RomanArmyTalk

Would the late western roman army vary much from region to region? Should they dress the same, share culture, have regional identities?

Hi Ian,

Could you specify a bit more? Which period are you looking for? Which regions?

I,m interested in Britain and Gaul mostly and along the Rhine/Danube frontier zone. As for time period mostly 4th but up to late 5th century would also be interesting.

I'm not sure that there would have been any real difference between the troop in the Eastern or Western halves of the Roman Empire during the 4th Century. They would have received the same equipment and tunics from state factories, the only noticable difference would have been a greater number of Clibanarii in the East. As more and more 'barbarians', such as the Goths, Huns and Alans were recruited from the late 4th Century there may have been some slippage in clothing and equipment until this new influx could be clothed and equipped in the Roman style.

Thanks for your reply. So would you consider the troops in Britannia and Gaul to all share the same belief systems, dress the same, and be armed the same?

Quote:Thanks for your reply. So would you consider the troops in Britannia and Gaul to all share the same belief systems, dress the same, and be armed the same?

Its a very complicated picture. Many of the troops were recruited from tribes across the Rhine and Danube, as well as Britain, Gaul, Egypt, Africa, and the Middle East. They had either Christian or Pagan leanings, probably more Christian as the 4th Century came to an end. They often returned home on leave and that could lead to problems such as them giving their tribesmen too much information which could then be used by that tribe as a basis for raids into Roman territory. I see no reason why a legionarii or auxilia soldier in Britain would be clothed or armed differently to their counter-part stationed in Constantiople, apart from having to have warmer clothing for the winter.

that's great thanks for your input. I was hoping to get some opinions on the matter to help my understanding for an essay I am writing. It's great to have views from other people to help supplement my reading.

Quote:Its a very complicated picture. Many of the troops were recruited from tribes across the Rhine and Danube, as well as Britain, Gaul, Egypt, Africa, and the Middle East. They had either Christian or Pagan leanings, probably more Christian as the 4th Century came to an end. They often returned home on leave and that could lead to problems such as them giving their tribesmen too much information which could then be used by that tribe as a basis for raids into Roman territory. I see no reason why a legionarii or auxilia soldier in Britain would be clothed or armed differently to their counter-part stationed in Constantiople, apart from having to have warmer clothing for the winter.

I agree mostly with Adrian, but I'd like to make two additions.
One, troops bought a lot of their clothes themselves towards the end of the 5th century. That would mean that their outfits would be different according to local fashion.
Two, Adrian mentions legionarii/auxilia, but after Diocletian the 'auxilia' was no longer the same as that of the army of the Principate: the army was divided between comitatenses (field army) and limitanei (frontier troops), the auxilia bing the name for new elite regiments, often attached to the emperor.

Quote:after Diocletian the 'auxilia' was no longer the same as that of the army of the Principate: the army was divided between comitatenses (field army) and limitanei (frontier troops), the auxilia bing the name for new elite regiments, often attached to the emperor.

Just to (perhaps) confuse the picture a little, what do people nowadays make of Speidel's idea (1996 I think) that the auxilia palatina of the later empire were barbarian federate troops - and so would perhaps have been armed and equipped in their native fashion? (to be fair, Speidel doesn't actually say this, but his point about the Regii, for example, being the Alammanic tribesmen brought into Roman service under King Crocus by Constantius implies that they were fairly unRomanised). Would these 'barbarian' auxilia draw their arms and equpiment (and possibly clothing) from the state fabricae, and end up looking much like regular troops, or would they retain their tribal costumes, weapons etc?

Quote:Just to (perhaps) confuse the picture a little, what do people nowadays make of Speidel's idea (1996 I think) that the auxilia palatina of the later empire were barbarian federate troops - and so would perhaps have been armed and equipped in their native fashion? (to be fair, Speidel doesn't actually say this, but his point about the Regii, for example, being the Alammanic tribesmen brought into Roman service under King Crocus by Constantius implies that they were fairly unRomanised). Would these 'barbarian' auxilia draw their arms and equpiment (and possibly clothing) from the state fabricae, and end up looking much like regular troops, or would they retain their tribal costumes, weapons etc?

