why didn't any western european kingdoms try to copy the Roman legions after the fall of Rome.


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

why didn't any western european kingdoms try to copy the Roman legions after the fall of Rome. The romans even by the 5th century were still the best fighters at the time when provided with competent leaders.

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    i know very little about Rome but my guess is that a Roman Legion's existence and expensive, time-consuming maintenance requires a militaristic and martial culture that other countries in the Area did not have

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >best fighters
    >best leaders
    >got conquered by a horde of barbarians
    romebros.. how will we recover?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      They didn't get conquered by barbarians, Odoacer was a roman general and most of the germ were romanized.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        so you was saying they wuz romanz?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >American does same thing
          So?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          kind of, yes. The goths were romaboos

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        I hesitate to call you a retard because your sentences are true, but they were not romans and they certainly were foreign barbarians. So you do get the retard comment.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      because the roman legions were mostly composed by barbarians

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why couldn't Rome reconquer the whole west?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because good emperors don't live forever.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      The legions became mostly barbarian under "Roman" (i.e. Danube hicks/pseudo-barbarians) officers after the Crisis.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Idk man
      hordes of barbarians have proven to be pretty devastating across history lmfao

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Actually even towards the end barbarians avoided pitch battles with the romans bc they would get their asses kicked. But barbarians basically attacked at the right time. Roman corruption had robbed the central government of much needed revenue. The provicnes got tired of following rome orders. Their culture was changing completely with the arrival of Christianity. A Roman born 200 years earlier visiting the alternative Roman empire would not recognize it. The sea trade routes basically evaporated and many people had to return to subsistence economy. The fall of the western empire was more complicated then oh, the barbarians beat us and simply took over.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Christianity happened then the barbarians beat us and simply took over.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Christianity happened then the barbarians beat us and simply took over.

        The first and main reason of the roman decadence was the tremendous economic crisis after Caracalla devalued the coins to an unnaceptable level. Many tried to fix this but made things worse by implanting experimental economic polycies, like Diocletian's edict on maximum prices. This of course would lead directly to the military and political crisis of the third century, which almost completely destroyed the empire.

        The economy wouldn't patch up more or less until Constantine's monetary reformation. Compared to this, the barbarians had a much minor role in this period of decadence. Between media and the biased accounts of historians they made them the main reason when the empire would probably had survived and assimilated them if not because of these crises.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          So.... The earliest precedence of socialism and "central banks" fucking shit up?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Coin clipping was a major problem ever since the time of Julius Caesar. Over time the Roman government made it worse by reducing the precious metal content of the coin and people began to lose interest in the coin along with the breakdown of long distance trade which further weakened the value of roman coins which is why they had to switch to a more feudal system later on for taxes.

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    needed large administation and infrastructure to train such a disciplined army.

    It was much simplier to let your nobility arm and train herself. The reason why warlord cast is so common

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      What stopped the nobles from getting together and just deposing the king with their Personal armies.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lots of intermarriage and as time went on, contractual obligations.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        They hated each other as much as the king

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Sometimes nothing. Sometimes a king had his own support base to back an agenda that might be controversial with most nobles. Usually there was just no point in doing so.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        That happened a lot lol. Also, the nobles needed the king as well since he settled disputes between nobles to stop co stnat wars.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because then you'd have to defend yourself from the others. Plus the king has his own personal troops.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >What stopped the nobles from getting together
        Other nobles.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        If you had three powerful families backing you and intertwined to your own through marriage you could very well hold your own as long as you did not do anything too egregious. Few people would be willing to risk such a thing without overwhelming odds of success and plots were betrayed all the time by simple promises like "thanks for telling me, help me kill this dipshit and you can have his land"

        The cost of trying to usurp your king is death and seizure of all you own. Not just for yourself but for every future generation of your bloodline.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Play Crusader Kings 2 and you might understand why

  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Economy wasn't able to maintain professional armies so kings ended needing warlords (nobility) to lead small armies he summon when wars started in exchange of lands.

