03-19-2014, 10:33 AM
Hello Andreas,
Thank you for your reaction.
I’ll start with the second one, I understand. Indeed, a night-attack across a river would be done without armour. I concur.
About Bainobaudes I can’t agree though.
Well exactly.
First, he was an officer in the Roman army, not a newly-joined mercenary who had just signed up. It has been established long ago that, based on grave goods, we know that germanic soldiers who fought in the Roman army were equipped with arms, armour, clothing etc. by the Roman state fabricae. We can even tell in some cases where they originally joined the army.
Bainobaudes would however have been spending years in the army, and therefore when he was a commander or even when he became a tribune he would have been dressed like one, reflecting his authority. Which means if you show me a tribune I would not expect a fresh mercenary but a Roman officer.
Even though artwork exists of Roman troops not wearing armour, I think it’s a leap of faith to conclude that, based on such artwork, we can conclude that some Roman soldiers did choose not to wear armour in battle. If you have a set of good armour, not wearing that in a pitched battle (especially when leading a charge) is NOT a tactical decision, it’s sheer lunacy. Late Roman soldiers (not even those of Germanic descent) were not bronze Age Celts who charged in the nude. If you had armour you wore it or you died. A Roman tribune would wear armour as a distinction from the common soldier – he is the commanding officer! - and he would wear it in battle because he would want to survive. In my opinion Bainobaudes would never have led the charge just dressed in his tunic. I come to Verone below.
I have to disagree. Plenty discussions have been held about realism and artistic representation, and I don’t agree with your view that because the Cornuti (who may have been feathered instead of horned but that’s another discussion) are represented in battle without body armour, it therefore must have been correct, and possible to extrapolate to another battle. Even IF the representation was correct for the siege of Verona, this tells us nothing about Argentorate. There is no piece of art about that battle, so an extrapolation is not possible. To the contrary, I would like to add apart from my doubts about the knowledge of the artist the note that during a siege, soldiers need not always wear armour all the time. So if you look at this from all angles, not wearing armour during a siege does not mean not wearing armour in a pitched battle.
This logic I cannot follow. Can you show me where your claim about these experienced infantry leaders comes from? I would like to remark that no experienced commander would make himself anonymous by dressing similarly to the common soldiers, therby confusing the command structure. Or risking to make his men leaderless shortly after the start of the charge and theby risking the entire battle! Yes, I believe (with Speidel) that commanders fought in the front, but behind a screen of ‘antesignani’ (those fighting before the standards), who were all (according to the Strategikon) wearing the best armour available.
I think you should have mentioned only those last 4 words!! :grin:
Thank you for your reaction.
I’ll start with the second one, I understand. Indeed, a night-attack across a river would be done without armour. I concur.
About Bainobaudes I can’t agree though.
Quote: The reconstruction is supposed to portray Bainobaudes leading the charge of his men at the battle of Argentoratum. Bainobaudes was a Frankish mercenary (this is why he looks like one!) who had advanced in the Roman army and commanded an auxilium in the comitatenses. Before this he was the commander of one of the two scholae scutariorum (mounted guard units).
Well exactly.
First, he was an officer in the Roman army, not a newly-joined mercenary who had just signed up. It has been established long ago that, based on grave goods, we know that germanic soldiers who fought in the Roman army were equipped with arms, armour, clothing etc. by the Roman state fabricae. We can even tell in some cases where they originally joined the army.
Bainobaudes would however have been spending years in the army, and therefore when he was a commander or even when he became a tribune he would have been dressed like one, reflecting his authority. Which means if you show me a tribune I would not expect a fresh mercenary but a Roman officer.
Quote:Because the only concrete point of criticism I could make out is the man’s lack of armour, I like to elaborate on the subject a little: I am convinced that all regular units of the late Roman field-army were equipped with a decent set of armour, including their senior officers of course. If armour was worn in battle or not was a tactical decision, though. As we know from pictorial evidence, it was not uncommon for Roman soldiers to fight without body armour in this period.
Even though artwork exists of Roman troops not wearing armour, I think it’s a leap of faith to conclude that, based on such artwork, we can conclude that some Roman soldiers did choose not to wear armour in battle. If you have a set of good armour, not wearing that in a pitched battle (especially when leading a charge) is NOT a tactical decision, it’s sheer lunacy. Late Roman soldiers (not even those of Germanic descent) were not bronze Age Celts who charged in the nude. If you had armour you wore it or you died. A Roman tribune would wear armour as a distinction from the common soldier – he is the commanding officer! - and he would wear it in battle because he would want to survive. In my opinion Bainobaudes would never have led the charge just dressed in his tunic. I come to Verone below.
Quote:Following SPEIDEL’s assertion that the horned men on the Arch of Constantine are indeed Cornuti, we might have even a depiction of the unit in question fighting without body armour. So if the Cornuti did without full armour at the siege of Verona, it is not beyond reason to assume that they might have done the same at Argentoratum
I have to disagree. Plenty discussions have been held about realism and artistic representation, and I don’t agree with your view that because the Cornuti (who may have been feathered instead of horned but that’s another discussion) are represented in battle without body armour, it therefore must have been correct, and possible to extrapolate to another battle. Even IF the representation was correct for the siege of Verona, this tells us nothing about Argentorate. There is no piece of art about that battle, so an extrapolation is not possible. To the contrary, I would like to add apart from my doubts about the knowledge of the artist the note that during a siege, soldiers need not always wear armour all the time. So if you look at this from all angles, not wearing armour during a siege does not mean not wearing armour in a pitched battle.
Quote: If they actually did, their CO would have been equally equipped in case he fought within their ranks. Why? Because no experienced infantry leader would allow himself to be slowed down by the weight of extra armour when his men discarded part of their protection for the sake of increased speed and maneuverability while facing an unarmoured opponent. The casualty figures provided by Ammianus (243 soldiers, 4 senior officers) can be taken as a clue that the unit commanders fought indeed alongside their men in this battle and did not lead from the save rear.
This logic I cannot follow. Can you show me where your claim about these experienced infantry leaders comes from? I would like to remark that no experienced commander would make himself anonymous by dressing similarly to the common soldiers, therby confusing the command structure. Or risking to make his men leaderless shortly after the start of the charge and theby risking the entire battle! Yes, I believe (with Speidel) that commanders fought in the front, but behind a screen of ‘antesignani’ (those fighting before the standards), who were all (according to the Strategikon) wearing the best armour available.
Quote:Taking all this into consideration we had the choice to portray Bainobaudes either with or without full armour. We simply opted for the version we deemed more attractive.
I think you should have mentioned only those last 4 words!! :grin:
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
