Late Roman Question

[jbd_29349]

I have seen a lot of pictures lately of Late Roman re-enactors and being stuck at home because of a stupid drunk driver I have been playing RTW Barbarian invasion. I have read the sections in the Roman military equipment book by Coulston and Bishop but still have questions.

1. I understand that the stripes on the sleeves, shoulders, and on the lower section of the tunic were in fashion. Was there a meaning to these designs? Status in society, rank, regional?

2. The armour during this period. Was it leather, chainmail, scale or a combination of all?

3. The crossbow, was it a weapon that was in common use at the time? If so was it a design of the ballista but hand held size or more like the medevial version with a "trigger". It did it common about?

4. What equipment was provided by the state, if any?

Thanks!!

[Salvianus]

Hi Joshua,

1 some have suggested there are signals of rank amongst the various combinations, but there is no strong evidence I know of. Multiple stripes appear on children's sized tunics, if I recall correctly.

2 Mostly mail (lorica hamata) or types of scale (lorica squamata). I think Bishop & Coulston are pretty detailed on these, but you can see Armour

3 a torsion catapult (ballista) could be hand held size (presumably the manuballista), according to first century (?) finds e.g. Xanten but I don't know of any of this date. More here . We reconstruct the 'arcuballista' as a 'recurved bow'- crossbow, supported by Pictish a carving & possible trigger-nut find, but others are more sceptical.

4 there were state arms factories (fabricae) across the frontiers of Europe recorded in the Notitia Dignitatum named as producing specific kit, such as armour or bows or ballistae in various combinations - whether this provided all or fairly uniform kit is open to debate as well.

Southern & Dixon 'The Late Roman Army' is a handy guide to issues of supply and organisation.

Hope that helps.

[Robert Vermaat]

being stuck at home because of a stupid drunk driver

Ouch - that's nasty! I hope you're not badly injured?

1. I understand that the stripes on the sleeves, shoulders, and on the lower section of the tunic were in fashion. Was there a meaning to these designs? Status in society, rank, regional?

What Ste said. There's too few and too conflicting evidence to draw detailed conclusions. Indeed, children also show striped cuffs - was that because their fathers were officers, or was it maybe fashion - like modern camouflage clothing for kids does not mean we're a society of kid soldiers! (I bet that will be confusion for future historians :twisted: ).

4. What equipment was provided by the state, if any?

Most of the basic stuff. Linen for tunics, but from what I know, nothing was provided for cloaks or shoes. Armour of course, and basic arms. As soldier you could buy a lot from your pay, and often you were required to, but not everything could be bought privately: there was a state monopoly on manufacturing and trade of swords, but also helmets were manufactured only by the state. I mean, those with the silver and gold on them, because these people could only work for the state.

What that meant for uniformity, as Ste said, is a matter for debate. But frankly I think (personal opinion) that the Late Roman army was much more uniform in its appearance that the armies of the Republic, to name a period.

[jbd_29349]

I have read that the soldiers were armed for there postion with in the battle formation. The front ranks having greaves and probably long sleeve hamatas. The rear ranks having only a helmet and sheild. Is this correct?

I also read that hamata and squamata was common, was their a difference in the two types: rank, region, soldier class?

I read the section for the helmets in "Roman military equipment" by Coulston and Bishop but want to know if I read it correctly.
The ridge helmet was most common. Some helmets, especially towards the end of the Empire, had neck guards hinged in the back as well as nasal guards. They differed a bit going from region to region. Some helmets were even special made for high ranking officers with jewels an inlaid gold/silver.

One question I have is one of the helmets I saw had a metal fin on the top. Was that a helmet of an officer?
I have also seen pictures of the same helmet but with a horse hair crest. Where they officers or just soldiers on parade or both?

The little round fur cap I have seen several re-enactors wear from this time period. Where did this hat come from, Rome's encounters with the Huns?

Thanks!!