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    because they were expensive to maintain and create from both a financial and manpower perspective which is something the various post roman states didn't really have

  6. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    They do. Terms called knight.

  7. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    feudal class structure did not permit it

  8. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Legion useless

  9. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    They did. The militaries of western European post-Roman powers were heavily modeled on the Roman military.
    The Franks centered their military activity around fortified castra and garrisoned them with former laeti. They levied troops in the same way as the Romans and pretty much adopted their organization and command structure.
    The Goths used equipment pretty much identical to the Romans, partly because many of the Roman troops WERE Goths. Troop organization was also similar in this period, with heavy cavalry becoming more dominant on the battlefield.

    here's where you might be getting confused. The guys depicted in your image are from hundreds of years before the barbarian kingdoms appeared at all. The helmets were replaced by eastern designs like pic related. (a very fancy cavalry example but you get the idea). The iconic scutum and gladius had vanished by the third century. They were replaced with ovular shields and long spears that could form an interlocking shield wall, supporting a big change in tactics where the Romans would exert pressure and wait for the enemy to charge, rather than charging in after throwing pila.

    Once you realize that the late Roman "legions" looked very similar to early medieval troops, it makes more sense. Of course barbarians "copied" the roman military, in some cases they were literally the same thing.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The Goths used equipment pretty much identical to the Romans, partly because many of the Roman troops WERE Goths.
      How the bloody hell did they lose to the Moor-Berber?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        > How the bloody hell did they lose to the Moor-Berber?

        Because of the winners keep winning trope.

        You win - get experienced soldiers.
        You lose - you lose experienced soldiers.

        Next battle, enemy has stronger soldiers, and you have non-experienced weak soldiers.

        Arab-Berbers that came there were hardened veterans, whereas the Visigoths didn't have a major conflict in a long time, and whatever little veterans they had died in the initial battle, resulting in Arabs having even more experienced soldiers, and the Visigoths none.

        Same as with Arab conquests of other Arabs, Berbers and especially Sassanids.

        After the first loss, you are basically sending green footers against experienced veterans.

        There's a really good reason Roman soldiers were so shit at the beginning of the Second Punic War, and so fucking good at the end of it and decades after it, it is the same reason, it is always said reason

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Arab-Berbers that came there were hardened veterans, whereas the Visigoths didn't have a major conflict in a long time, and whatever little veterans they had died in the initial battle, resulting in Arabs having even more experienced soldiers, and the Visigoths none.
          There well evidence of non-Arab sailor involved across the sea.

          Also similar conflicts here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cAoinrFMgQ0

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          The muslims had massive israeli support, early iberian umayyads were a judeo-islamic regime

          Here an necessary unheard. The mere thought invading Iberian peninsula was insane for time period. Logical behind geographic location was near nightmare. Somehow advance war like "moorish" managed conquer new territory.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            More importantly warned by Nazi.

            This is an english speaking board

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              Shut up Angloid

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              >This is an english spe-ack burhhhaaa

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            kind of, yes. The goths were romaboos

            They did. The militaries of western European post-Roman powers were heavily modeled on the Roman military.
            The Franks centered their military activity around fortified castra and garrisoned them with former laeti. They levied troops in the same way as the Romans and pretty much adopted their organization and command structure.
            The Goths used equipment pretty much identical to the Romans, partly because many of the Roman troops WERE Goths. Troop organization was also similar in this period, with heavy cavalry becoming more dominant on the battlefield.

            here's where you might be getting confused. The guys depicted in your image are from hundreds of years before the barbarian kingdoms appeared at all. The helmets were replaced by eastern designs like pic related. (a very fancy cavalry example but you get the idea). The iconic scutum and gladius had vanished by the third century. They were replaced with ovular shields and long spears that could form an interlocking shield wall, supporting a big change in tactics where the Romans would exert pressure and wait for the enemy to charge, rather than charging in after throwing pila.

