Aldarion

Vegetius believed that Roman army had declined in discipline and was thus decisively inferior compared to its Principate predecessor, and outlined how to fix these issues. But just because he believed that doesn't mean it is true. Roman army of the Dominate may have been inferior to army of the Principate in carrying out its task - but that does not mean the army itself was inferior, because the overall situation was completely different. Basically, enemy gets the vote.

Things are obviously relative. What was "sophisticated C&C" back in antiquity would be children-level today. But Byzantine army for example was capable of forming an infantry square, having cavalry attacking from said infantry square in a pincer maneuver, and retreat back to protection of the square following the attack if said attack didn't break the enemy. Or look at what Alexander did at Gaugamela: https://kosmossociety.chs.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Gaugamela-One.jpg Romans during the Principate did avoid such complex maneuvers, but late Roman army was capable of them. Look at the Battle of Strasbourg for example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=battle+of+strasbourg&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=image Something like this would be completely outside the capability of your average Greek phalanx. Hence, "sophisticated command and control". although obviously limited communications would have required most of this stuff to be preplanned (aka "if the enemy does X, you do Y"). I doubt commander would have immediate control over any part of his army other than maybe reserve and his own escort. Thanks, but even so, nothing you have described shows that late Roman army was in any way inferior to army of the Principate, or incapable of - for the time - sophisticated maneuvers. It just shows us a lot of confusion and politicking, the same thing which doomed the Romans at Manzikert.

I don't think we can extrapolate anything from Adrianople alone. That is like judging the Byzantine army by that one mismanagement at Manzikert. Premodern armies were extremely sensitive to leadership qualities, and Valens was simply a bad general. Post-Hunnic Roman Army (5th, 6th and 7th centuries) utilized horse archers rather extensively, including the Hunnic mercenaries. This alone would, I think, disprove the assertion that they lacked sophisticated command and control, because horse archers pretty much require it to be effective. Narses' tactics at battle of Casillinum, for example: (Of course, Narses may have been an exceptionally good commander - but army still had to be versatile enough to actually allow for such tactics).

Eh, depends on what "Romans" you are talking about, exactly. What you wrote here is true for certain periods of Republic and early Empire... but late Republican legions were extremely tactically flexible, and when you look at the stuff that late Roman and Byzantine armies regularly pulled off... Roman tactics could get extremely sophisticated when need be.

Look at the emperors: ones that didn't die a violent death or from disease tended to reach 60 years of age or so.

Do keep in mind however that they never were primary or at least sole weapons. Short swords were a part of the weapons system, which combined throwing spear, large shield and a short sword. Usage of short sword was dependant on pila, with Roman legionaries acting more like heavy skirmishers. With late legions, we see spear become a primary close quarters weapon, while ranged attack was done by using darts (plumbata) and archers. But yes, usage of short sword does seem linked to usage of rectangular scutum. When Romans transition to round shields and shield walls, we also see them switch to thrusting spears and long swords. Thing with warfare however is that you cannot reduce it to a competition of weapons systems. People matter - wars are contests between people, first and foremost, and deciding factor in battle are morale, tactics and training, with weapons being somewhere at the bottom.

Still, it is a fact that Romans were exceptional in terms of their military engineering. Army built those bridges, and also often built civilian infrastructure as well. And Roman marching camps, while far from unique in terms of having a pallisade, were noted as being unusually sturdy and well-defended compared to their Greek counterparts.

I am a fan of Middle Byzantine army. However, I had found indications that origins of thematic system of military lands may well go far further back into past than 7th century (if indeed field armies were given lands then). For example, limitanei and possibly even legions may have worked, or sustained themselves, from the lands surrounding their camps - so-called prata legionis. What information is there about prata legionis, and how does it relate - in terms of function, specifics and origins - to stratioka ktemata?