06-26-2006, 07:27 PM
Salve!
I´m a member of group of germanic warriors around BC, located in northern Germany. Nice to see, that the interest in the history of the roman-germanic confrontation in northwest Germany is again subject for popular media.
My group did much research the last 5 years to get a close interpretation of the appearance of the germanic warriors who fought against and with the roman armies which campaigned right in front of my door from 9 BC to 16 AD. As students of archaeology and history we are able to work with mainly german written sources and artifacts.
Our interpretation is well received by both public and science and we already did a scripted combat display at Kalkriese, Germany, believed place of the Battle of Varus.
In short I can give some hints on equipment and clothing, which presents our latest interpretation on archaeological finds, pictorial evidence and contemporary written sources.
1) Types of warrior
Basically we can think of at least three types of germanic warriors for the given period:
- the tribal warrior, organized among social order of his community (clan, settlement, tribe). He followed his master into war as he does also in "civil" live. His master may also follow a master of the next higher social strata. He was lightly armed and useful for mobile
actions.
- the warrior of a "comitatus" or fellowship. Apparently better armed, he is a member of an inter tribal group of uncertain size. He followed an "charismatic" leader, as long as he provided him with good prospects of loot and employment for war . Such warriors didn´t live from farming but nearly like mercenaries, offering their service for inter tribal confrontations or even to roman authorities. The possible high grade of equipment could be taken from defeated enemies.
- Ex-auxiliarii. Left service after given period of time or deserted roman service, like Arminius fellow warriors did. At least idea of roman warfare if not trained along its terms. Possibly armed with roman equipment or a mix with german objects. They could have been cadres for tribal units of warriors for the uprising of 9 AD.
2) Organization
Tribal warriors were possibly arranged by 10s, 100s or even 1000s according to some military historians. This is still guess work as is the term "hunno" as a leader of a 100 men - unit. A 1000 men unit could have been arranged after a "pagus" ("Gau" in german, meaning "district" of a number of settlements of one tribe). In battle with big germanic armies the battle groups were arranged after tribes (Caesar, Bellum Gallicum).
Cavalry could have been deployed either on their own or combined with light infantry.
Well armed tribal chieftains or lower leaders together with their personal warriors formed the core of a unit, mainly filled with average or less armed tribal warriors. These certainly made the bulk of every germanic army of this period.
Comitati had an unknown size, but possibly enough to form an auxiliary unit (1 cohort, even later cohors equitata) otherwise more of warbands. Same is possibly for ex-auxiliarii.
3) Equipment
Main armament was a thrusting lance or/and a thrusting/throwing spear and javelins. They could be of late La Tène- and/or germanic pattern. Certain javelins heads were winged, being predecessors of the later ango or angon, but much shorter. Organic spear points, wooden clubs are possible, but there are currently no finds to confirm this for the given period (Hjortspring, DK is much earlier, the patterns are simple (antler heads) and could have been also used, arguable, around BC). Shafts were around man height or larger (ca. 230-240 cm) judging from later finds (Nydam, Thorsberg etc.).
Shields were of a made out of light wood or sometimes hardwood, one pieced or of a glued planked construction. Wickerwork shields might have possible too. Invariably they had shield bosses, either organic (late La Téne pattern out of wood, even circular wickerwork) or iron. There are two specific german styles of circular iron shield bosses: Either pointed and conical or conical with a blunt rod of 2 to 10cm. They had 4 to 10 domed rivets (then not arranged in pairs of twos or threes) of >2cm diameter.
Shield bodies were thin, from 15 to 4mm to the edges. Edges were sometimes lined partly with bronze rims. Raw hide strips could have been used too. Forms were basically rectangular, hexagonal to oval (pictorial evidence) or rounded to circular (most archaeological evidence). Sizes were around 90 x 50cm, more or less then this. Judging from written sources they were painted very brightly. At least blue and red combinations are archaeological evident.
Swords were apparently used only by noble warriors and so were distributed only thinly among the ranks. Looted weaponry of roman origin on a larger scale is possible only after the Battle of Varus.
There were two types of swords: Either single edged and short to medium length for slashing or double edged and long for slashing and/or thrusting. These were of german origin with only limited celtic influence. The single edged blades have no certain celtic predecessors and the double edged invariably had full metal sheaths. The ornaments and carrying attachments were much different to their celtic predecessors. It seems that baldrics were used.