            Once you realize that the late Roman "legions" looked very similar to early medieval troops, it makes more sense. Of course barbarians "copied" the roman military, in some cases they were literally the same thing.

            Gothbros….

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          He is talking about the wars about Vandals VS Berber tribes

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            [...]
            [...]
            You retards
            They are talking about the Vandals VS berber wars

            Vandals don’t speak Gothic.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          The muslims had massive israeli support, early iberian umayyads were a judeo-islamic regime

          internal conflicts. some of them had allied with the muslims and turned on the other visigoths in the middle of battle. the muslims just didn't give a fuck and exterminated all of them

          Becuase the Visigothic kingdom was in the middle of an intense civil war when the Umayyads invaded. Two thirds of the Visigothic army that was sent to fight the invaders refused to fight in the battle of Guadalete because their commanders were disloyal cunts. The king, Roderico, was left all alone and was killed.
          With the death of the last king any semblance of unity among the Visigoths was broken, so the Arabs could just take over each town one by one.
          Most Visigothic nobles thought that the Arabs were just a particularly large band of raiders and that after taking some tribute they would eventually leave. They had no idea they had come to stay until it was way too late. At that point many Visigoths just chose to convert while others fled north to Asturias, the only region which the Muslims failed to conquer since the local Hispano-Roman nobles got their shit together far better than the Visigoths did.

          You retards
          They are talking about the Vandals VS berber wars

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        The muslims had massive israeli support, early iberian umayyads were a judeo-islamic regime

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          It goes further back, the israelites supported the Sassanids against Byzantine as well, opening the gates to many towns in Judea for the Persians

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            It was much worse in iberia, sepharic israelites were for a century in conflict with the crown and were even powerful enough to resist the abolishment of christian slavery, they sided with muslims because they have 0 problems with slavery because their prophet was taking, trading and using slaves himself.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              More importantly warned by Nazi.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        internal conflicts. some of them had allied with the muslims and turned on the other visigoths in the middle of battle. the muslims just didn't give a fuck and exterminated all of them

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >exterminated all of them
          Most get converted and kept theirs land. Only northern rump survived the onslaught.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            yeah i meant their army got btfo'd in that battle

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              Okay, I know.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Becuase the Visigothic kingdom was in the middle of an intense civil war when the Umayyads invaded. Two thirds of the Visigothic army that was sent to fight the invaders refused to fight in the battle of Guadalete because their commanders were disloyal cunts. The king, Roderico, was left all alone and was killed.
        With the death of the last king any semblance of unity among the Visigoths was broken, so the Arabs could just take over each town one by one.
        Most Visigothic nobles thought that the Arabs were just a particularly large band of raiders and that after taking some tribute they would eventually leave. They had no idea they had come to stay until it was way too late. At that point many Visigoths just chose to convert while others fled north to Asturias, the only region which the Muslims failed to conquer since the local Hispano-Roman nobles got their shit together far better than the Visigoths did.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Aftermath one battle decide all fate of all neo-latin. the Visigoths and Astur-Cantabri tribes, under the leadership of an indignant outlaw (Don Pelayo), were busy resurrecting the fallen Gothic army in the remote mountains of Iberia’s last Celtiberian refuge (Asturies). This a final desperate act to preserve a small enclave of Western Christendom in Iberia ended up becoming the genesis of Iberia’s liberation, Spanish/Portuguese national identity, and the rise of two of the greatest empires the world has ever known.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      never knew of that, great reply anon.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      High quality answer on LULZ? pleasant surprise

  10. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    > why didn't any western european kingdoms try to copy the Roman legions

    Because for a large army of heavy infantry you need empowered commoners to make the soldiery, and the medieval societies did not like the notion of giving commoners such a societal position.

    Basically the entire Roman power system was based upon the popularity you had with the soldiers, they will basically carried the entire societal system.

    This would be a terrifying concept to the nobility.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's more that you need a lot of commoners with a strong motivation to fight and train.

