Empire defending the Pyrenees - the Vandals might never have got into Spain! But the East & West coordinated poorly, and regions inside the West did their own thing too.
@@Lucasukx The west had nothing close to the Existential threat that the East had in the Sassanian empire.
@@TheSunderingSea yeah when he said that I stop reading his comment.
Huh totally forgot the Empire of 3rd Centuries had Political and Civil war problems.
Yeah man. Which puts a new perspective on the final collapse in AD476. I’ve heard one interpretation that we shouldn’t be asking why the Empire collapsed in 476, we should be asking why it didn’t reconstitute itself after collapse as it had done during the Third Century Crisis
@@foojer I see.
Not only that, the late imperial demographics were FAR weaker than the early and mid empire.
The birthrates collapsed after the 3rd century crisis. This nearly crippled the empire’s ability to replenish troops among other things such as colonize new lands or grow their economy.
Often forgotten, even though Rome almost completely collapsed during that the Crisis of the Third Century.
Great video!!
Thank you!
E X C E L E N T . Top5 from your videos!! Virtually flawless!
Great video! Do another one like this sometime!
Early Rome suffered alot of defeats back in the day. Its the economic and demographic resilience of the Roman state and its ability to throw one army after another at its enemies, that won the day.
This resilience waned as centuries went by, as the Roman economy got weaker and weaker.
Awesome video foojer! Your videos are geting better and better. Also nice Chi Rho.
Can I have question why do you think Romans stop using lorica segmentata and started to use chainmail armor instead?
Keep going.
Thanks mate! Why did they stop using lorica segmentata........ segmentata is quite fiddly and complicated so I imagine it's quite hard to make and maintain. So as the 3rd century went on it's possible that with all the many, many civil wars, chainmail proved easier to replace and produce. Segmentata was gradually abandoned.
Though at the same time it's important not to see the situation as the replacement of segmentata by chainmail, since chainmail had been used by Roman troops since the Republican days. It's more like they briefly flirted with segmentata, found it not worth the trouble (overall), and abandoned it by the end of the 3rd century
Thing about later Roman army is that theyALWAYS WAS IN WAR , just see the amount of them and you’ll understand that when principate army was scary , late Roman was living in quite litteral apocalypse happening around of them with instand state of war with nearly whole world
Very good analysis Is the first in my 64 yrs that somebody like you teach me not like school. a more deep analysis
Thanks
The dominate army lasted far longer than a century after the fall of the West, it just gradually shifted into the later armies of the East which still protected the remnants of the empire for a thousand years after the fall of the Western half.
Byzantium, or as they called themselves, and as many other peoples called them, the Romans, were a direct continuation of the Roman Empire. Just because they were predominantly Greek speaking doesn't mean that they weren't still Rome. We're talking about the State and Armies here, not culture.
@Scarface Kritikos please for a second read what I actually wrote. Everyone knows that the eastern half of the empire was predominantly Greek, and not Latin. But that doesn't change the state from being the Eastern Roman Empire, whether they spoke Latin or Greek. The Eastern Roman Empire was the Eastern half of the Roman Empire until the West collapsed in 471, and remained the Roman Empire until its fall in 1453. It was the Roman Empire! Just because they change their official language from Latin to Greek has nothing to do with them being the Roman state. Later Rome was not an ethnic state, but a multicultural one.
@Scarface Kritikos have you ever read the Alexiad? Or for that matter any other work written by any of the people actually residing in the Empire? Never once did they ever call themselves Greeks, because they didn't view themselves as a Greek state, but a multinational Roman one. As for your rambling about Roman Catholicism, the Roman Empire was never Catholic, even before the collapse. Probably because Catholicism wasn't a f****** thing until almost 6 centuries until after the collapse. And as for your point about America, New Zealand, and Australia not calling themselves English, that's not necessarily true. A lot of us call ourselves English by ethnicity, and we all speak English, but we identify with our nationality not our ethnicity. Just like the Greek speaking Romans calling themselves Romans instead of Greeks
@Scarface Kritikos you seriously don't understand the difference between ethnicity and nationality do you? They aren't necessarily synonymous. I'm an American, I'm ethnically Anglo-Saxon. Do I live in an English entho-state? No I live in a multicultural one, learn that difference. You could call America an Empire of The English, but it doesn't change that we are Americans. Just like The Empire of the Greeks was still Rome, the citizens withen were simultaneously Grecian and Roman.
