You are not talking about the Late Roman soldiers, rather about the Late antiquity Roman soldiers. The Late Roman Army is about thousand years later.

From my point of view, the change in the equipment of the Roman legions began from the increase in the importance of cavalry. While the cavalry gained in sophistication of its equipment (the armor of the clibanarii and cataphractarii was impressive especially from the third to the sixth century, with achievements that the craftsmen did not replicate again until the Renaissance, a thousand years later), the equipment of the legions (except for the commanders and special escort units), was declining in quality. But I cannot leave aside that we can see the culminating point of the legionary armor in the 3rd century with the Niedermörmter-type helmets. Greetings from a latin country of the south of the world

Nicht so wirklich up to date, ich empfehle das Buch "Der römische Legionär"von B.Burandt, römische Soldaten waren nicht streng uniform ausgerüstet. Jeder musste sich seine Ausrüstung selbst zusammenstellen und bezahlen. Es ist stark anzunehmen, dass verschiedenste Loricas in einer Zenturie verwendet wurden, außerdem wurde gebrauchtes Equipment wiederverwendet. Das Scutum der augusteischen Zeit war eher fassförmig und noch nicht rechteckig. Ach und nebenbei wäre ein Englisch-Aussprache-Kurs recht angebracht, wenn man nicht dem furchtbaren Beispiel von "military visualized" folgen möchte... Sorry, aber Ihr habt auch schon in anderen Videos falsch dargestellt, da platzt einem glatt die Hutschnur.

Wish a Time-traveler Industrialized Ancient Persia and gave Gunpowder Weapons to them

As u know quite deeply about Romans. I wanna ask some questions to u which I want u to please clarify. : 1. Did later Roman soldiers wore helmets having crests like early ones ? 2. Did All Eastern Roman soldiers wore purple uniforms as we see in Total wat Attila. In Attila, mostly Eastern Roman soldiers have Purple clothes. But I think this is inaccurate. Bcoz I've read that only EMPORERS wore Purple. 3. How historically accurate is Total war Attila in terms of Romans ???

Aren't they always?

@@hemidas when nikephoros i was campaigning against the bulgarian khan krum, the soldiers refused to build a fortified encampment because "we are soldiers, not builders" and that lead to krum ambushing the army and making nikephoros's skull into a drinking cup. so yeah, soldiers can be the problem

@@aetu35 ​ a bit of a decimation would have solved that particular issue real quick. ah... Crassus... good times.

@@aetu35 This sound like an urban myth to me. If they were soldiers, they knew better than to hurt their own chances of survival, and have been "soldiers as well as builders" for a thousand years by then. Don't underestimate the amount of blame-game happening after huge losses, and the lack of unbiased sources available to us!

Both were a problem.

yeah whoever says the western roman empire fell because of degenarcy shouldn't be taken seriously furthermore, why do people never take the east in account if they were also "degenerates".

@trueblue23 Plus they were trying to defend from the outermost frontier, rather than having buffer zones of allied/subjugated peoples to absorb some of the impact.

the others just became better while the romans didnt improve much

"The late Roman army wasn't degenerate, they just had to adapt to worse circumstances. They had less money, more logistical problems (as the Empire was being destroyed),"-So they were degenerate.

@@pingu6028 "The late Roman army wasn't degenerate, they just had to adapt to worse circumstances. They had less money, more logistical problems (as the Empire was being destroyed),"-So they were degenerate.

Too bad that none of them were actually 'Romans'.

@@thadtuiol1717 Truly, the Roman army after the War against Pyrrhus of Epirus was no longer the noble town-militia it once was...

@@AGS363 Indeed. We are seeing this happen today with America's military: More and more of the people in it are no longer of the same ethnic background of the people who originally formed that military. You can get away with that for a while, but sooner or later people will resent having to serve in/ pay for/ possibly die for a military that no longer reflects them.

