PerfectimusPrime

The Late Roman empire after Diocletian was already a quasi-totalitarian state. Constantine and others might have used Christianity as an excuse to persecute people for political reasons.

Huns did have stirrups. Huns were decentants of the Xiong Nu. Stirrups were invented in China, and it spread through the steppe tribes who were all horsemen. By byzantine's time the stirrups were in a relativly general use.

And its cavalry not ''cavelry''

We probably should look at the big picture and consider what was happening in Western Europe at about the same time. A new force was asserting itself--the Normans. we've all heard of William the Conqueror and what he did in 1066. Another Norman, Robert Guiscard (1015-1085) doesen't get the recognition that he deserves. He conquered Southern Italy and Sicily in a series of campaigns, thereby weakening Byzantium's contact with Rome. Loosing of Italy or Rome doesn't really have anything to do with this, how would it?

Manzikert was a disaster, without it, we would have a Byzantine empire today.

Augustan Legions were more than capable of destroying a Germanic army, the reason why they didn't is because they rarely fought against Germanics and when, after the civil war of the 200 AD, germanics became a problem the legions were in such a poor condition that they did have problem dealing with the germanics. Battles like Teutoburg cannot be counted. Diocletian's and constantine's reforms of the army were mostly in the system of defence, instead of relaing on legions posted on the frontiers, late Roman army relied on limitanei to slow down the enemy so the Comitatenses could come to the assistance and deal with the barbarian attack. This system had its down sides as the limitanei lived in poor conditions camped on the frontiers while the Comitatenses lived in cities and so caused alot problems and loss of morale and discipline. Mainly the difference in the equipment was the quality, late Roman army's infantry was equiped to fight with the cavalry so their equptement was lighter and armour, if any, was of poor quality because the money was going to the cavalry-arm by now. Tactics had remained relativly similar. Late Roman army's problem wasn't tactical, the army won several battles, but rather logistical. The later Roman army often had way too little men and the army was balantly expensive compared to the army of Augustus, because of the cavalry, which was the main weapon by now. Cavalry was effective weapon but pre-stirrup cavalry was extremely expensive compared to the heavy infantry. The army was also cavalry centric and relied on heavy cavalry to make the desicive blow, the Augustan army relied on heavy infantry. No, late Roman wasn't crap, tactically, but Augustan legions were still better, I think.

Very few Macedonians of the Roman era would've been wearing a bronze cuirass (they were well out of date by the late 4th Century). In fact, a greater percentage than you may think wouldn't have been wearing any cuirass at all. Whoops, was it the Greeks then...

Wait, how can you call that a true fact, have you seen what life would be like today without the medieval period? It's more of an opinion than a fact. And i think you were looking for the Dark Ages, the Medieval period actually had some technological advancements... Actually, dark ages were only in Europe, Muslims were during those times very inventive and made the basis for western science and mathematics. Also, during the middle ages there were no significant scientific devoplement either, in Europe. Rome wouldn't have invented electricity in the ''near future'' if the arabs, who were even more scientifically progressive, didn't.

Well, those were poor selection of words, because the Saxons did use shield wall quite often but not as often as the Greeks used phalanx, not nearly as often. Gladius does, as it was noticed by the macedonians who used Bronze cuirass often. Bronze is very soft. Also, there was a story about a duel where a Roman and Gaul faced, the Roman struck one time and the one strike penetrated the Gauls bronze plate like butter.

A Roman legion was strong because of... 1. Tactical flexibility 2. Discipline 3. Organization 4. Professionalism and many many more...

The Germanics were not good fighters, they were savage yes, but they lacked any kind of organization, discipline, regular army ETC. Also, they were low in numbers, so there were no huge armies of Celts or Germanics. Battle with Germanics didn't mean savage fighting; it simply meant a long time fighting against minor skirmishes, bandits and slaughering a dis-orderly germanic army after another. This is why they never defeated Rome, they didn't have any which to use to defeat Rome, they were simply pastoral semi-nomads. Roman army was almost every possible way superior to Germanic armies, so was Macedonian army. Macedonian Phalanx would have utterly defeated a Celtic or Germanic army.

Here's some late Roman stuff

Roman polytheism had long time ago lost its breath, it could no longer answer the spiritual needs of the people. So, hundreds of new cults were on the rise, even before Christianity. People often say that it was Christianity which did those horrors in Rome. Well, for example the systemtic purging of Pagan temples was not a Christian policy, it was Roman policy. Christianity got strong, Romans needed money, they allied with Christianity; they got money. You see, Roman empire was desprade (sp?) for money, the hyperinflation and economical disasters dried out the Roman treasury. The Comitatenses - Limitanei system with large cavalry corps was enormously expensive. The Pagan temples were rich and there were plenty of them, for example, Augustus built or repaired 82 temples in one year, or at least so it was said, nevertheless, there were alot of pagan temples. Abusing Christianity and its message allowed the Romans to exploit the wealth of these temples and to use it to feed their nearly collapsed economy. Also, the Roman bureocratic system was suffering from rampant corruption (which also affected the amount of recruits), Christianity did have a positive impact upon that too as it justified absolutism and the emperor became a demi-god. The European Feudalism was the cause of the intolerant ages. Because the feudal lords were use to being at the top, they were