      Cities could field pretty competent, well armed militias, they just weren't motivated unless near home. The Parisian militiaman isn't interested in helping you retake Normandy, and isn't going to stay in the field.

  11. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The romans even by the 5th century were still the best fighters at the time when provided with competent leaders.

    And that's where you're wrong kiddo. By 200 ad the legionary system already showed its age, too inflexible, too cumbersome, too slow to react to raids etc.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well yes and no. The legions would still kick 99 percent of enemies buts. But most raids were highly organized bands of 500 to 1000 barbarians. Move in fast and raid and then get the fuck out before a legion showed up.

  12. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The romans even by the 5th century were still the best fighters at the time
    That's not even remotely true according to Ammianus.

    Their government was basically run by Germans and it was Germans that were handling them in every field confrontation. The problem was the Assyrian migration had caused a dwindling of the quality in the base stock.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Majorian was BTFO the germs before he was betrayed by his germ General

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        and later btfo by Goths during invasion of Italy.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Their government was basically run by Germans
      Only Roman citizens could work within the Roman government, in local roles they had to be substantial people in their area and in the central bureaucracy it was more or less impossible without being somewhat wealthy since you had to pay an initial fee to get into the government.
      >The problem was the Assyrian migration had caused a dwindling of the quality in the base stock
      Buzzwords

  13. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    1. They're expensive
    2. They require a level of bureaucracy that medieval kingdoms couldn't support
    3. Standing armies are dangerous to the king

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      /thread

  14. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    cause they couldn't read.

  15. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Maintaining a standing army is extremely expensive and requires an extensive bureaucracy and a monetized economy which they didn't have. They did attempt to follow and model themselves off of the Roman Legion but they obviously couldn't just copy it. The Franks for example were deeply interested in Roman miliary manuals like the De Rei Militari and there is evidence to suggest it was a sort of textbook for many commanders.

    Their society did not allow for the existance of a professional standing army, but they did attempt to copy as much as they could.

  16. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Paying 6,000 men a salary to be professional soldiers is too expensive. Especially if you want 10 legions, that's 60,000 men.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      not to mention these ooga booga kingdoms didn't have any writing or organized system of society or effective tax collection so if you tried to collect taxes from some land owner he would just see this as extortion and attack you.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        No.

  17. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >LARP around parading
    >Win against other LARPers
    >Gloat
    >Go to forest, snownaggers use actual tactics they are not LARPing around
    >You are now starved/dehydrated and havent slept for days
    >Snownaggers keep howling at night killing you one by one
    >Its your turn to die
    >All because you are a parading LARPer who has 0 skill in actual zero sum warfare
    """"""Best"""""" fighters

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Send a cope legion to LARP around some more
        >Get your shit overun in return
        Its the equivalent of some riot cops beating some rioters and then have their police station burned to the ground with them inside

        Formal armies are a bunch of LARPers who can only beat other LARPers. They are never capable of beating peoples who do total war (no vidya pun intended).

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Everyone practiced total war for most of history, retard. Standing armies still shit on everyone else.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Shemcel detected

  18. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Charlemagne had his paladins apparently,and they didn't lose often

  19. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Equipmentwise they did. Your early Medieval Soldier in Continental Europe looks very similar to the late Roman Legions.

    Organizationwise they are not able to. Medieval Europenis realms were feudalistic and were not capable of the centralized administration & logistics that is necessary to maintain the old Legions. Kings then relied on local communities, cities, and individual lords to maintain their own tiny private armies and hope to god they answer a general call to arms when war is afott.

  20. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I can't provide any in depth analysis but I'll add that barbarians using the title Dukes and Counts is an indicator that they adopted Roman military structure

  21. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why would you copy something from losers who lost their empire

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      because it was fucking hard to organise like that. nothing more to say

      idiot. "lost their empire" by replacement theory

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      the ones that lost it were not hte ones that built it

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Why would you copy something from losers who lost their empire

      Thats like what everyone in the Medieval West tried to do.
      >Look at me
      >We wuz Roman Emperorz n shiet.
      >*lives in an old Roman church mistaken for a palace by his ungabunga mind*

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Oh really?