@@thadtuiol1717 That is not at all what happened, and Rome itself would not have lasted how as long as it did without the inclusion of other peoples in its armies. And as one Roman said, Rome was formed from the coming together of different ethnic or tribal groups and every group at one point was the other. What made Rome weaker at the end was a lack of proper integration or assimilation of colony people. Expecting them to fight for Rome while heavily discriminating against them.

@@thadtuiol1717 So you are going to pretend that non-White Americans did nothing to serve well fighting for the US military? I should remind you that the most decorated unit of the US military is the 442nd Regiment, a unit that mostly compromised of Japanese Americans. Or the 369th Regiment that mostly consisted of African Americans and was the first allied unit to cross the Rhine during WW1. Then there's MSG Roy Benavidez, a half Mexican and Native American that is known as the real life Rambo.

It is clear who is the far better *Man* even if the wrong man was elevated to the heights of Tyrants.

Mario didn't deserve that

@@Shrek_es_mi_pastorIndeed, Miura deserved so much better..

@trueblue23 Yeah. Even in Antiquity, making something like that to an already dead body was disgusting as f*ck

@trueblue23 Sulla was a famously terrible person.

which is smth i don't get: was the roman empire too expensive to upkeep? were the emperors and nobility too greedy and living too lavishly thus burning through money instead of using it to serve the greater good? how come the ottomans and generally the turks managed to build an empire with such seemingly cheaper prices?

@@ragael1024 Land consolidation by the late byzantinian nobility or patricans led to less able bodies to serve in the army along with tax revenue that could be generated by them, the Ottomans simply just redistributed the newly captured land to those that served them or strip the nobles land and give it to the new subjects of the Ottoman empire, the ottomans gave it's soldier incentives to fight for wealth and land but for the Romans it would be like another day being payed with barely anything and defending some rich asshole's plot of land. Rome's age of expansion is long gone it cannot simply give agriable land to it's soldier as payment anymore therefore their willingness to fight is greatly diminished. You also need to take into account that the turks at the time were "building" an empire compared to the Romans who were just barely "maintaining" it's declining empire, conquering is simple but governing is on the other hand isn't just like Kublai khan once said "I have heard that one can conquer the empire on horseback, but one cannot govern it on horseback".

But remember?! He's writing about the later Byzantine Empire,( yes later Eastern Roman , morphed into a Greek speaking empire, mainly because Greek was everyday language no longer needed latin after loss of western Empire) And Ottomans were around as Eastern Empire declined! Much later when the theme system replaced legions.. Times Change. But taxation was a problem earlier especially west, rich paid none, free farmers,as such, were crushed by it! And with universal citizenship? No impetus to become a legionary! Even used Conscription ,barbarians, to try to maintain army. Money was tight! Average Joe was to say under great pressure, economy not so hot! Not much incentive to be a Roman, to support Empire.

Tax was a major issue. Italy had been exempt from tax. The reason why Caracalla made all free people citizens was that citizens paid a poll tax as well as a head tax (capitum). Coloni on farms, virtually slaves, had to pay the capitum. In the late Empire, even the Church paid tax, having previously wangled a tax exemption. There were tax revolts and sometimes when a city had been devastated by a natural disaster, the emperor had to suspend taxes. Hydatius says that Spain underwent a massive famine and tax was suspended for six years. But the money for the army had to come from somewhere. Tax collection by publicani (the publicans in the Bible) was wasteful as they collected every nummus and the surplus they kept. It was the liability on local councillors to pay for any shortfall, so there was a reluctance to serve. They had to forbid local nobles from becoming Christian priests so they couldn’t dodge tax liability.

