Caesarean Legionnaires without armor?

[Severus]

1. Are these unarmored men interspersed within the legions? It would seem that soldiers in the same unit would be given matching equipment (after Marian reforms of course). Otherwise they would not fit in (bad news for unit cohesiveness) nor would they serve the same purpose militarily as others in their unit. Unarmored legionaries would be less effective as heavy infantry than their armored counterparts.

I don't see any reason why they couldn't be in the same unit as armored men. Roman soldiers didn't want to blend in, they wanted to be distinctive so that their personal bravery could be recognized.

I disagree here. If a soldier was issued gear I would assume Roman discipline would not allow for the soldier to cast off random pieces of equipment at their own discretion.

It was very common in other armies for men in the front ranks to be more heavily armored than men farther back, in fact even the early Republican army had some of that, so it's entirely possible that could happen in the Imperial army, too.

Common in other armies but no written document (that I am aware of) makes reference to unarmored men mixed in with regular legionaries of the Late Republican time period. Earlier Republican legions did mix soldiers with varying levels of protection/equipment , but this was when the soldier himself was responsible for his own armaments, and the different types of equipment are well documented by historians. . .

And they wouldn't be less effective, just a little more likely to get wounded.

From my viewpoint a soldier more likely to be wounded makes them much less effective. The health of legionaries was important to the legion (especially in Caesar's campaign in Gaul where he faced many times the size of his own) a man who could not fight because of a wound that could have been avoided by wearing his armor seems to be a waste that Caesar would not have allowed.



Graham (Sumner you magnificent bastard! I read your book!) thanks for the pictures they do not answer my question but they lend strength to the fact that these miniatures were not created haphazardly but with some reason in mind. I wish there was more of an explanation for unarmored soldiers than what we have now. I still am not convinced they are legionaries and I guess that is where I am stuck.

Still I know more now about the subject than I did a few days ago.


Thanks,


Matt Webster
P.S. no disrespect about the book comment intended (Osprey:Roman Military Clothing). Just I did read it and realizing that the author responded to my question made me think of the movie Patton. If you've seen it, you understand. If not, see the movie :wink:

P.P.S- I've also noted that I need to post my real name. SO I've done so at the end of the post. But seeing there is already an glut of people named Matt here. . .