@Scarface Kritikos Unlike what you may think I've spent a lot of time on Greek medieval history, more than you seem to. And it might surprise you but most Americans aren't of British descent. It's ok to be wrong mate.
So...basically Hagler vs. Hearns?
Your analysis is great. I like the part when the emperor plays cards with both external barbarians and cunning nobles. It takes a guy like belisarius to manage this better.
Late roman army was a very effective fighting force
It was so effective that it hurt itself in confusion.
@bigstrudel lets not forget they did this in an era before instant communication.
Look at battle of Strasburg, under the command of Caesar Julian. It is surely quite effective.
When deployed right it was a nasty force to fight, i mean people seem to forget that this Late Era army still managed to defend and maintain the Empire for over a century before even beginning to fall, sot it must have been doing something right for all those years. It has defeated many mighty foes in it's time people only seem to look at the big defeats of it but seem to forget that for every major defeat the Romans must have pulled out many victories before then to have kept there Empire still around by the time of that defeat, then carried on even afterwards.
People forget that after the crippling battle of Adrianople the Eastern Army did get back on it's feet eventually and was able to repulse later invasions from other tribes and Sassanids and then in the 500s cross the Mediterranean to Africa, then Italy and Liberate Rome for a while. So for a beaten down Military it still had a few hurrah's left in the old tank.
The Western Army was never given this breathing room, the manpower, finances or skilled leadership that lived long enough to be able to pull itself together and recover. The western Empire was just to big border wise, less wealthy and more corrupted.
Really nice video
Well what do you know? CZcams recommended me a really cool video (and channel) for a change! :)
Don't forget about the fualty Economic changes and lack of incentive the men in the late Roman Empire had compared to the early Roman Empire
That's the first rule of history, never take anything out of its geohistorical context.
Lack of manpower, less funding and ultimately the everlasting internal stife weakened the imperial army. At its hight the army consisted of about 20-something legions and same amount of auxilia totaling 450k strong stationed along borders. In the last century before the fall they had barely 200k men which made a thin and weak line of defence constantly harassed, invaded and eventually overrun. The late army was not inferior per se, it just lacked the numbers needed to defend such an immense empire.
This video makes sense n answered to all the problems regarding the late roman army
Great Video
I find that it often ignores the fact that opponents became better … so it’s not an Apple to Apple comparison. The real question is, would the late army beat the same opponents as the early army and do better.
Also, battles that take place in the later Empire was also significantly bigger for the most part. Late Roman Army is geared towards fighting Romans, rapidly recruited due to the frequently civil wars.
Roman *PUNCH*
Incredibilis
Great vid
Nicely explained.
Good stuff but I don't think you emphasized the *plague* aspect enough. Besides the losses due to near-perpetual civil war in the crisis-of-the-3rd-century you had a population that could not grow as fast as it used to since smallpox kept killing people. Smallpox wasn't around when Hannibal was killing 60,000 roman soldiers in one day.
It’s like you just learned the words malleable and brittle tried your hardest to use them in every sentence.
They’re fun to say, maybe not so fun to hear
Excellent points! Especially the political ones! Just to add that the need of centralized but mobile armies led to an increase usage of cavalry which in turn led to a decrease of infantry quality.
Thanks man! Yeah I’ve heard that idea too. Not sure I agree 100%, but I see the logic. Much more investment certainly went into the cavalry in the late Roman period
Protect Dominate-chan
The problem with the late Roman army wasn't their military capability so much as the fact that they kept revolting along with their generals. The same was true with the barbarians that the Romans recruited into the late Roman army.
That's just what happens when your political system is a military dictatorship (emperor-ship).
A general killing say Honorius or Valentinan III. could have saved the empire.
Revolting armies tend to happen when you rely on mercenaries & foreigners; they have no real interest in continuing your State - just in getting paid and having nice land and loot.
1:35 thank you so much for the For Honor reference
very good analogy
I feel the point that the Late Roman Army was not worse because they served a dual rule of both protecting and as a political instrument is wrong. As even in the Early Roman Empire they served as both as well. For example Claudius' only claim to Emperorship was that he had the backing of the army.
Fair point. I did add the caveat ‘by and large’ but I get what you mean. In the end my point isn’t so much which one is better or worse, since I basically sidestepped the question at the end, but it’s a matter of different armies for different times
For one thing, the Sassanid Empire was much stronger than any enemy the Romans had ever seen. The reason might just be that the Dominate had a stronger rival than before.