There is a common theme between the decline of the Eastern Roman Empire with the decline of Rome, i.e. of the earlier Roman Empire and it is not just about taxation but about inflation, which was even worse than taxation : So, in the 3rd BC century, Emperors desperate to sustain the burgeoning Roman bureaucracy and military from an overall declining Roman population (the latter mainly due to urbanisation and lifestyle - and the institution of marriage collapsing and women giving birth to fewer children - the indecency of women once again causing such), not only they added more and more taxes, but above all, they started inflating the currency which of course is a very direct "indirect taxation" that smashes the incomes of people. Both the Aureus (gold coin) and Denarius (silver coin) were massively inflated by means of decreasing their gold and silver percentage down to ridiculous levels, so that the soldiers and mercenaries refused to be paid in coins and demanded being paid in pure metal. This caused the tumultuous times of the 3rd century crisis which ended with Emperor Aurelian who literally saved the Empire from certain demise trying to re-establish some standards. Eventually with Diocletian and Constantine moving the epicenter of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople provided the basis for a successful numismatic reform. As the Empire literarally "got rid of" the then troublesome Western regions and concentrated on the rich productive Eastern regions it managed to sustain a numismatic stability unheard in human history. For more than 600 years, the byzantine solidus (gold coins) and folli (silver) and nummi (bronze) maintained an admirable stability. The lessons of the 3rd century were deeply ingrained and hence even through thick and thin, under the most tumultuous times, of invasions, civil wars, economic downturns, the Empire never devalued its solidus which by the 8th century BC was the world's standardised coin accepted all over the known then planet from Iceland to China (oh yes...), and mimicked by Arabs and Franks. And then? As the Empire reached its apex in the times of Basil II, something weird occurred : right after his death the ensuing Emperors, a line of incapable ones, started massively devaluing the currency. We need to note that while in the 3rd century Roman Emperors did indeed face financial challenges, this was NOT the case in the 11th century! Basil II had left a record high treasury, there was no need to devalue the currency nor to increase the taxes. What the ensuing Emperors did was really "incomprehensible" : 1) They devalued the solidus down to half in a very short time 2) In parallel they increased taxation on Roman citizens 3) But they gave tax-free allowances to Venetians! 3) And most remarkably : they spent zero, literally zero money for the militray!!! The combination of that wrought havoc with plenty of generals leading revolts leading to the massive Civil War of the 1060s, only to be interrupted by the invasion of the Turks in 1071 and this only to be followed by a second round of Civil War throughout the 1070s until the rise of Alexios I the Comnenian who tried to re-affirm the Empire, also trying to re-establish some semblance of numismatic stability by replacing the devalued solidus with the hyperpyron. It is said that when Emperor Romanos tried to re-assemble the armies of the Empire ahead of the clash with the Turks, there were remnants of the once proud cataphract units who appeared in front of the Emperor with armours half a century old, rusty and rugged with the scales hanging loose - a sight that would bring anyone to despair. The question is thus why successors of Basil II mishandled so badly the situation when they had inherited a double treasury? The answer is simple : Greed! Basil II had taxed a lot the rich landowners, the businessmen and the bankers and all these formed a kind of political coalition against the populists and the generals. They started investing heavily outside the Empire, namely in Venice and other Italian cities all while they increased taxes and devalued the currency playing monetary games which are eerily similar to the ones played today in the West. They invested zero into the military to neutralise the threat from the generals thinking that the Empire would remain safe enough just by its prestige. It all came crumbling down in only a few decades. Alexios I tried to reform but by his time he could only do so by remaining even more entangled with Venice which rose literally as the arbiter of the Empire's economy, further alienating the Roman citizens (i.e. the Greeks - Venetians operating within the Empire were not seen as such, they were always seen as foreigners even more when they were Catholics not Orthodox in the post-Schism age). The perfect storm.

@trueblue23 apparently the officers were just as slack and perhaps signalled slackness was ok cause there was no fighting for a very long time.

@trueblue23 Drilling only gets you so far. Nothing will beat combat experience.

Never heard that one before. But I'm sure some drilling must have been done every so often.

Not rare though.

He is a Neopagan propagandist who still pushes the dark ages myth.

