I have a newb question to ask in regards to the evolution of the Roman military's armor and equipment.
It seems to me that, as far as we know (or at least I know), the personal armor and equipment of the Roman soldier was remarkably static throughout long periods of the Republican era. Of course, the Republic lasted for over roughly 700 years, so to clarify which specific periods I'm inquiring about - say roughly 300 BC through to the time of Pompey and Caesar. Once we get to the 1st Century AD we see a relative explosion in the variation of weapons and armor used by the legions. Do you agree? Or do I have it wrong?
For a quick example of the information I'm drawing conclusions from, look at the widespread use of Montefortino helmet over centuries versus the abundance in helmet variation post 1st. century AD.
Basically my questions are: do you agree that the equipment of the Republican legions seems to be relatively static in comparison with the equipment of the Imperial period? Do you think that this accurately reflects historical reality, or is this skewed perspective the result of a lack of evidence? Economic/social explanation perhaps?
Once again, I'm new to RAT and re-enacting, but I find that I have an affinity for the Republican period, and have found it odd that for all of the information that we have from, and glory attributed to the Roman Republic, we have only a very opaque idea as to what the Republican legions would have looked like.
During the early Republic, probably up until the Marian reforms, most armor was the responsibility and possession of the soldier himself. There were very many sorts, and it may well be that the coin purse of the soldier had more to do with the style of armor as did the fashion of the day. A man could have patterned his armor after Greeks, Etruscans, or whomever he was near and could purchase parts from.
I also being a newbie have a question regarding armor. In the post about the 9th Legion MCBishop stated that "everyone knows there was no such thing as leather armor." I was under the impression that leather armor was used quite a bit.
Avete!
While I tend to agree that the selection of things like helmets is more limited in the Republic, I don't think it was necessarily as "static" as you might think. Sure, the classic legionary wears a Montefortino helmet and a mail shirt. But remember that up until Marius, many troops were wearing only a pectoral, and we know there was quite a bit of variation in those. There was also scale armor, and at least early on there would have been muscled cuirasses and quite probably organic armors as well, though those don't show up in literary references. There were also a few other kinds of helmets, such as Attic and Italo-Corinthian. Shields varied in size, and possibly in color and decoration though we never have enough evidence about that. Helmets of all types changed over time, however subtly, and it is possible to tell earlier Montefortinos apart from later ones.
By the end of the Republic, there is a lot more non-Italian influence starting to show up, so yes, you get a wider range of helmets from which to choose. We just don't know how much of that was left up to personal choice! Mail and scale armor are still very much used, plus of course the lorica segmentata. But the muscled cuirass is only for officers, and the pectoral is gone. On the other hand, there is clear evidence for some legionaries with no body armor at all.
Probably a lot of the impression of "static-ness" in the Republic is indeed due to a relative lack of evidence. There is certainly more out there than gets good press, at least! And new bits keep popping up that are completely new and different in some way, helping to dispel the idea of homogeneity.
However, keep in mind the immense power of FASHION. Just because a Republican legionary was free to equip himself as he liked did not mean there were very many Darth Vader masks in the ranks! Fashion and custom had a very tight grip on every aspect of life back then, and it was very rare for people to buck the system without good cause (except for a few wacko celebrities like Julius Caesar!).
Quote:I also being a newbie have a question regarding armor. In the post about the 9th Legion MCBishop stated that "everyone knows there was no such thing as leather armor." I was under the impression that leather armor was used quite a bit.
Oh, young Jedi, I fear the good Mr. Bishop may have inadvertently laid a trap for you! Arguments about leather armor have been long and harsh (even worse on other boards than here!), but the bottom line is that the *evidence* for any significant use of leather armor by the Romans in the later Republic or Principate is *almost* entirely lacking. It was really rare, if used at all, in other words. Leather and rawhide were obviously used for many things back then, and I suspect that actual leather armor may have been more common in earliest centuries of Rome (Monarchy and early Republic). After all, it is now pretty well established that the Greek cuirass we used to call "linothorax" was more likely called the spolas, and made of leather. It would only be natural for Romans in the Classical and Hellenistic era to use something similar. I can't help thinking that a lot of that may have gone away after the introduction of mail, but I've got nothing solid to back that up with.
Welcome to the dogfight!
Valete,
Matthew
Thank you David and Matthew for your informative responses. I see that Republican armor is not as static as I once thought. Still, wouldn't it be nice for more and more of that veritable drug we call archaeological evidence? Boggles the mind to wonder what information we could be missing :grin:
Since I've reconnected with my passion for ancient (of course particularly Roman) history, I've often found myself daydreaming about these kinds of questions. What would it really have been like to be there? Would we find ourselves in a world rather more or less as our minds recreate them (and of course physically through historical re-enactment)? Or would we find ourselves in a world totally surprising and somewhat alien?
