Roman Army before and after the Marius' Reforms

[Bryan]

Brian, i wouldnt call it luxury.. in those times even small cut could get you killed eventually.. any bacteria infection was fatal.. so having some form of armor was not luxury but necessity.

I'm not really a fan of theory that Pectorale were main armor of Roman army until Caesar times... just because Polybius mentioned it once, it doesnt make it wide spread armor.. plus, they are actually not that common to find.. If I recall correctly there are like 20 pieces in private or museum collections, but large majority of those are not even simple cardiophylax plates, but ornamented breastplates even with side plate protection...  

And regarding Greeks, not sure where you got that info, but i can cite multiple sources mentioning punishments for Hoplite that went to battle without armor... Yes, they did it sometimes, but more like a boast to enemy than necessity due to not be able to afford a protection... and commanders actually punished such foolishness...

Armor is always a luxury, most warriors in the ancient period wore none, most warriors in the history of warfare in general wore none. In the ancient Mediterranean area for infantry it meant they had a shield for protection and that was usually it. Romans had it better, their empire was more organized and prosperous, leading to a ranker Roman infantryman often being equipped better than a well to do tribal chieftains, but that doesn't mean everyone back then was as well kitted out, or that it wasn't a luxury.

Based on the Roman fighting stance (demonstrated by numerous surviving archaeological images), the only portions of the body not covered by the scutum of an infantryman was the head (covered by helmet and cheek guards), the legs (often protected with a single greave on leading leg, per Polybius and Livy), and the sword arm during a blow (trained not to expose the arm, manica added during the second century AD). Sure, small cuts can kill without antibiotics but while the ancients didn't know about Germ Theory they knew the healing properties of certain materials, honey, garlic, etc., and basic first aid. Besides which, the pectorale, which we know was used, did not cover the major of the torso, nor the vitals themselves. Besides a direct straight thrust to the heart, a blow avoided in close combat due to the natural protection of the ribs, the pectorale didn't adequately protect the lungs, the liver, and the abdomen, all mortal wounds during that period. Which means that the Romans either didn't care if they suffered wounds to such exposed areas because they were too manly and brave, or it meant that they didn't have a high likelihood of being wounded in those areas because it wasn't likely, because scutums are big and sturdy.

Polybius mentions the pectorales, so I don't know how you'd discount him while at the same time using him as a source for the triari being well armored. Besides him, there are many archaeological finds of that type of fighting kit, to include numerous from the dig at Numantia (130 BC time frame). I believe that the pectorales with side plates are nearly all Samnite or Italian cultural origin, not Roman/Latin. Starting in the Late Republic the property requirements for military service as line infantry were slashed and then ignored. Meanwhile we know that the state began at least partially subsidizing the issuing of equipment. I find it hard to believe that all of them received one of the most expensive types of armor, mail, or another type of expensive armor, musculata, or even cloth armor (no evidence of), when for hundreds of years a perfectly suitable type of body armor existed, pectorales, which was cheap to make, easy to maintain, though with limited coverage accepted by the wearers, being suddenly dropped from being issued at the time it would have made the most sense to retain its use. At the late 2nd century BC, we have numerous legions being raised from scratch year after year, we have entire armies needing to be reequipped in the middle of a war, we have dozens of legions needing to be raised quickly during the Social War, and then in Caesar's wars we have legions being raised from scratch and being sent into battle within weeks of being raised. I refuse to believe all these men were armed uniformily or with the best equipment initially, especially considering that the custom was that armor like mail was not only expensive but an unnecessary luxury for success on the battlefield. 


Lastly, please site the examples of hoplites being punished for not having armor, I'd like to know when this happened and which city state it referred to. Shields don't count, I'm talking specifically of torso armor. The consensus among historians that I'm aware of state that during the 4th Cent. BC, at the height of the Peloponnesian War, the panoply of the hoplite was simplified to shield, simplified helmet (pilos), sword, spear, tunic. No greaves, no torso armor, no thigh armor. Did some still wear that stuff? Surely. But many didn't, and still prospered in close quarters fighting. There is a whole lot written about this subject in RAT, I recommend you go search through older posts and you can find some awesome threads on the topic, filled with well sourced information from people who are literal subject matter experts in this field.