What a ridiculous comment. Ancient Rome is arguably the most commonly loved historical period

What do you mean rare? Rome is over hyped as fuck😂

​@@khanman9146it's not overhyped because the hype is well deserved, and every person with a decent historical knowledge would accept that

And yet, the Augustinian Legions performed very well even against cavalry archer armies (see the successful conquest of Babylon by the Romans). I think it really just comes down to the simple fact, that the late roman army was just cheaper to raise and maintain. Also, the lack of combat experienced roman generals made it necessary to reform the army out of desperation, because you can't afford losing your more expensive troops regularly. Imho the main problem was, that Rome just stopped doing offensive campaigns outside of their border (for example, to form vassal states as buffer zones). This lead to all the problems: Lack of combat experienced troops and generals, less wealth over long term, less people willing to enlist in the army... which made all the late military reforms simply necessary out of economic and demographic situations, not so much because it was militarily more effective (which it simply wasn't).

@@LegioXXI The Romans didn't stop campaigns of conquest out of the goodness of their heart, but rather they ran out of profitable neighbors to conquer and loot. It's also extremely odd you would bring up Babylon when by the time of Augustus it was a deserted wasteland. What cavalry archer "armies" were those?

@@gamesguy The Parthians who controled the area used Cavalry archers. Also there are several cases of romans vs numidians, who also used cavalry archers and skurmishers. Also most of the original neibours of Rome wherent profitable in fact they raided Rome because Rome was more profitable and that was the reason Rome started coqnuering them. Gaul, Spain, Germany and Brithan are the biggest examples, where they wherent rich at all and yet Rome conquered them ( afcrose they later became profitable exept for Britan ). Rome stoped coquering because the maitanance of the Empire became too big and they codnt affort long term campaings or the cost of controling new territories.

I will disagree with the comfort and weight aspect. Chainmail is form fitting and is more comfortable to wear than laminar/segmented armor. The weight of chainmail can also be partially distributed on the waist through a belt...something that can't be done with segmented armor. The weight of chainmail or segmented armor also depends on the thickness of the metal and coverage of the armor. If you have less armor coverage or more thin armor (thus sacrificing protection), then the armor will be lighter. If you're trying to achieve similar armor coverage and similar levels of protection, you're going to need a heavier set of armor. Furthermore, there is no evidence that chainmail was abandoned in favor of scale (squamata is scale, not lamellar). Scale and chainmail had both been use since the Roman Republic centuries before the Huns, and both were used into the medieval era.

@@LegioXXI those early cavalry archers had bows which were quite weak. even into late antiquity the Romans had stronger bows than the Persians, and the Romans were a western power where composite bow technology was underdeveloped mesopotamia is also a desert crisscrossed by rivers; the cavalry armies have nowhere to go. it's almost like a corridor. the seleucids did quite well in the field therefore, although they used pikes, archers, and cavalry early on. the arab use of camels would change this

Flexibility and decentralization is a must in warfare once the technology catches up. For example, during the Franco-Prussian War, the Prussian infantry formed looser skirmish-like lines while the French still had their infantry tightly packed even though gone were the days of the muzzleloader.

@@imgvillasrc1608 You really see it in the difference between World War I and World War II. World War I had large infantry formations, centrally controlled by Division and Army headquarters, attacking along vast fronts all at once. And the result was a force lacking in any sort of mobility or initiative, and ultimately falling prey to poorly planned offensives which failed to take into account any of the local battlefield conditions or tactical situation. But World War II saw a far more decentralized command structure, with brigade, regiment and battalion level commanders pursuing local objectives on their own initiative, often times in unison with one another with Divisional and Army headquarters merely putting an overarching strategy in place and ultimately dealing with the logistics for frontline soldiers.

Tell that to the Chinese dinasties and the Roman Republic. Most of their armies were conscripted militia, yet they eventually became so experienced they were as good as a professional army. Don't underestimate conscripts.

Turns out, the "Barbarian kingdom getting better at war" problem was a massive problem for all of civilizational history until guns came. I think the late Roman empire is the prime example of this problem.

And the same germanic barbarians but also other ones, like the nomads.