I see no problem in the auxilia palatina being recruited of mostly Germanic troops, because that's not a radical innovation. I do think that recruiting one tribe (part) under one leader would be foolish though, because if you don't control the leader you end up with a rebellious unit. I'd like to think of the auxilia therefore as recruited from Germanic volunteers.

As to these troops retaining their own clothing and weapons, I don't think so. For one, we never see this in Roman artwork - to the contrary, when we see Late Roman guards, they are always dressed and equipped like Roman troops. We see the same thing whether elite troops were drawn from Germanic regions or later when they were drawn from Isaurians, the outward appearance does not change.

I’ve included 3 images below: guards from Theodosius to Justinian.

Perhaps only a longer haircut distinguishes them from common Roman troops, but the Roman army seems to have - specialist weapons excluded perhaps - to have refitted every soldier that entered its service. It was one of the maim attractions (apart from the money) to gain access to such a limitless supply of material I suppose.

Lastly, I do not think that federates would enter such elite units. Federates were, after all, bound by a treaty that was in most cases forced upon them after a defeat by Roman forces. Their duty to supply troops for the Roman army was different from treaties such as that of the Batavi, who could serve in guard units because they were not settled within Roman territory after a defeat.

Guards of Theodosius:
[attachment=3285]Guardstheodosius.jpg[/attachment]

Guard of Constantius II:
[attachment=3286]Guardsconstantius.jpg[/attachment]

Guards of (a) Valentinian:
[attachment=3287]Guardvalentinian.jpg[/attachment]

Guards of Justinian:
[attachment=3288]Guardsjustinian.jpg[/attachment]

Thanks for the images - I hadn't seen them in such detail. The expressions of the Theodosian guards are wonderful - I assume the emperor has just done or said something particularly magnificent and awe-inspiring! hock:

Quote:I do think that recruiting one tribe (part) under one leader would be foolish though, because if you don't control the leader you end up with a rebellious unit.

True, although in the case of Crocus and his Alamanni this does seem to have been the case (I see there's a 2009 essay by Drinkwater that appears to question Speidel's assumptions, but it's too recent to be accessed via JSTOR!). There's also the Gothic contingent that joined Galerius for his Persian campaign, then returned home, presumably under their own leaders. Possibly this early use of 'foederati' (which surely had its roots in the third century) was discontinued in the fourth (perhaps precisely due to the institution of the auxilia palatinae?) , before returning again later in the century in its more known form?

Quote:As to these troops retaining their own clothing and weapons, I don't think so. For one, we never see this in Roman artwork

The guard troops would certainly be eager to dress in the best that Rome could provide - however, there's not much evidence for what the average German would be wearing at the time, so perhaps there wouldn't be too much difference anyway! It's interesting to speculate (returning slightly to topic) how different the limitanei troops of the Alammanic and Vandalic cohorts in Egypt (who could plausibly have been there since the third century) might have appeared from their 'brothers' in the auxilia.

Quote:Perhaps only a longer haircut distinguishes them from common Roman troops

Is this longer haircut itself a Germanic fashion? I wondered whether the longer hair of Constantius II and other later emperors might be an adoption of the styles of their own guard corps?

As an aside to the issue of Germans in guard units, the inscription from Trier to Hariulfus, son of Hanhavaldus of the Burgundian royalty, who died a protectore domesticus at the age of twenty, suggests that plenty of relatively unRomanised aristocratic Germans were taken into the guard (inscription undated, possibly Valentinian era - his uncle Reutilo set up the stone, and was probably another Burgundian protector himself)

Quote:I do not think that federates would enter such elite units. Federates were, after all, bound by a treaty that was in most cases forced upon them after a defeat by Roman forces.

But that's Speidel's point, surely? Were the laeti not compelled to provide military service? They had originally been defeated - although the Batavi (actually Franks?) of Toxiandra appear in guard units quite early, surely it was only defeat by the Romans that brought large numbers into service? - Rome first demonstrates to the barbarians that they have the power to (re)conquer territory or to repel incursions, then imposes conditions of resettlement and/or federate military service (although how much force might be involved, and how much this is just the panegyricists and others making things look good, is debatable!).