There is no evidence of much use of any kind of body armour for the period in question. Ex-auxiliaries could have used roman equipment.
There is little evidence that bows and arrows were used for warfare, but clay sling shots were found in settlements. Axes seemed not to be taken as weapons, at least they were extremly seldom given into warrior graves and are more like tools.
3) Clothes
Tunics and trousers were worn certainly to a much greater degree then contemporary literatur suggest. Tunics were long sleeved or had no sleeves at all and could be combined. Trousers could be of knee or ankle length, but the first variation seemed to be more common. In difference to celtic styles all extremities were tightly cut.
Most important part was the sagum, the rectancular cloak of diverse quality and fastened on the right shoulder with a fibula.
Shoes were apparently of single piece construction.
Material was wool and linnen, possibly for undergarments.
4) Apperance
Most free man seemed to have long hair. Suebian knots were not only worn by suebinan tribes. Only slaves were short haired. Beards were well cared for. Hairstyles could be different from tribe to tribe.
5) Tactics
The bulk of the germanic was thus equipped with light shields and had spears/lances and a number of javelines. So they seemed to act mostly in light infantry roles. Even full armed warriors (shield, spear(s), javelines, sword) can be reagarded as light. Horsemen had basically the same equipment.
Judging from weaponry, written evidence, the germanic warriors tended to fight mainly by "hit and run". This could be basically the kind of warfare they conducted against each other, until roman style was quickly adopted . They were able also to "stand and hold" actions (Angrivarin Wall) or full scale assaults against camps and positions and pitched battles (Idistaviso). Moreover they were able to safely withdraw from combat. Not to forget, they fought on their on ground, in an environment alien to roman soldiers (but maybe not for local auxiliaries). Later the seemed to adopt roman tactics after using looted weaponry.
For some closer looks please refer to the few pics on our homepage:
CHASUARI
Especially:
[url:270ufui8]http://www.chasuari.de/galerie/galerie1frame.htm[/url]
mytwopence
ghandi
![[Image: Kalkriese04.jpg]](http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c92/RBrosch/Kalkriese04.jpg)
Posed on the believed germanic fieldwork at Kalkriese
I´m a member of group of germanic warriors around BC, located in northern Germany. Nice to see, that the interest in the history of the roman-germanic confrontation in northwest Germany is again subject for popular media.
My group did much research the last 5 years to get a close interpretation of the appearance of the germanic warriors who fought against and with the roman armies which campaigned right in front of my door from 9 BC to 16 AD. As students of archaeology and history we are able to work with mainly german written sources and artifacts.
Our interpretation is well received by both public and science and we already did a scripted combat display at Kalkriese, Germany, believed place of the Battle of Varus.
In short I can give some hints on equipment and clothing, which presents our latest interpretation on archaeological finds, pictorial evidence and contemporary written sources.
1) Types of warrior
Basically we can think of at least three types of germanic warriors for the given period:
- the tribal warrior, organized among social order of his community (clan, settlement, tribe). He followed his master into war as he does also in "civil" live. His master may also follow a master of the next higher social strata. He was lightly armed and useful for mobile
actions.
- the warrior of a "comitatus" or fellowship. Apparently better armed, he is a member of an inter tribal group of uncertain size. He followed an "charismatic" leader, as long as he provided him with good prospects of loot and employment for war . Such warriors didn´t live from farming but nearly like mercenaries, offering their service for inter tribal confrontations or even to roman authorities. The possible high grade of equipment could be taken from defeated enemies.
- Ex-auxiliarii. Left service after given period of time or deserted roman service, like Arminius fellow warriors did. At least idea of roman warfare if not trained along its terms. Possibly armed with roman equipment or a mix with german objects. They could have been cadres for tribal units of warriors for the uprising of 9 AD.
2) Organization
Tribal warriors were possibly arranged by 10s, 100s or even 1000s according to some military historians. This is still guess work as is the term "hunno" as a leader of a 100 men - unit. A 1000 men unit could have been arranged after a "pagus" ("Gau" in german, meaning "district" of a number of settlements of one tribe). In battle with big germanic armies the battle groups were arranged after tribes (Caesar, Bellum Gallicum).
Cavalry could have been deployed either on their own or combined with light infantry.
Well armed tribal chieftains or lower leaders together with their personal warriors formed the core of a unit, mainly filled with average or less armed tribal warriors. These certainly made the bulk of every germanic army of this period.