True, they were facing more enemies at once that were not only more advanced but many of the Germanic soldiers were trained by or learned from Roman armies over the generations. Even employed in the service of Rome then betrayed them. Basically everything that could go wrong, did go wrong all at once. Luckily, as pointed out before, many people did not intend to destroy Rome but instead control it or settle in it.

@@canadious6933 Yep. Another huge problem was that trade with Rome enriched formerly marginal borderlands. In Germania there was little agriculture other than subsistence in the small thorps there at first. The population of Caesar's time could not have sustained a war of attrition. Cut to 300 years later, different story. Rome didn't just train them in war, it trained their expectations and ambitions away from subsistence towards enrichment/expansion, especially in those borders where trade occurred. More powerful leaders enriched by trade now had the resources to form coalitions of people groups. Ironic that the economic machine of Rome also powered-up its future foes.

@@AF-tv6uf Pretty much. In a sense it would be like comparing the British Empire in the 18th and 19th century conquering a large amount of land with a highly trained and advanced army for the time. But then comparing the same thing to the 21st century. It is a smaller army but still would beat the older soldiers any day. However the world Britain lives in is very much different than today. If that is a reasonable analogy

The Romans under Trajan actually added new armour in response to the Dacian weapons. They had a reinforced helmet and a manica giving their sword arm a coat of metal.

The heavy infantry of the classical period with the heavy curved shields weren't so great against fast moving enemies. In the classical period Rome was invading other nations and the legions were the hammer to be used against enemy troops and infrastructure. After the 3rd century ad the legions aren't invading anymore, they're reacting to invaders along their frontier. The legions are too slow to met these invaders so the equipment of the legions becomes the same as the auxiliaries. The emphasis is on cavalry and mixed units of cavalry and faster moving infantry. The only way to fight with flat oval shields is as a phalanx, the classic Roman legion fought in a looser formation because they had curved shields that covered more of the body.

This implies that the legions are a phalanx killer, which they are not. Realife doesnt work like Rock paper sissors for most

Where is this quote from?

@@worganfreeman2694 I took it from the movie "Alexander" made by Oliver Stone. However, parts of this quote were modified by me to give them more depth.

@@Oskarelu AH the one with colin ferrell aye? I remember the movie but I don't quite remember the line. Thanks~

He never said that.

Lack of skilled soldiers?They didn't lacked skilled soldiers.Shields,armour and weapon was also not some dramatic decline.

On the contrary, metallurgy kept improving almost non stop well into the Medieval peripd and beyond. Fine arts declined because they were not essential for Rome to survive. Troops, arms and armor, on the other hand, became more necessary than ever.

The output of the state-owned Roman weapon factories must have been immense as much of the production ended up in the barbaricum.

Well, given how many skilled workers died in some nasty plagues in the late Empire, this surely would've compromised Army 's capability to build armours, such as the plague that struck the empire in the mid of the 3rd century, amidst Gallus' reign.

@@alessiodecarolis Centrally-planned economies have shortages, but central planners shift shortages where they are supposed to be acceptable. BTW, the fabricae (arms factories) did not belong to the army but to the civilian administration.

And later the same mutinous soldiers followed Julian to Persia. According to sources, Rome has been in steady decline since the late republic.

Yes. It has great illustrations too. Some have been used in this vid. It was also part of the inspiration for firming my 15mm Late Roman wargame army.

@@doppelwaffen the republic was degenerate thats why it failed, augustus was the peak of rome and he had laws implemented to combat the societal degradation ie degeneracy

And now history repeats itself, see Ukraine and the rising Chinese threat. The people in the west rather just enjoy their materialistic wealth instead of making sure to actually being able to defend it. Si vis pacem, para bellum. And no that doesn't need we need to wage war everywhere and against anyone, but we should always be *able* to do so, especially mentally. Otherwise some enemies will always see it as weakness and exploit it. We should learn from Rome's mistakes, not repeat them.

@@LegioXXI aye every civilization reaches its hedonistic phase and inevitable downfall , probably why we will never have space exploration

Go back to work! And stop stealing jobs! Get your own!

