Queequeg's 'Special' Threads: Roman-Persian edition

[Queequeg]

Especially with the argument on Languish to what extent the Dark Ages marked a break from the Classical period, and the fact that I've been playing Invasio Barbarorum (Imperio Julianum) as Sassanid Persia, a few questions started popping up in my head.

1) The traditional assumption I had was that Roman equipment throughout the Imperial Period became less advanced after the death of Aurelius.  From a modern, western perspective the segmentata and the square shield (capable of forming the ultra cool testudo formation) seems like some kind of pinnacle of the ancient world, and how us smart Moderns would do it if we went back in history.  The change in Roman infantry equipment, combined with a seeming decline in the sophistication of civil projects, siege works and overall economy seems to hint at a devolution of the Roman Army, rather than an evolution.  Now, I always knew this ignored the increasing importance of heavy cavalry and the fantastically advanced and heavy armor of the Cataphract-Clibanarii, but from what I am reading I am no longer sure that the traditional Roman equipment was really such a pinnacle of achievement in changing times.  A short sword doesn't work well against a cavalryman, and a square, large shield doesn't work well with a longsword.  Rather than being the result of decline or barbarization of the Roman infantry, was the change in equipment as much a result of the overall evolution of warfare towards lighter infantry and super-heavy cavalry?

2) This started connecting in my head with what I remember from my old ancient military history books and what I knew of the relationship between Persia and Rome.  The Romans began to adopt Persian-style super heavy cavalry.  The Romans adopted the god of Mithras and ultimately Christianity, which from a strictly academic perspective can be seen as a syncretic faith, drawing upon Jewish, Zoroastrian and Classical beliefs   The Romans even began adopting Persian equipment directly (for cavalry first, then eventually for everybody).  Interestingly, the reverse is true in Persia; the Parthians called themselves "Philhellenes" but lived a largely separate existence from the time of Arasces, but culturally and administratively picked up a lot from the Greeks, and the Sassanids, while outwardly a rejection of Parthian and Greek influence for a return to "Persian-ness", adopted large parts of Greek culture and administrative concepts, adopted Roman-style heavy infantry and adopted a number of Roman inventions into their architecture.  The result is that by the beginning of the Islamic period the two Empires would be very similar.  So was the change in Rome an evolution of equipment to meet new threats, a result of declining Roman economy and security, or was it a result of Persian influence?  I don't think these are mutually exclusive, though the great achievements of Byzantine and Sassanid Architecture, and the fantastic complexity of Byzantine-Late Roman cavalry equipment would seem to hint that any decline in Roman technological ability was either area specific or not true of every region of the economy.   

3) Cavalry men, completely covered in armor and wielding a deadly long lance, who own small plots of land (for which they have various specific insignia and color associations), and whose relatively barbaric warrior ethos is tempered by a strict devotion to a more martial variant of one of the credal religions.  All of these descriptors apply to the European Knight and the Persian gripanvar, including heraldry.  Without heraldry, and we can include the medieval Turkic nobility for the most part.  Now, I suppose that the technological level in these two places may have been similar, resulting in some of the same military techniques and social structures meant that support them, but it seems very odd to me that they appear nearly exactly similar, right down to the concept of chivalry and heraldry.  Did they just come from a similar place, or (as in the case of the Turkic nobility picking up the remnants of the Armenian and Sassanid heavy cavalry tradition), did the European nobility somehow merge with or adopt some of the older Persian-derived traditions, or is this just one bizzare example of convergent evolution, like dogs and thylacines? 

[Caliga]

Do not assume that lorica segmentata was ever part of a 'standard' kit for a Roman legionary.  Having worn it, as well as more standard hamata, I can tell you that a) while I don't think it's heavier than hamata, it distibutes weight poorly and makes your shoulders sore quickly, b) it needs almost continual repair, c) it was probably very difficult to mass-produce, unlike hamata, and d) it is actually not better protection against a skilled adversary (as it's not difficult to slip a dagger/sword in between the bands or into an armpit).

IMO segmentata was probably only worn by officers and probably then only in triumphs and shit like that.  I think the reason you see segmentata in Hollywood, passion plays, etc. is because it looks cool, and probably also because people associate hamata with medieval chainmail and thus would be confused to see actors playing the part of ancient Romans wearing it.

I don't have much to offer with regard to your second and third points, but I think it's strange that you seek to link cultural exchange with the adoption of foreign equipment and tactics.  Most Roman equipment originally came from the Gauls and it wasn't like the Romans said "gee, Cern seems like a cool god... this makes us want to invent the Montefortino by ripping off Gaulish helmet design!"  I think it was more like "gee, the Gauls keep beating the fuck out of us... I wonder if we copy their equipment, we might do better?"

[Queequeg]

What is interesting is that in Roman history the two seem to go together.  The Gauls beating your ass?  Copy their chain mail and swords, take some of their Gods.  The Persians?  Same thing.  I think one of the main reasons they succeeded was that for the vast majority of their history they appear to be almost Borg like in their ability to imitate and often improve foreign tactics and even social models.  The same was true of the Ottomans, the Mongols and modern America. 

EDIT: I kind of knew that about segmentata, though as I said it appeared to me previously that the movement back towards hamata appeared to be the first real technological backslide in the history of the Roman Army.  That said, IIRC Cataphracts tended to have some limited plate armor.