Comitati had an unknown size, but possibly enough to form an auxiliary unit (1 cohort, even later cohors equitata) otherwise more of warbands. Same is possibly for ex-auxiliarii.
3) Equipment
Main armament was a thrusting lance or/and a thrusting/throwing spear and javelins. They could be of late La Tène- and/or germanic pattern. Certain javelins heads were winged, being predecessors of the later ango or angon, but much shorter. Organic spear points, wooden clubs are possible, but there are currently no finds to confirm this for the given period (Hjortspring, DK is much earlier, the patterns are simple (antler heads) and could have been also used, arguable, around BC). Shafts were around man height or larger (ca. 230-240 cm) judging from later finds (Nydam, Thorsberg etc.).
Shields were of a made out of light wood or sometimes hardwood, one pieced or of a glued planked construction. Wickerwork shields might have possible too. Invariably they had shield bosses, either organic (late La Téne pattern out of wood, even circular wickerwork) or iron. There are two specific german styles of circular iron shield bosses: Either pointed and conical or conical with a blunt rod of 2 to 10cm. They had 4 to 10 domed rivets (then not arranged in pairs of twos or threes) of >2cm diameter.
Shield bodies were thin, from 15 to 4mm to the edges. Edges were sometimes lined partly with bronze rims. Raw hide strips could have been used too. Forms were basically rectangular, hexagonal to oval (pictorial evidence) or rounded to circular (most archaeological evidence). Sizes were around 90 x 50cm, more or less then this. Judging from written sources they were painted very brightly. At least blue and red combinations are archaeological evident.
Swords were apparently used only by noble warriors and so were distributed only thinly among the ranks. Looted weaponry of roman origin on a larger scale is possible only after the Battle of Varus.
There were two types of swords: Either single edged and short to medium length for slashing or double edged and long for slashing and/or thrusting. These were of german origin with only limited celtic influence. The single edged blades have no certain celtic predecessors and the double edged invariably had full metal sheaths. The ornaments and carrying attachments were much different to their celtic predecessors. It seems that baldrics were used.
There is no evidence of much use of any kind of body armour for the period in question. Ex-auxiliaries could have used roman equipment.
There is little evidence that bows and arrows were used for warfare, but clay sling shots were found in settlements. Axes seemed not to be taken as weapons, at least they were extremly seldom given into warrior graves and are more like tools.
3) Clothes
Tunics and trousers were worn certainly to a much greater degree then contemporary literatur suggest. Tunics were long sleeved or had no sleeves at all and could be combined. Trousers could be of knee or ankle length, but the first variation seemed to be more common. In difference to celtic styles all extremities were tightly cut.
Most important part was the sagum, the rectancular cloak of diverse quality and fastened on the right shoulder with a fibula.
Shoes were apparently of single piece construction.
Material was wool and linnen, possibly for undergarments.
4) Apperance
Most free man seemed to have long hair. Suebian knots were not only worn by suebinan tribes. Only slaves were short haired. Beards were well cared for. Hairstyles could be different from tribe to tribe.
5) Tactics
The bulk of the germanic was thus equipped with light shields and had spears/lances and a number of javelines. So they seemed to act mostly in light infantry roles. Even full armed warriors (shield, spear(s), javelines, sword) can be reagarded as light. Horsemen had basically the same equipment.
Judging from weaponry, written evidence, the germanic warriors tended to fight mainly by "hit and run". This could be basically the kind of warfare they conducted against each other, until roman style was quickly adopted . They were able also to "stand and hold" actions (Angrivarin Wall) or full scale assaults against camps and positions and pitched battles (Idistaviso). Moreover they were able to safely withdraw from combat. Not to forget, they fought on their on ground, in an environment alien to roman soldiers (but maybe not for local auxiliaries). Later the seemed to adopt roman tactics after using looted weaponry.
For some closer looks please refer to the few pics on our homepage:
CHASUARI
Especially:
[url:270ufui8]http://www.chasuari.de/galerie/galerie1frame.htm[/url]
mytwopence
ghandi
Posed on the believed germanic fieldwork at Kalkriese
Robert Brosch
www.chasuari.de">www.chasuari.de
Germanic warriors of 1st ct. AD
www.comitatus.eu">www.comitatus.eu
Network of germanic Reenactors of 1st ct. AD
www.chasuari.de">www.chasuari.de
Germanic warriors of 1st ct. AD
www.comitatus.eu">www.comitatus.eu
Network of germanic Reenactors of 1st ct. AD
