|
Post by Roland on Jun 15, 2020 12:31:07 GMT
This one is for the antiquarians. As I attempt to shore up the weakness in my body of knowledge of the "Roman World" in preparation for a few later Roman DBA army projects, I'm curious about the reforms of Diocletian. While I understand at least a few of the reasons behind the bureaucratic reforms as well as the reorganization of the legions to more strategically flexible ( as well as less threatening to governmental stability), however, I'm not sure what the forces at work were that led to the abandonment of the centuries proven combination of pila and scutae for spathae and spears. The enemies ( at least in the West) were not appreciably different ( certainly not differently armed) than previous centuries. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Jun 16, 2020 0:30:57 GMT
Roland,
I seem to recall recently reading a book on Later Roman armies that mentioned that the Romans were fighting more mounted opponents. Granted our lists show that a goodly number of the western enemies are still wall to wall Wb which dissolve in the face of a Pilum/Scutae BUT overall they had to change to a tactical unit that crouched more and pointed their longer spathae upwards. The Roman Helmet also changed with a longer rear neck piece that worked well in the defensive line shoulders bent swords or spears pointing up. I am guessing that the soldiers were not trained to use one set of equipment and tactical methods when facing Alammani (nearly all Wb) and weapons and armour from a different rack when facing Goths.
I can't remember the author but it could be any of 'Legions in Crisis' - Paul Elliot 'Storming the Heavens' - Antonio Santosuosso 'The Roman Army' - Patricia Southern
These are the ones I've read on the subject most recently.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by ammianus on Jun 16, 2020 2:41:14 GMT
You might want to buy: Diocletian and the Roman Recovery by Stephen Williams. It's Routledge, so a little pricy.
|
|
nikg
Munifex
Posts: 13
|
Post by nikg on Jun 18, 2020 7:42:22 GMT
This one is for the antiquarians. As I attempt to shore up the weakness in my body of knowledge of the "Roman World" in preparation for a few later Roman DBA army projects, I'm curious about the reforms of Diocletian. While I understand at least a few of the reasons behind the bureaucratic reforms as well as the reorganization of the legions to more strategically flexible ( as well as less threatening to governmental stability), however, I'm not sure what the forces at work were that led to the abandonment of the centuries proven combination of pila and scutae for spathae and spears. The enemies ( at least in the West) were not appreciably different ( certainly not differently armed) than previous centuries. Thoughts? Changes in equipment had been going on for quite some time before Diocletian and pila like spears continued in use during and after his reign. Bishop & Couldston's "Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome" is a good resource for seeing how Roman equipment changed over time - www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B01M0X7J07/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i1
|
|
nikg
Munifex
Posts: 13
|
Post by nikg on Jun 18, 2020 7:44:38 GMT
The Roman Helmet also changed with a longer rear neck piece that worked well in the defensive line shoulders bent swords or spears pointing up. From about the time of Diocletian the helmets with the very large neck pieces were being replaced by the ridge helmet types which had a substantially small neck piece.
|
|