Yes and no, i'd say that interpretation holds true for the Germanic tribes, the Sassanids never posed an existential threat the way the Germanics did to the western empire... well not until Khosrau II's invasion anyway. Ok so maybe i mostly agree with you
3:41
Αν ετι μιαν μαχην Ρωμαιους νικησαμεν απολουμεθα παντελως
-Pyrhus of Epirus (Greek Language)
‘If we win one more time we’re screwed!’
The Early one was superior for a few reasons. The latter one wasn't loyal to the Empire, but to its leadership. The latter one was made up of largely mercenary and non-Roman soldiers. The Earlier one was technologically superior to other Armies of its day, by the time of the late Empire, the other surviving civilizations had to have at least studied Roman Arms and tactics, making them less effective. And lastly the Early Roman Empire had less in the way of supply lines. Italy used to feed itself, but by the time of the fall, it relied on food from throughout the empire. This one thing made the "Fall" seem so sudden, as the Western Empire suddenly had to feed Rome, but without Egyptian grain. Making it much harder to stock up the supplies to survive a siege akin to how Rome survived Hannibal.
great vid thanks
Nice work! Although the last phrase should have been "for more than 1000 years after the fall of Rome", not 100.
Thanks! Not sure i agree though, the Dominate military system didn't really survive past the mid 7th century. By the end of the 7th century the recognisably 'feudal' style (thematic) Byzantine army was now in play
Overall though the principate army was better, not because the dominate army failed to kept rome alive but because the principate army generally lived in a better time. The principate army was so strong because by the time of the dominate the germans and all the other outsiders of rome have adapted roman tactics and gear, and also the defensive policy the dominate took caused the idea of legionaries building to go away. Not to mention the reason why the dominate army was so brittle is because Christianity caused romans to actually view human life higher than some reincarnation after death.
very interesting. But you apply the malleability difference to the Army when it should be applied to the Roman people themselves. Also I'm not sure malleable is even the right word. hehe
Squishiness:) punchability!
@@foojer - Sturdiness, endurance, reserve manpower. The Late Empire was so extremely proto-feudal that it did not have the manpower nor the loyalty of the people anymore.
Great video. Seems like comparing whether the principate is better than the roman army is like comparing whether rock is better than scissors.
Overall it does seem like the late roman army is less committed to fighting foreign enemies after the political crisises. The sources never mention this but it is mind boggling.
80000 fielded by the fledgling Republic at Cannae.
30000 fielded by the eastern empire at Adrianople.
How could a larger empire have a smaller pool of manpower? Mind boggling. The histories don't seem to explicitly address the exact reason for this (could just be a lack of money but that was never an issue with the republic) but you put it best: a monarch keeps his best soldiers close against rivals not foreign enemies.
Lucky you you're in the recommendationsphere of history CZcams in other words you gained subscribers like me 🤙
Nice video. I think part of the problem is we are pretending that there is a single 'thing' called the early Roman army and a single 'thing' called the late Roman army. I mean consider the questions - What was better, the Roman army under Trajan or the great mass of Germanic mercenaries that was assembled by Majorian? How about the Roman army under Constantine vs the expensive boondoggle that was the Roman Army under Caracalla?
You also highlight an important point, where does the line between the Roman military and the economic-administrative-military complex which supports that military get drawn? The late Roman army was weak in part because it only had access to a small number of recruits and the land owners handing over recruits kept back the best men, in part because the empire had been ravaged by economic down turns, plague and a deterioration of civic virtue.
One might even make the case that the crisis of the third century was a consequence of the condition of the Roman army and its relationship with the state (the Emperors having for too long enriched the soldiers and scorned all other men), leaving the Army at least in part responsible for the crisis. In contrast the slow collapse from Valens onward looks a lot more like a collapse of the imperial system on the civilian and administrative side leaving an army crippled and unable to recover from the migrations, than a direct result of the actions of the Army.
simple put, but a good pragmatic analysis
Whaddap my dude,
I just saw an instagram ad that used your drawings without referencing your channel.
The ad was for "Rise of Kingdoms" (Could they have chosen a more generic name).
Just wanted to let you know, cause having your work stolen isn't fun.
Hey guy, thanks for letting me know. Their company has gotten my permission to use my stuff:)
So basically, early Rome was more successful long-term because they had near unlimited resources to throw at enemies. Late Rome had to worry too much about internal security to throw legion after legion at the enemy until they reached their kill limit and shut down.