[Salvianus]

Most of the basic stuff. Linen for tunics, but from what I know, nothing was provided for cloaks or shoes. Armour of course, and basic arms. As soldier you could buy a lot from your pay, and often you were required to, but not everything could be bought privately: there was a state monopoly on manufacturing and trade of swords, but also helmets were manufactured only by the state. I mean, those with the silver and gold on them, because these people could only work for the state.

Yep, I think the nature of the fabricae indicates they were there to ensure availability of strategic necessities, but we have records (e.g. Bishop & Coulston) of legionaries sending for clothing, equipment and even weapons from home

What that meant for uniformity, as Ste said, is a matter for debate. But frankly I think (personal opinion) that the Late Roman army was much more uniform in its appearance that the armies of the Republic, to name a period.

I think there are remarkably similar finds from different parts of the empire and the homogeneity of the Intercisa helmets suggests that at least a local unit or garrison might sport similar gear (for a handmade era). I recall reference to Roman patterns being used in Britain after the legions' withdrawal, supporting the idea of standardisation. Questions such as whether, in any one period, all legions looked the same, or whether different groups, ranks or troop types within a unit looked the same are intriguing.

I feel a fair degree of uniformity was pursued, but probably slipped under pressure of campaign or financial crisis.

We need more well provenanced finds!

[Robert Vermaat]

@ Ste:

Yep, I think the nature of the fabricae indicates they were there to ensure availability of strategic necessities, but we have records (e.g. Bishop & Coulston) of legionaries sending for clothing, equipment and even weapons from home

Absolutely right, which is why I mentioned the state supply of basic tunics only, as well as only a sword monopoly. I bet that socks, underwear and better quality clothes were purchased locally, or sent from home. helmets were state-only provided, apart from leather helmets or foreign stuff, all will most probably have come from the fabricae. Weapons is the tricky bit - we know how strickt they were about swords, but to what extent did the ban on citizens ownership of weapons exclude hunting weapons or supplies for the trops, you think?

Questions such as whether, in any one period, all legions looked the same, or whether different groups, ranks or troop types within a unit looked the same are intriguing.

Indeed! But of course there will have been local differences, I'm sure each fabrica will have had it's own 'type'. Troops from the East may have looked different from Western troops, also due to local influence of course.

I feel a fair degree of uniformity was pursued, but probably slipped under pressure of campaign or financial crisis.

Sure. We know of cavalry units without horses, or units without armour - even during the 4th c., times could be bad, so we should not expect armies that were always well-equipped. For that reason I never saw any chance for 'Arthurian cataphracts'...

@ Joshua:

I have read that the soldiers were armed for there postion with in the battle formation. The front ranks having greaves and probably long sleeve hamatas. The rear ranks having only a helmet and sheild. Is this correct?

yes and no. First odf all, that's a practical guideline for a late-6th c. army, and we can't know if this would have been common practise during the 5th or 4th c. it's practical though, which means that when not everybody is armoured, you apparently place the armoured guys in the front line, with the rest in suppoert with the hastae. AND in the last line, should the unit be required to fight an enemy from behind.

I also read that hamata and squamata was common, was their a difference in the two types: rank, region, soldier class?

Not that wer know of. Officers fought at the front or near the front, and the men protecting them (they might be called the antesignani) would all have been well-armoured. A squamata would be of more use to a cavalryman, but I guess there is no evidence that there was some rule about that.

I read the section for the helmets in "Roman military equipment" by Coulston and Bishop but want to know if I read it correctly.
The ridge helmet was most common. Some helmets, especially towards the end of the Empire, had neck guards hinged in the back as well as nasal guards. They differed a bit going from region to region. Some helmets were even special made for high ranking officers with jewels an inlaid gold/silver.

All ridge helmets had hinged neck plates.
Some helmets had nasals.
Some hemets have (glass, so fake) jewellery on them, most probably gifts for officers or brave soldiers, or extravaganza. Not inlaid gold/silver, but all helmets (apart from one so far) had a tiny layer of silver/giulded silver o their seperate parts (from rivets to plates). maybe to cover against rust. But that included the most basic helmets for the most lowly soldiers.