  22. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Romans were not the best. They won because of their massive number against disperse celtic tribes. Added their formation and organization they made it better.

    Just read about the cantabric wars in wikipedia. Just 1 celtic tribe of northern Spain (the cantabros) resisted for 10 years to 8 roman legions+2 maritime legions+the best roman generals+Cesar.

    Or read about the siege of Numantia. They resisted the Romans for 2 years.

  23. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    you couldn't support entity like that in medieval times when states were small. Roman military and state required cura annonae (grain dole) from Africa and Egypt provinces to be sustainable. Once those were conquered by vandals and muslims, it was over.

  24. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    But they did imitated the Roman legions, the Roman legions of the 5 century that looked nothing alike to the Roman legions of the early empire, the Roman legions that were pretty much an extension of the Germanic tribes.

  25. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    1. Cost. It costs a lot to have a proffensional army. Every society has to have most people busy being productive like growing food or building buildings or transporting goods. Only a small amount can dedicate all their te towards warfare.

    2. All that armour and swords and horses and lances and camp followers cost tons of money. So much so that only a few were even capable of paying for a standing army.

    3. Romans had a common cukture and tongue and many other places didn't. Hell there were Frenchman living in the south who couldn't understand what Frenchman living in the north were saying. Likewise for England and Germany and Italy. Nationality didn't exist for awhile.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Hell there were Frenchman living in the south who couldn't understand what Frenchman living in the north were saying
      Richard the lionheart understand both frog tongue.

  26. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Complicated question, complicated answer.

    >why didn't any western european kingdoms try to copy the Roman legions after the fall of Rome.
    They did and didn't, because the Roman legions you're thinking of didn't exist in the same way by that point. The Roman legion was not structured in legions who operated as mini armies of their own, there were field armies running around with the emperor(comitatenses) and then a vast network of rather fluid border guards(limitanei) that were way more entangled with local populations, economies and culture, which is how you ended up having many of them made up of the same barbarian tribes they initially fought, and in a way they became breakaway kingdoms of barbarians that were also legions, the distinction between foreign invader and just rebel army doing a coup de etat was blurred into nonexistence. The Goths who ended up deposing the Western emperor didn't WANT to destroy the empire, they wanted to rule it.

    Those barbarian kingdoms, particularly the Franks, operated more or less the same way before and after Rome collapsed. While Rome was still there they were practically given independence and allowed to pay themselves by taxing the local population, but they still absorbed many of the military traditions of Rome in terms of how they trained their soldiers, how they structured their armies and how they recompensed them for their service(with either land or privileges, that eventually turned into orders and knighthoods).

    >The romans even by the 5th century were still the best fighters at the time when provided with competent leaders.

    That's true but that doesn't mean the conditions that allowed Rome to have half a million of them at a time would return until the modern era. It just takes a varied, continent-spanning economy.

  27. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Roma lost.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      They won eternal glory

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        See

        Phalanx is better.

        Roman legion cannot stand against a heavy cavalry charge with stirrup.

  28. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    A roman legion was a professional voluntary fighting force that received a fair salary.
    Feudalism, which is what came after, follows the tribal tradition of the levies following their warlord into battle.
    It was a completely different way to administer the army, a proper legion wasn't feasable for most medieval kingdoms.

  29. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can't train large, cohesive bodies on infantry without a centralized state. One Europeans had this infantry began dominating war again, but with pikes and guns.

  30. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The romans even by the 5th century were still the best fighters
    Is that why their army was mostly Germanic at that point? I swear, most brainlets like the OP can't be bothered to even read Wikipedia, much an actual history book, before posting their retardese to LULZ.

  31. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    they did

  32. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Phalanx is better.

    Roman legion cannot stand against a heavy cavalry charge with stirrup.

  33. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Formation!

  34. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    10

  35. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Spain had the Rondeleros

  36. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    No money for standing armies

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *