How well armoured was the Roman army?

[Matthew Amt]

While the Roman army is one of the most well armoured army of its time, I feel that there is a need to ask how well armoured the Roman army was. Was the Empire able to supply every single soldier with heavy armour ( meaning metal as opposed to leather)? Was the Roman army during the Principate more well armoured than the late republican army? Was the late Roman army more well armoured than the army of Principate percentage wise?

It seems clear that the Roman army had a vastly higher proportion of armored men than most or any other army of the time, looking at artwork, literature, and the huge amount of archeological finds. The very fact that so much "grunt issue" armor has been found is proof, if nothing else, since in most non-Roman cultures metal armor was worn only by the wealthy. But it is also clear to me that not every legionary or auxiliary was armored, as we can see on the Arch of Orange, the Mainz column bases, and at least a couple late Republican/early Principate figurines. It's quite possible that the Romans *could* have armored every man, but it doesn't seem to have been necessary to them to do so.

Best to give up on ideas of leather armor, by the way, at least until you've studied all the previous discussions we've had on the topic! And bear in mind that many "heavy" legionaries in the earlier Republic wore only a little bronze pectoral and backplate weighing about 3 pounds--hardly "heavy" armor...

I'd be willing to bet that most late Republican legionaries had little or no body armor, though that may have varied by unit. Julius Caesar's men may have been better armored overall than one of the many legions raised during the civil wars after his death, for example. But I don't think there is much in the way of actual evidence to argue either way. Certainly the Late Roman army had plenty of armor, but that's not my area so I wouldn't want to start comparing ratios to the army of the Principate.

Vale,

Matthew