What?
First, Hannibal was among the greatest military geniuses in history. It’ s no surprise he did very well.But he didn’t create the legions and developed no new training for them. The point is that everyone in the entire Med came to use Legions, because they worked. That’s no insult.
Based on that cite, the exact equipment of Hannibal’s troops seems to be a matter of opinion. But there’s no doubt the Carthaginian army was a polyglot, mercenary affair.
I concur that being defeated by Hannibal, a first-rate tactician, does not in itself impugn the Roman military system. And they did win the long war, after all.
The organisation and equipment of the legions Hannibal faced was very different from the legions of Julius Ceaser, never mind Constantine. Those were levies not a professional armyl
I think the glued ply construction would make the shield much tougher. Instead of a single plank with the grain going the same way, any projectile now has to go through three separate layers, with the grain going in different directions. You’d probably get more give in the shield as well, also cutting down penetration. Add to that the leather facing, which as you point out is pretty tough as well, and we’ve got a fairly sophisticated protective system made of composite materials.
I think the big advantage of the Roam Army was the ability of large numbers of men to follow orders, and fight in a line. This was a huge advantage when fighting the poorly lead tribesmen that they encountered in Brittania, Gaul etc. But faced with equally disciplined troops (and heavy cavalry), they had no real advantage. What about the decline in the armament of the troops? An Imperial soldier of the 2nd century looks a lot more impressive, that a legionary of the late 4th century-no more lorica segmentata, no more javelin, no more bronze helmets-was this decline or adaptation?
Rome used auxiliaries just like Carthage did (everyone did, then).
Near as I can tell, the failure at Cannae was a tactical failure, specifically how the Roman cavalry was used. That’s more a failure of the Roman army as a whole, not the legions specifically.
Although I get the larger point. And I’m not rooting for the Legions in this debate, sorry if it looks like that. I’d say their much-vaunted superiority was more myth than fact, even in their own timespan. It helps if all the literate guys are on your side - you can gloss over when entire legions just vanish, for instance.
Lorica hamata (mail) was in use before, and continued throughout, the period of segmentata usage, and it’s possible they just decided segmentata wasn’t worth the hassle. - there’s different opinions on how widespread it was, anyway - stuff’s a bitch to put on quickly and repair in the field, apparently, as well as being more expensive. That and/or a changes in tactics in later period.
I’d not say that the javelin was lost - the pilum was replaced by the spiculum, which was better at thrusting but was still throwable, and it was supplemented with several Plumbatae (darts) - later Roman infantry had more missile capability than before, not less, all of “javelin” type.
I’ll grant that the late-period ridge helmet looks like it was pants compared to the one-piece Imperial types. Again, cheaper, but iron helmets were becoming more common from 1st C. onwards anyway.