Oman VS Vegetius on Late Roman Legions

[Pisces Axxxxx]

We all know the criticism Vegetius gives on the late Roman Legions lacking the iron rigid discipline that earlier Legionnaires had and also how Vegetius criticizes contemporary Roman Infantry as being too lightly armored and lacking the heavy arms older Roman Infantry had.In Vegetius's view the late Roman Legions were a shadow of their former selves.

 

However Oman, who wrote the classic Military History work "The Art of War In the Middle Ages", begs to disagree.

 

He states that the reason for the changes from heavy infantry to lightly armed infantry was not out of decay but out of practicality. Rome was constantly fighting cavalry and the Roman Legions lacked the maneuverability and flexibility to counter them. In addition Oman states that throwing javelins were far more effective against the cavalry of the Goths and other barbarians.

 

Basically Oman's views is that the transition from heavy infantry wielding gladius and rectangular shields to lighter infantry wielding oval shields and Javelins was one of practicality to counter new threats along with the gradual rise of elite heavy cavalry that would later become what we know as "Knights" near the end of the Roman empire.

 

In addition, Oman states that Vegetius paints an incredibly Romantic, if not fantasist, view of the Roman Legions and is ignoring how different warfare has changed from older times. That Vegetius was not a Military man and lacked any real experience in warfare of the period and he was over exaggerating the Discipline and Fighting efficiency of the Roman Legions in the past.

 

What do you think?Oman seems to be the more realist of the two and he gave a brief but convincing explanation of why the transition of the Roman Legions into lighter infantry and later Elite Heavy Cavalry (that would evolve into what was known as Knights in the Middle Ages) was not one of decay of the Roman Legions but one of absolute practicality and it was actually the right choice.

 

Just a word of note, Oman is among the Classic scholars of the Medieval Ages and much of his knowledge of Roman Civilization seemed to be mostly around the late period when Rome was finally going to collapse and the Dark Ages were coming.

Edited November 25, 2012 by Pisces Adonis

[GhostOfClayton]

He states that the reason for the changes from heavy infantry to lightly armed infantry was not out of decay but out of practicality. Rome was constantly fighting cavalry and the Roman Legions lacked the maneuverability and flexibility to counter them.

 

You have to take into account that, to a degree, the new, flexible, mobile legions were a cheaper compromise to having the vast, more permanently-based heavy infantry based legions. The need to cut numbers meant they had to move to where they were needed, and so needed to be more nimble. If money wasn't an issue, I doubt this step-change would have happend, though there would almost certainly have been a steady evolution in techniques to counter the increased use of heavy cavalry by the 'enemy'.

[Melvadius]

Possibly you should consider this review which promulgates the view that one of the strongest influences on the Chivalric period was actually Vegetius whose work formed the basis for much of medieval thoughts on chivalry, warfare, tactics in general and in the construction of early siege weapons.

 

While Vegetius may not have been a military man himself and possibly concatenated ideas he came across the major caveat to this was that he was not trying to write a history of Roman military tactics which Oman was (or at least their development into the Medieval military tradition). Vegetius was more trying to find a means out of the problem that the Romans found themselves in in the late fourth century of not enough man power, or at least not enough willing to fight, and severe constraints on military and other resources. On the plus side Vegetius does seem to have had access to a lot of Roman military reference works which were not available after the late Roman period or at least were not found until after the medieval period.

 

As to Oman, when taking the long view, as new information becomes available he has some of the same faults as Vegetius in that his writing can be open to re-interpretation and may occasionally be simply wrong.

 

No one is perfect 100% of the time and it is probably instinctive in every writer to emphasise different aspects to make a point even ignoring obvious errors in their interpretation if it does not suit the story they are trying to tell. This is an aspect of all writers not just those writing in antiquity or about historic topics.

[barca]

We all know the criticism Vegetius gives on the late Roman Legions lacking the iron rigid discipline that earlier Legionnaires had and also how Vegetius criticizes contemporary Roman Infantry as being too lightly armored and lacking the heavy arms older Roman Infantry had.In Vegetius's view the late Roman Legions were a shadow of their former selves.

 

However Oman, who wrote the classic Military History work "The Art of War In the Middle Ages", begs to disagree.

 

He states that the reason for the changes from heavy infantry to lightly armed infantry was not out of decay but out of practicality. Rome was constantly fighting cavalry and the Roman Legions lacked the maneuverability and flexibility to counter them. In addition Oman states that throwing javelins were far more effective against the cavalry of the Goths and other barbarians.

 

Basically Oman's views is that the transition from heavy infantry wielding gladius and rectangular shields to lighter infantry wielding oval shields and Javelins was one of practicality to counter new threats along with the gradual rise of elite heavy cavalry that would later become what we know as "Knights" near the end of the Roman empire.

 

In addition, Oman states that Vegetius paints an incredibly Romantic, if not fantasist, view of the Roman Legions and is ignoring how different warfare has changed from older times. That Vegetius was not a Military man and lacked any real experience in warfare of the period and he was over exaggerating the Discipline and Fighting efficiency of the Roman Legions in the past.

 

What do you think?Oman seems to be the more realist of the two and he gave a brief but convincing explanation of why the transition of the Roman Legions into lighter infantry and later Elite Heavy Cavalry (that would evolve into what was known as Knights in the Middle Ages) was not one of decay of the Roman Legions but one of absolute practicality and it was actually the right choice.

 

Just a word of note, Oman is among the Classic scholars of the Medieval Ages and much of his knowledge of Roman Civilization seemed to be mostly around the late period when Rome was finally going to collapse and the Dark Ages were coming.

 

 

There was nothing novel about the cavalry that the late Roman Legions faced if not perhaps for the Huns with their asymmetric hunnic bow, which allowed for a much stronger draw strength in the pre-stirrup era.

 

The legions of old were very successful against numerous foes that vastly outnumbered them in cavalry. Look at the battles of Lucullus, Ventidius, Pompei, against their eastern foes and see how well they handled armies that were vastly superior in cavalry. And of course there were exceptions such as Crassus' blunder, but overall, the legions of old did fairly well against cavalry.

 

Also, javelins throwing would not be the best counter for cavalry. A tightly knit pike formation would be the way to go.

[Onasander]

Umm.... no. It's ridiculously.... you don't op for less shielding and nimblesness against a calvary archer force, or shock attack forces. That... is stupid. They were not out there dodging arrows.

 

Roman Army got lazy. Outside of the ore needed, and the soldiers pay, everything needed, including black smithing skills and training for horse and infantry, could of been simply "made" locally by a far sighted commander or governor. It's basically what they did during the middle ages under feudalism.

 

Just suggests Rome was over centralized, the Roman army became lax in terms of foreign deployments and standardization, and the emperors just didn't care about quality over quantity anymore.

 

A severe contraction of a economy in ancient times means less logistics by sea, but not in attracting hungry recruits willing for less pay but more food and job security. They can maintain their own herds, cut their own lumber, train their own men, etc.

 

Just that gold and silver is useful for mercenary troops, attracting and retaining better commanders, hiring highly qualified architects for forttesses, paying local governors, etc.