[Neil]

This thread should start like this:  I think that 'Night of the Hunter' is a good metaphor for the Roman Empire, and here is why...

[Darth Wagtaros]

Why not Night of the Lepus?

This thread should start like this:  I think that 'Night of the Hunter' is a good metaphor for the Roman Empire, and here is why...

[saskganesh]

you know this, but the Romans relied on auxiliary cavalry, and by the time that the Legions became heavy cavalry orientated, the "auxiliaries" had become regulars. this paralleled shifts in the Empire's society, so that the conditions that allowed the mass creation of uniformly equipped, heavy foot legions were no longer possible (I think during the 1C BCE civil wars, there were 50 (!) legions operating at some point.)

[PDH]

A better way to look at the rise of feudalism in the West than the rise of cavalry is the reaction of large landowners to taxation and forced service.  The shift to near-independent demesnes and infeudation owes a lot more to the breakdown of authority and trade in the West than the rise of cavalry.

[Darth Wagtaros]

/indeed.

A better way to look at the rise of feudalism in the West than the rise of cavalry is the reaction of large landowners to taxation and forced service.  The shift to near-independent demesnes and infeudation owes a lot more to the breakdown of authority and trade in the West than the rise of cavalry.

[Malthus]

A better way to look at the rise of feudalism in the West than the rise of cavalry is the reaction of large landowners to taxation and forced service.  The shift to near-independent demesnes and infeudation owes a lot more to the breakdown of authority and trade in the West than the rise of cavalry.

Two go hand in hand.

Generally, ill-disciplined heavy cavalry tend to beat ill-disciplined infantry every time. The breakdown in authority = lack of ability to organize the sort of disciplined, professional infantry that the earlier Roman empire relied on = cavalry being more effective on the battlefield.

[Caliga]

  Are you sure about that?  I assume also that you mean when the forces are evenly-matched in terms of numbers.

[Malthus]

Are you sure about that?  I assume also that you mean when the forces are evenly-matched in terms of numbers.

I'm not personally sure of it - I have no experience whatsoever of facing a charge of heavy cavalry - but the reason I have been given is that, in general, undisciplined infantry have a much greater tendency to run when confronted by cavalry (assuming of course that they are on terrain suitable for cavalry). Thus, a small number of heavy cavalry can, and very often did, rout much larger masses of undisciplined infantry. Disciplined infantry was much more likely to hold, and heavy cavalry could not easily charge home against an unbroken rank of spears.

Cavalry could defeat disciplined infantry as well, but this was a much more difficult feat - usually by driving off any auxillary cavalry on the other side and then attacking the flanks of the opponent's army, like at Cannae. But that was when working as a part of an all-arms army.

[Viking]

I'd just like to point out the political aspect of Constantine's army reform (where the army was split into Comitatenses and Limitanei). Part of the point was to try and keep any military commander from being able to mount a revolt while keeping enough flexible force around to deal with any barbarian. Limitanei have local freedom to act and are there to delay and disrupt any invaders. The Comitatenses then show up to defeat the Barbarian Invasion. This just meant that the killing part of the army never delegated to any potential usurpers. I'd like to point out that there were no army revolts except for the occasional army mutiny after Contantine's Reform. 

The Collapse starts when the Comitatenses stop showing up when the Limitanei call when they are all killed at Adrianopel. Forcing the Empire to use Foederati.

[Malthus]

I'd just like to point out the political aspect of Constantine's army reform (where the army was split into Comitatenses and Limitanei). Part of the point was to try and keep any military commander from being able to mount a revolt while keeping enough flexible force around to deal with any barbarian. Limitanei have local freedom to act and are there to delay and disrupt any invaders. The Comitatenses then show up to defeat the Barbarian Invasion. This just meant that the killing part of the army never delegated to any potential usurpers. I'd like to point out that there were no army revolts except for the occasional army mutiny after Contantine's Reform. 

The Collapse starts when the Comitatenses stop showing up when the Limitanei call when they are all killed at Adrianopel. Forcing the Empire to use Foederati.

It isn't true that there were no more revolts after Constantine.

The big problem with the Roman empire it is true was the continual civil wars lead by would-be emperors, backed by a part of the army. Roman emperors were often more concerned about rivals and usurpers than about barbarians.  This was just as true after Constantine as before.

For example, the emperor Julian lead just such a successful revolt, in the generations after Constantine.

A big factor which I did not appreciate is that for the later Roman empire it is almost impossible to get any good sense of the actual size and composition of the Roman army. This is because, as things broke down, lists of army units became - highly theoretical. Adam Goldsworthy points out in The Fall of the West that the actual "army" tended, in the later empire, to be concentrated around the actual person of the emperor and that "army units" allegedly located elsewhere were very often more or less non-existant, or rather existant only on paper. This meant that any serious barbarian-expelling had to be done by the emperor in person. Or on one of the sub-emperors appointed for this purpose, as by Docitilan ...

To what extent this trend was inspired by the fear of having any serious military force not under the emperor's own thumb and to what extent it was simply a systemic problem of corruption and break-down in taxation is hard to say.

[Valmy]

I'd just like to point out the political aspect of Constantine's army reform (where the army was split into Comitatenses and Limitanei).

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that Diocletian's reform?

[Valmy]

To what extent this trend was inspired by the fear of having any serious military force not under the emperor's own thumb

I am pretty sure it was done to stop generals from trying to make themselves Emperor all the time.