"He's already dead!"

Who?

@@ajavierb2078 James

@@BlackMasterRoshi Who?

@@ajavierb2078 Afrojack.

Scaled armor is also ridiculously expensive to make.

According to which sources or tests? Its segmented armor, not plate.

The "Eastern Roman Empire" was a bunch of all but broke, constantly bickering and notoriously disunited backstabbing bunch of Greeks. There's no way they could have afforded or organised the Imperial Legions of old. Warfare changed BECAUSE the levels of logistics, organisation, armament and recruitment dropped significantly to essentially feudal levels. The army sizes speak volumes to this, they go from armies of 100'000 well supplied healthy soldiers to mere thousands living of the land and starting to die of dysentery after three days on campaign.

@@mnk9073 Bullshit. The Eastern Roman lasted thousand after the fall of the West while fighting enemies that fucking sending early Roman legions to thier graves like the Sassinids, Parthians, etc and the reason the East didn'tis becuase it was the extremely well off and more organied half of the empire, it was flipping described as a city of gold by voyagers there. I was rerfering to the bucket saddle, stirrups and better understanding of horse breeding, all of where brought of from other around the time the western Empire fell. Also, hilarous your bring up backstabing when Western Emperors and politicians had civil war and backstabing as a flipping art form. Just compare the list of murdered emperors by the praetorian guard to the Varangian guardsmen..... the former list is a fuck ton longer.

The late legions were also lesser in troops, some were about 1000 men strong, with the financiary constraints of late empire, expecially in the west, most of the soldiers didn't have any armour, having to rely only to the great oval shield and an helmet for defence. Add also the fact that most, if not all of the men were mercenaries/barbarians or both, with no interest in the well being of the State, it's logical that EVERYTHING went down the tube from the late 4th century onward.

The late Roman empire military was not optimised for direct combat power. It was optimised to be cheap, able to live off the land with low logistics requirement, highly mobile, capable of incorporating different groups, and making best use of lower trained, less well equipped manpower. It was good at patrolling, putting down serfs, skirmishing and reconnaisance. Pitched battles? not so much. The transition from early to late Roman army was forced on them, not really a choice or reflecting better understanding of combat. The highly disciplined, well trained, tight order, sophisticated formations of Augustan Rome would likely have demolished a similar number of the polygot, mercenary, lightly armed loose formation-if-any late empire troops. They simply couldnt make 'em like they used to! Dont discount the effect of citizen troops all having the same language and culture vs a mixed bag of disparate people thrown together. There was a military tradition in ancient Italy that was mostly lacking in the late Empire.

@@coffeebreakchat2450 Did ya'll watch this or any of his videos? The late Roman won quite a number of battles it is just like a Roman drawing youtuber showed, the late Roman army was brittle and fighting highly organized states and equaly equipped opponents more of the time. The Romans debased their own currency, several plagues and civil and the disincentives of being in the Roman army meant every loss hurt more. The case in point. The Eastern Roman Empire didn't decide to reintroduce segmentata, Javelin,short sword infrantymen and classic focused calvary ratios cus that loadout and army set up basically fucking sucks against with skirminshing and heavy calvary corps. Stirrups and bucket saddles help out a calvarymen allot more that a point pointed seat. Also,case in point. The Battle of Carnae and all the Emperor Roman lost to Persia. Another case in point.Machavalli actually suggested reviving short sword, javelin and scutum infrantymen during the reinssence and basically no commander during that time took his suggestion seriously.

A labour market did not exist in the late Roman empire. You had to hold the same occupation as your father. If he was a carpenter, you became a carpenter. If he was a farmer, you became a farmer. If he was a soldier, you became a soldier. Period. Volunteering may have been one of the few options to evade your father's profession.

@@doppelwaffen Thanks! You are right. It must of really sucked, plus you had to compete with slaves.