One question I have is one of the helmets I saw had a metal fin on the top. Was that a helmet of an officer?
I have also seen pictures of the same helmet but with a horse hair crest. Where they officers or just soldiers on parade or both?

We don't really know. One text (Vegetius) seems to indicate that, but we see them often enough to doubt that a bit, it may have been fashion.
The horse crest (that's the replica of the Augst helmet) is an interpretation, because this helmet had an detachable (but lost) crest.

The little round fur cap I have seen several re-enactors wear from this time period. Where did this hat come from, Rome's encounters with the Huns?

No, it was a fashion from Illyria (the Balkans) which spread throughout the Empire: it's called a pilleus Pannonicus and it was worn by beggars and emperors.

[jbd_29349]

In most of the illustrations and pictures I have seen of late Roman soldiers they have a spear, but I have heard and seen the plumata.

Would each soldier have both the spear and the plumata or is this two different types of infantry?

[Mithras]

The plumbata seems to have been an ancilliary missile weapon, probably of short length. Some reconstructions have looked at metre-length shafts, but more common (and more useable!) are shafts of around 30-40cm. Legionaries in the front ranks could carry several as well as a spear or a spiculum (a light javelin like a light version of the old pilum).

[/img]

[Robert Vermaat]

Joshua,

We've discussed plumbatae at length here: http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=1689

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Robert / Vortigern,

The horse crest (that's the replica of the Augst helmet) is an interpretation, because this helmet had an detachable (but lost) crest.

Do you know of any references to horse hair crests during the Late Roman period ? I seem to have found one. It's a panegyric to Aetius by Merobaudes so it may just be poetic license : "Sitting here under a jutting cliff, cruel Enyo had hidden a madness driven to flight beneath a long- lasting peace. She was distressed because the world was without distress. She groans in sadness at the rejoicing. Her ugly face is caked with hideous filth, and dried blood is still on her clothing. Her chariot is tilited back, and the harness hangs stiff. Her helmet's crest droops."

Clearly the crest is horse hair and not a metal fin. But I'm not sure how useful this passage may be for interpreting the use of crests in contemporary times (i.e. the 5th century).

~Theo

[Robert Vermaat]

Do you know of any references to horse hair crests during the Late Roman period ?

Another reference from Cinesius.

Of course, both references are very vague, and not necessarily proof that the authors don't have some archaic image in mind. But we have also this image from the 5th-c. Vergilius:

[Theodosius the Great]

Yes, proof is hard to come by, it seems. But it could be considered evidence nonetheless ?

Thanks for the link and photo !

Laudes

~Theo

[Caballo]

Re the Vergilius illustration:-
-Shield shape and style look Late Roman/ attested elsewhere
-Cloak style look Late Roman/ attested elsewhere
-Squamata- ditto
-Tunic- long sleeved, possibly with stripes on (ditto)
-Late Roman style leg wrappings (ditto)

Given that, my vote would be that the horse hair crest depiction may be as close as we'll get . Not proof, but certainly strong evidence IMHO!

[Mithras]

You don't have to stray into poetry or hotly-debated Manuscript illustrations, turn to Ammianus Marcellinus who is regarded as quite a faithful recorder of what he saw:

In Book 24 6.6, not only does he describe soldiers trying to cross a river on their 'broad, curved shields' English translation, Walter Hamilton. Outside Ctesiphon he also describes

"..when both sides were in full view of each other, the Romans in their gleaming crested helmets advanced slowly swinging their shields as if to the beat of an anapaestic rhythm."

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Mithras,

Based on your quote, Ammianus' description of crested helmets is ambiguous. It could either mean horse hair, feathers, or a metal fin.

My original question was about horse hair crests in the Late Empire.

~Theo