We all have heard about the glories of the Legionaries and the Imperial Roman Army, and the of the earlier Republican Army. But what of the Late Roman Army? By late I'm talking 3rd Century AD (or CE if you prefer). When they abandoned Lorica Segmentata and went back to Lorica Hamata, and the gladius for the spatha and scutum for oval shields. And a return to using spears (hasta). I ask because I hear that although the Western Roman Empire fell, it was not a result of a sub-par military. So how good was this late roman army in battle?
Hello!I study Ancient History Ma at Swansea University. I am not a credited historian by any counts, but hopefully I can offer my 'two cents'. I wrote an essay at univeristy about how the change in late Roman military equipment reflected their attitude towards their empire. A common misconception is that lorica segmentata was universal - the lorica hamata was most likely the go-to body armour for a soldier, especially considering the amount of recruitment into the auxilia.The change from gladius and rectangular scutum to spatha/spear(hasta - like pre-republic) and the oval (parma/clipeus) shield was because (I argue) down to Roman foreign policy. The late Republic/Early empire was a period of vicious conquest, epitomised by the gladius, scutum and lorica segmentata - the Romans got up close and personal and obliterated anyone (most of the time).The change in armament, especially after the crisis of the 3rd century, reflects Roman foreign policy of going on the defensive. Instead of blatant conquest they tried - often in vain - to maintain provinces they already held. Advancements and new enemies, especially cavalry from the East, prompted a change in longer armament and a more cavalry focused force, employing local soldiers rather than Italian bred heavy infantry.The late Roman army was formidable in battle, as attested by the stalwart defence of Dura-Europus and the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields, but for the most part they were defeated. The Battle of (H)adrianople saw the emperor Valens captured and executed - the only time a Roman emperor fell to such a fate, as recorded by Amminaus Marcellinus (who incidentally records the defeat as comparable to Cannae 216BC).It is a very complex discussion, based on the shifting political arrangement throughout the empire and the amount of 'clout' military leaders (vis-a-vis emperors) had. But for the most part, the army of the late empire was a shadow of its former self in the 1st-2nd centuries AD.
Edit: The MOST defining factor in early Imperial armies was it was state-funded. One didn't have to be a Roman citizen to join the army (unlike the Republic) but could earn his pension and retire. My above argument about Roman foreign policy and the loss of overseas territories meant that enlistment in the Roman army wasn't as attractive as it was, say, in the late Republic during the capitae censi of Marius/Sulla. Hence they had to rely on Auxilia, and hence the army was disorganised, both admin/logistically. Why join the army if there is no benefits? Long gone are the days of 'defending the Empire' as the Empire is split into 2 (or 4) pieces, and most troops are Auxilia who owe allegiance to their own country and not 'Rome', or whatever 'Rome' is by that time.