Hi Nathan,

Quote: Thanks for the images - I hadn't seen them in such detail. The expressions of the Theodosian guards are wonderful - I assume the emperor has just done or said something particularly magnificent and awe-inspiring! hock:

My pleasure, they are all from the www.  I think they just heard the amount of their upcoming donative…

Quote: Possibly this early use of 'foederati' (which surely had its roots in the third century) was discontinued in the fourth (perhaps precisely due to the institution of the auxilia palatinae?) , before returning again later in the century in its more known form?

Or perhaps it was a case of incidents, involving a smaller number of men, while on the other hand there were quite a number of men employed in the auxilia palatina?

Quote: The guard troops would certainly be eager to dress in the best that Rome could provide - however, there's not much evidence for what the average German would be wearing at the time, so perhaps there wouldn't be too much difference anyway! It's interesting to speculate (returning slightly to topic) how different the limitanei troops of the Alammanic and Vandalic cohorts in Egypt (who could plausibly have been there since the third century) might have appeared from their 'brothers' in the auxilia.

To that I can but offer speculation.
However, as the Roman state offered only Roman-produced weapons and clothing to the military (as no small amount of their payment), how would Germanic troops have kept their gear in good shape, when not provided with replacements?
Also, we see quite some export of military-related artifacts (such as swords, belt-sets and fibulae) from Roman to Germanic territory. It’s generally assumed that these were issued to Germanic recruits when they entered Roman military service, and taken home again after they left.
To me, all of the above suggests that Germanic troops were normally kitted out by the Roman army upon entering service. This may have lapsed of course during the 5th c. in the West, when resources dwindled. It may have become easier to employ Germanic tribes by the dozen when they came equipped.

Quote: Is this longer haircut itself a Germanic fashion? I wondered whether the longer hair of Constantius II and other later emperors might be an adoption of the styles of their own guard corps?

. A good question! But why do we see Roman troops always short-cropped, and only these guards with long manes? Did the emperors also have such long hair?

Quote: As an aside to the issue of Germans in guard units, the inscription from Trier to Hariulfus, son of Hanhavaldus of the Burgundian royalty, who died a protectore domesticus at the age of twenty, suggests that plenty of relatively unRomanised aristocratic Germans were taken into the guard (inscription undated, possibly Valentinian era - his uncle Reutilo set up the stone, and was probably another Burgundian protector himself)

Indeed they were, like I suggested, on an individual basis. Although these men may even have been hostages, or sent to the Roman court to strengthen diplomatic ties, and served in the guard as a result.

Quote: Were the laeti not compelled to provide military service? They had originally been defeated - although the Batavi (actually Franks?) of Toxiandra appear in guard units quite early, surely it was only defeat by the Romans that brought large numbers into service? - Rome first demonstrates to the barbarians that they have the power to (re)conquer territory or to repel incursions, then imposes conditions of resettlement and/or federate military service (although how much force might be involved, and how much this is just the panegyricists and others making things look good, is debatable!).

I was actually referring to the treaty of the early Batavi.
No, large numbers were also recruited, and individuals were a far more dependable resource than defeated tribes, who would mainly serve in the limitanei to guard the area where they were settled. This was especially the case with Laeti – if you look for 4th-c. candidates wearing their own attire while in Roman service they would be the first I’d look at, being about the lowest in status of Germanics under a treaty. Federates were mostly under a temporary treaty, developing already during the 4th c. into a status of temp soldiers, who returned home after each campaign (of need, when we look at the 130-188.000-strong armies of Constantine, Licinius and Maxentius). This is why Alaric wanted to up the status of his followers to regular troops, to gain access to regular payment, equipment and supplies. But by the early 5th c. it was standard practice for Roman recruiters to go up and down the Rhine region when their usurping lords went on campaign to Italy. I doubt that these men could/would be equipped with Roman arms and clothing as well.