Just like a certain Captain Zapp Brannigan it seems! But yeah i agree
Rome had good troops and lots of 'em in the beginning! LRE had mediocre troops and slow recruitment.
Another factor is the Offensive vs Defensive nature of the other
The Principate Army could take a punch because the Roman family that Cato the Elder cherished had lots of babies. Hard to lose those numbers in battle when the Italian peninsula is all estates, slaves, and bachelors.
As a kid i, like everyone, liked principate army. But these days i like late Roman army much much more. I love how it was far more flexible. Where as principate army composed mostly of infantry had it's weaknesses, especially against horse archers, a textbook late Roman army, while still infantry heavy, would have enough archers and cavalry to win battles like Carrhae.
INCRIDIBILIS! is that a For Honor refrence ?
DUDE finally someone who commented on it!
I personally think Western Rome failed because the leadership of that time was truly awful, indecisive, and out of touch with reality. The army itself was quite effective, maybe not as disciplined as the Caesars legion's but when you have a powerful army but weak minds behind it, the realm of late antiquity became a fragile state. Not to mention some of the best generals rome had at the time were killed or assassinated. With one terrible decision or indecision after another, I think what made things really bad for the Roman's was when they started abusing and killing the migrating Goth's. Huge mistake. Did they forget many Goth's made up a huge bulk of the roman army at the time? So dumb. However, no matter how many enemies Rome made, the state was it's own worst enemy. There are no two ways around it.
I do agree about the abuse of the Goths. I think it helped lead to the Battle of Adrianople and the huge loss of manpower and prestige
So, if i got this right, this means while both armies were comparable from a military perspective, the political background was the weak point?
I’d say the dominate army had some glaring flaws that made it look weaker than the principate army, but a more meaningful way would be to look at, as you say, the political side of it (as opposed to things like discipline, tactics, etc). Then we’ll see that it’s not an issue of how good the army was, it was more like why and how did the army fit its era? A hyper aggressive army for a hyper aggressive principate, and a more cautious, wary army for a more cautious and wary dominate
Nah, principate army would eat a same sized dominate army for breakfast, sun bathe a little in the afternoon and be back with their victory trophies in time for tea. The late army was super speedy but rubbish at fighting when it got there.
To add it more, different enemies in each time period they had faced.
The Huns especially is hard counter for heavy infantry Romans.
Have you tried reading sources from the time like Vegetius? I appreciate some of your points but he is very damning of the level of professionalism of the later Roman armies and regards them with shame
Vegetius is quite damning, though I’d take his criticisms with a pinch of salt. He wasn’t a soldier (unlike Ammianus Marcellinus, who is a bit more fair), and his claims and comparisons are sometimes vague and timeless (he refers to the armies of ‘the past’ as one giant blob). Plus his damning tone is kind of a trope, it was an established pattern to complain about corruption of the present, and look to the hallowed past for salvation (kind of cherry picking, but Tacitus, Cassius Dio, and Zosimus do this).
Now it is true that late Roman armies could act very poorly at times, but I’d argue that the issue was more on the macro level. Ill discipline was nothing new in Roman armies (Principate and 3rd century armies did their fair share of revolting), but I’d say strategic and political issues were the bigger problems with the later Roman armies
@@foojer absolutely fair I'd agree the issues were on the larger political and economic level which had knock on effects on the army. Also the great migration which might well have been the killing blow!
That I agree too! Mass migrations spelled the beginning of the end I think
To simplify the earlier, "classic" Roman Army of the Republic and Principate excelled on explosive conquest and expansion (with an almost uncanny ability to recover from tactical defeats) while the later Roman Army of the Dominate/Eastern Roman era excelled at garrison defence and the dogged survival of Roman regimes for many more centuries (even with disintegration in the West and deminishment in the East).
So the first Roman army was early Kratos. And the older army was old man Kratos...
So your observations are exactly the same as mine. I will say that an army can not be seen seperatly from the society who it serves and who staffs it. It was not the armies fault that roman culture had changed and people wouldnt flock to the banners uppon news of a defeat reaching them and thus losses became harder to replace.
Id say the early Empire was stonger than the late Empire, which had way too much corruption to handle and is what ultimetly really doomed it. But when it actually comes to military units the better equipment and tactics of the late Empire shows, the early imperial legionares would have a hard time cutting fully armored troops or even getting past their long spears let alone deal with cataphract charges.
good topic.
Geriatric boxing? I'm confused, but very intrigued.
But which soldier is better?
Imperial Roman army: pants? Ha! We don't even know what pants is...