The conditions in the late Roman army were definantly a reason for the lack of recruits. The lack of discipline made the army dangerous and the poor training made them unreliable. When the Romans (or byzantines) changed this system to the Thema system of recruitment in which instead of drafting men to fight they gave land to the soldiers and in exchange they had to serve in times of conflict... They would be of course trained and disciplined enough to act as an army, but the cavalry was now often more important than the common soldier. This system made it sure that they had a effective and numeours defensive and offensive force. Of course it was often supported by mercenaries. Also, this system was more cheaper because the army didn't need such support as a fully-professional army. The reason why Romans didn't get enough troops was because the imperial professional army was not effective for an empire on the defensive, because it was so expensive. This is what I fugured out.

Thanks... Probably, though of course, there were exceptions. Maybe... Well, yes probably. The Saxons didn't use the shield wall tactics quite often, actually.

Hoplon wasn't bad because of its shape but because of the way it was held. http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.lloyd/a...e/hoplshld.html It also often didn't have the central metal boss, which means that it cannot be used for bashing, like scutum.

Christianity had nothing to do with the decline of Hellenic architecture, it was the fall of the Roman empire which was caused by economical disasters, civil wars, migrations ETC. During the migrational period European lifestyle was reduced back to the stone ages, back to primitive natural economy with no urbanization. Every one moved to the countryside as the taxation in the cities started to get too hard and trade collapsed, they had to move away into self-sufficient villas (the word village is comes from it). Thus the European feudalism was born. Also, the barbarian sackings of cities also caused enormous damage to the existing infrastructure. In such conditions Greco-Roman architecture had no chance of survival because there simply were no large cities. European architecture was reduced into wooden shacks and houses and the cities were destroyed. When the darkness passed, and renaissance took place, there was enough money, resources, trade and urbanization to return to the Greco-Roman architecture. In the middle-east this was not the case as the Muslims brought peace in time. The Muslim caliphates were vigorous and supportive of science, peace, trade, prosperity ETC. The Urbanization under the caliphates continued and cities like Baghdad probably had more infrastructure than all of the cities in France combined. Science, trade and culture flourished as the Muslims came into contact with the Hellenic culture which they preserved. The Muslim caliphates became a vessel for the Hellenic culture. The Byzantine Empire didn

Well, that falls on how you define ''classical culture'', because hellenic culture lives on even in the Christianity and it had deeply rooted itself on the Islamic world. Greco-Roman culture is the very basis of Christianity and Christianity is a reflection of the nature of Rome.

Oh..... Impossible, a bronze cuirass was way too expensive for city states that were on the decline; leather cuirass was still used. Linen wasn't used either, as it was, also way too expensive, linen was known to be the material for rich people's clothings, on contrary to a popular believe: it is likely that linen was never used. Scales were used, but they were made of bronze as iron rusted very fast. And besides, gladius penetrates soft bronze easily. Muscled bronze cuirass was really only used by the nobles, because such armour was very expensive, as it took an experienced smith to produce such armour and bronze was expensive, if memonry serves...

The macedonian phalanx was used very much differently than the traditional Greek phalanx, and it was often misused. No they couldn't, not against a legionary. You see, the hoplon was absolutely horrible for sword combat and the kopis was inferior to gladius, also it was too short to be really effective slashing sword. The Hoplite cuirass was made of leather and their equipement in general was outdated. Originally the legionary curved shield, scutum, was probably designed against hoplite spears. The Macedonian phalangates didn't have heavy armour because the enemy was not expected to get close, but the enemy got close as the macedonian phalanx was often misused, tactically. IMHO, of course

I really don't think that the Christianity had any thing to do with the Fall of Rome, there are dozens of much more logical explonations, such as the inflation, economical crisis, civil wars, etc

Marius' professional model legions worked fine during the expansion and golden eras, but I think the Romans should have reformed their military (perhaps under Diocletian?) to be more like the republican legion, in the way of recruitment. Or they should have adopted some short of thema style system early on, because the professional, mercenary army was cost to much to the government. A fully professional army can be highly effective, but it is expensive, the later Empire had to train more and more cavalry and at the same time support the expensive army, which meant that the Roman Empire bankrupted in the west.

Nice..... but, did they really use that long blade?

I think the Roman Empire fell due to the post-Commodus civil wars, which caused severe damage and chaos... The Empire of Diocletian was almost a different Empire. So, The fall of Rome was not caused by corruption, lost moral values or Germanic invasion; the Germanics really didn't defeat the Empire, it was the Romans themselfs. The Roman principate suffered from lack of accepted dynasty, and that caused civil wars, the civil wars, in turn, caused the destruction of highly trained and equipted legions and severe loss of infrastructure, which the Germanics could sack easily as the Romans were too busy with themselfs. Yes, the Empire lasted for 130 years after the crisis and catastrophe, but it was due to brilliant minds like Diocletian. The armies of the Empire were never again to be as effective as they were under Augustus, Trajan ETC.