Goths were hired on an 'as needed' basis, as evidenced by Constantine the Great hiring them for his proposed Sasanid campaign, Constantius II approaching the Taifali and other Goths for various campaigns, Julian had 'skythian auxilliaries' during his Sasanid campaign, Procopius hired them when he rebelled and of course Valens was hiring them for his Sasanid campaign. Goths became almost regular federates from Theodosius I onwards.
However, of interest are a couple of auxilia units mentioned by Ammianus, namely the Taifali and the Heruli. These tribes are usually associated with the Goths, which means that, if correct, there were Gothic troops in regular units long before Valens started hiring them in large numbers.
I personally don't have a problem with the idea that troops raised from the Goths, Franks, Allemanni, Saxons, Burgundians etc may have initially been armied and armoured in their native styles until they received training and equipment. It may well be the case that some auxilia units may not have worn body armour, just preferring to have a helmet, shield, sword and spear as this would have been what they would have been used to in their tribe. The troops identified as the Cornuti on the Arch of Constantine do not appear to be wearing any body armour for instance.

Quote:Goths were hired on an 'as needed' basis, as evidenced by Constantine the Great hiring them for his proposed Sasanid campaign

That's interesting - what's the source? I knew about Constantine using large numbers of Franks in his final campaign against Licinius (presumably brought by Caesar Crispus from Gaul), but wasn't aware of further large scale Gothic employment by Constantine himself.

Quote: Constantius II approaching the Taifali and other Goths for various campaigns... a couple of auxilia units mentioned by Ammianus, namely the Taifali and the Heruli... which means that, if correct, there were Gothic troops in regular units long before Valens started hiring them in large numbers.

If we can believe the legend of St Nicholas (!), Constantine settled defeated Taifali as laeti in Phrygia. They rebelled in 336 and had to be crushed by Virius Nepotianus and Flavius Ursus, which implies there were a large number of them, and they could well have been drafted into army units even before this date.

Quote:The troops identified as the Cornuti on the Arch of Constantine do not appear to be wearing any body armour for instance.

Are these the soldiers on the 'siege of Verona' frieze? Their shields hide their bodies, but the one on the left of the line (an officer?) is certainly wearing a muscle cuirass. I've always been a bit dubious about this identification - the supposed horns on their helmets could just as easily be feathers. The 'horned animals' shield design doesn't actually belong to them (I don't think!) but to another figure on one of the arch pedestals - the animals in question could be dolphins, sea monsters or goats(?), but the shield also features a very Roman winged Victory!

Quote:

ValentinianVictrix post=308379 Wrote:The troops identified as the Cornuti on the Arch of Constantine do not appear to be wearing any body armour for instance.

Are these the soldiers on the 'siege of Verona' frieze? Their shields hide their bodies, but the one on the left of the line (an officer?) is certainly wearing a muscle cuirass. I've always been a bit dubious about this identification - the supposed horns on their helmets could just as easily be feathers. The 'horned animals' shield design doesn't actually belong to them (I don't think!) but to another figure on one of the arch pedestals - the animals in question could be dolphins, sea monsters or goats(?), but the shield also features a very Roman winged Victory!

Careful guys: I did my MA on whether the Cornuti etc. were Germanic tribesmen or not. If you're not careful, I'll be boring the pants off you soon! :lol:

As to what they would look like, I'm becoming more inclined to think that regional variations would play a major part in the dress, and also possibly the armament of the troops. With regard to clothing, this would be due to 'wear and tear': even modern synthetic dyes can have a different shade between batches, so if the troops are being supplied from a local depot then the clothing would have different shadings of colour - that is even assuming that they all wore the same 'uniform'.

For armour, I think priority would lie with troops who were being constantly expected to fight or were continuously in the emperor's presence. The comitatenses, or troops on the northern frontiers, would be more likely to have 'newer' equipment, whereas troops whose main duties were policing 'settled' areas such as Egypt might have older equipment, or at least have to rely on their own abilities to repair existing 'new' equipment rather than receiving brand-new replacements.

The main reason is finance. Although it is usually accepted that the Roman methods of taxation and distribution were equivalent to those of a Renaissance state, if not more modern, close analysis of events has led me to question whether or not the Empire could afford to re-equip/update all of the troops on a regular basis. After all, I have noticed an increasing number of occurrences where commanders are dispatched to 'rebellious' or 'frontier' zones along with 'backpay' to ensure the loyalty of local troops. If payment couldn't kept strictly up-to-date, why should equipment be?