Regardless, thanks for the info guys.
Thanks to all of you for your patience. This site is going to be fun very educational. Like Alexand96 I am getting back to it and finding out how little I know.
You're both very welcome. And not to worry, by the time you read through even a fraction of the good stuff here, you'll know a LOT LESS than you do now, ha! As I say, good research generally questions the answers rather than answering the questions.
Valete,
Matthew
Quote: Oh, young Jedi, I fear the good Mr. Bishop may have inadvertently laid a trap for you! Arguments about leather armor have been long and harsh (even worse on other boards than here!), but the bottom line is that the *evidence* for any significant use of leather armor by the Romans in the later Republic or Principate is *almost* entirely lacking. It was really rare, if used at all, in other words. Leather and rawhide were obviously used for many things back then, and I suspect that actual leather armor may have been more common in earliest centuries of Rome (Monarchy and early Republic). After all, it is now pretty well established that the Greek cuirass we used to call "linothorax" was more likely called the spolas, and made of leather. It would only be natural for Romans in the Classical and Hellenistic era to use something similar. I can't help thinking that a lot of that may have gone away after the introduction of mail, but I've got nothing solid to back that up with.
Welcome to the dogfight!
Valete,
Matthew
Not to butt in on the debate but is there any evidence of leather being worn in conjunction with metal armors such as mail?
The Late Roman description of the thoracomacus describes an outer layer--or a separate garment--of leather to serve as weather protection. So the use of leather as part of an armor under-garment is generally accepted as an option. There is also evidence for weather covers for helmets and armor, and leather seems a logical choice for things like that. Like I said, they used a lot of leather! But those particular things are not *armor*.
Vale,
Matthew
Actually, both times the Thoracomacus is mentioned in 'De Rebus Bellicis' (DRB XV & XIX) it could be argued that the author of DRB states that the infantry could be protected purely by wearing the Thoracomacus alone.
And surely no one is 100% that Roman infantry never worn leather armour (I have a feeling Graham Sumner believes they may have if memory serves?)
Quote:Actually, both times the Thoracomacus is mentioned in 'De Rebus Bellicis' (DRB XV & XIX) it could be argued that the author of DRB states that the infantry could be protected purely by wearing the Thoracomacus alone.
So? The thoracomachus is described as being made of cloth with a leather cover. Most people would classify that as cloth armour, not leather armour.
Quote:Actually, both times the Thoracomacus is mentioned in 'De Rebus Bellicis' (DRB XV & XIX) it could be argued that the author of DRB states that the infantry could be protected purely by wearing the Thoracomacus alone.
The illustration that I remember seeing in the medieval manuscript of it looked a lot like a 13th century gambeson, a quilted padded tunic. There are some earlier Roman illustrations that also seem to show something quilted. But I get the impression that the *padding* is the defense against weapons, while the leather covering is more for keeping the rain off it.
Quote:And surely no one is 100% that Roman infantry never worn leather armour (I have a feeling Graham Sumner believes they may have if memory serves?)
Oh, there are a few! Obviously it's not a tenable position. All we can say is that the reliable evidence is so scarce that it could not have been common in the late Republic or Principate.
Vale,
Matthew
Something to keep in mind also is that the Romans had just begun to expand outside of Italy in 200 BC, its no surprise that for quite a bit of the Republic, styles and armor changed little, as they were all relatively Italians based for the first 500 years of the Republic.
What we know to be the sterotypical Roman soldier was of course based on what they learned of conquered people. I believe the Gladius originated in Spain, and the style of Imperial helmets we are most familiar with originated in Gaul
Well, to a certain extent, yes, but "Italian" did not mean homogeneity. From the very start, Rome was fighting and exchanging influence with Sabines, Etruscans, Samnites, all the Greek cities, etc. And they didn't have to wait until 200 BC to get Gallic influence, since it came right to them in 390 BC! The Romans believed that they had adopted mail from the Gauls, but the very shape of the hamata (Gallic or Roman) is *Greek*. The gladius hispaniensis was a Gallic sword adopted by the Spaniards before the Romans picked it up. So influence was moving in all directions and could be indirect.
Matthew
Quote:the very shape of the hamata (Gallic or Roman) is *Greek*. The gladius hispaniensis was a Gallic sword adopted by the Spaniards before the Romans picked it up. So influence was moving in all directions and could be indirect.
Wow, two interesting facts I was not aware of. Come to think of it, the hamata does look a bit like the Greek spolas in design.