@@doppelwaffen not really true, soldiers were a profession sure, but for their retirement they got land to farm, making them and their sons farmers, sure its easier to pick up a trade from your father, but its not true they had a caste-like system

@@poki580 This is beeing discussed by scholars. Some argue that only a fraction of professions was compulsory, which is correct, but misses the numbers of people working in these trades. I'd conclude that every vital profession was regulated and compulsory for one single reason: A centrally-planned economy cannot control production if it doesn't control the workforce. A free labour market means that people won't work in the trades you need for the wages you set.

@@doppelwaffen Soldiering was the exception. Soldiering was not a family business because Roman soldiers technically could not have families. Now of course many did, but the central draw to serving in the military was not that your family did it. It was the fact that it offered ready employment as well as the prospect of considerable loot and land. Throughout Roman history, soldiers that were not on campaign would mutiny against their officers for the opportunity to be sent campaigning. Germanicus' entire expedition into Germany was essentially him handling a Roman mutiny by taking his soldiers to plunder across the Rhine.

Nah bro, the video is very much a strawman of "what people say"

@@brandonvallota I think it's more of what the most common take was.

The later Roman army couldnt adopt the elaborate formations of the past, and certainly couldnt match its density of combat power. Why? The spaatha is a slashing weapons, requiring loads of room to use. Also the different people press ganged into later armies hadnt trained together enough to maneouver together. Generally they just formed lines and blocks. The later Roman army was "barbarianised".

PS : roma invicta

To further elaborate, the armaments employed by friend and foe alike were influenced by the opponents they faced. When fighting a tribe of Britons or Gauls, certainly. Wide coverage, short swords are more than sufficient. But perhaps, what problems arise when your foes are better equipped? The stab of a Spatha is blunted, the short blade exposing the sword arm to a counter stroke. It is after all, unprotected. The shield perhaps is partially cut by a long sword. Or, as indicated earlier, now more often stabbed through? Would one then not certainly employ round shields, more convenient and with more robust edges? Employ spears and longswords over the Spatha of old? I think it quite ridiculous to look at a "glorious past" and assume everything the ancestors did was right, not merely then, but in the here and now.

In the Agricola, he thanks his British troops for fighting with Rome. It’s in the chapter where they’re about to fight the Caledonians. So within a couple of years, he’d managed to recruit the ‘enemy’ as auxiliaries

Segmentata was MORE expensive, due to needing more specialized production

Basically the Romans were fighting people who could fight back.

@@view1st Rome faced many formidable enemies during its expansion. Carthage, the Greek Kingdoms, Parthians, Northern Barbarians. When you expand you loot, and you have lots of money to throw towards army. Often established empires have economic problems. Rome didnt loose because its armies were shit, but because it didnt have enough money to have enough of them.

Great points, but I would question the idea that adding barbarian units was always a positive contribution. What if your barbarian allies dont know your language or your formations? No problem if they are a small portion of your forces, but when they form the majority, it forces compromises. As actually happened, barbarian originated merenaries took knowledge of the Roman miilitary home with them , enabled a constant technology transfer. This definitely contributed to Roman units losing their edge over their adversaries. See Dacia for an early example of this.

​@@coffeebreakchat2450 As a counterpoint to that, I remember reading that even after the fall of the West, the legions of the East still spoke some Latin or at the very least used Latin phrases in their formations, shouts, and commands long after the elites/leadership/bureaucracy stopped using Latin. It can't be denied that a centuries long period of integration of Germanic origin soldiers probably did contribute to some level of technology & tactical transfer. But ultimately I think this was not a heavily contributing factor. As we all know, the Western Roman Empire didn't fall to an external enemy. This point is very important. Barbarian units worked just fine for centuries since most of them held respect/admiration for and wanted to become Romans. During this period, the Roman army was very successful with external defeats being pretty rare even in the 400's. It's really only in the spiraling chaos of the last handful of decades in the late 400's that the barbarian origin soldiery eventually became a problem. And even then, it was mostly a wound that was self-inflicted. The late Western emperors extorting, enslaving, cleansing the families of barbarian origin Romans, killing your right hand men (Stilicho & Aetius) who could help keep the loyalty of these barbarian origin soldiers, lack of pay for the army due to losing Africa, etc. So the real damage was caused by these disastrous policies, constant civil wars, and political instability. The barbarian units were a positive contribution right up until the very end. When they did start generating their own designs & foreign policy, like under Ricimer & Odoacer, it really was just filling a void that the disintegrating central Western government was leaving.

@@MarW1138 You raise some fascinating points. On the Eastern Empire after the fall of the West: I seem to recall that Belisarius had all sorts of trouble managing the varied allied contingents in his army. Only someone of his genius could ge the best out of them. More homogenous armies in the Republican/Early Imerial era were generally easier to command and more predictable in the performance. "As we all know, the Western Roman Empire didn't fall to an external enemy." - depends what you mean by "external". The Visigoths didnt integrate at all with the Western administration, and were "internal" only in the lands they took. When they sacked Rome in 410, it certainly must have looked like a foreign army to the citizens. Many factors fed into the decline of the West. I suspect no single one of them explains it all. Growing use of barbarian mercenaries was initially a choice, but later unavoidable. There is evidence that Roman regulars stopped being so disciplined when they saw barbarian allies not subjected to the same rules. Lack of armour, for example, was partly down to Imperial troops being eager to avoid the hassle of carrying & maintaining it when allied troops didnt bother. There is a lot of evidence to suggest the Roman army - even the ethnically Roman part - became increasingly barbarised. They adopted Germanic war cries and stopped using advanced formations in favour of deeper blocks of toops. Use of the Spaatha over the gladius pretty much dictates a looser formation; you will decapitate your comrades swinging the former around, whilst the latter was a stabbing weapon which permitted tight formations and very focused combat power. The West grew too complacent. It assumed it would always have supremacy over other nations and focused on cheap, mobile troops. They were great for keeping the peasants in line and quashing rebellions, but woefully inadequate for the ever improving opposition. With declining tax base and opposition to indigenous recruitment, barbarian "fedorati" were the only choice remaining. Doesnt mean it was the best one. You are correct about low talent and flip flopping policies from the leadership.

​@@coffeebreakchat2450 Your insights are fascinating too, appreciate the discussion! Regarding the quality of the ethnic Roman troops (I presume you mean Italic or Gallic troops? Places that were Romanized for centuries) - I am not seeing how their supposed barbarization had much of a qualitative effect. They were still extremely effective. The type of warfare and military needs by this period had admittedly changed drastically due to the arrival of the Huns and reduced tax revenues. However, the discontinuation of complex formations, adoption of the spatha, increase in barbarian origin, or any other perceived qualitative deficiency of the late Western army of Majorian didn't affect their success at all. In fact, the mid 400's under Majorian, they won every pitched battle in every corner of the empire that they fought in, despite having all of these supposedly "inferior" barbarized qualities. And in fact I would argue that they instead became qualitatively better, at least in the military realities that they were facing such as an increase in mounted enemies, not least of all the Huns. Their changes allowed them to be more effective against the new mounted threat (longer spatha, adoption of long spears, scale mail to better protect against arrows, plumbata to increase volume of standoff capabilities, more cavalry, etc), possibly even with fewer numbers and lower cost. I do agree with the West growing complacent, but I would say it was mostly the senatorial aristocracy growing complacent/selfish to the detriment of the empire. Not the military. In fact in the late 400's, investment into defensive fortications increased. While the wealthy landowners increasingly became in arrears over their tax obligations. Originally I recall that they had paid money to exempt themselves and their workers, but eventually they stopped paying that too.

Except they quickly rebulided army from native Roman recruits and professionalism,discipline and drill continued to be essential.In fact basic military training remained unaltered.

@@paprskomet not exactly. It took 2 years to train an effective swordsman in the legion. Rebuilding armies was actually fairly slow, especially when veterans and senior officers were being killed more quickly than ever. That's why they came to rely on federate troops which compromised the long term professionalism of the later imperial armies.