Profile of a mid 5th century Roman soldier.

[ValentinianVictrix]

There is some evidence that a 'typical' Late Roman infantry man during the late 5th Century AD would have worn a tunic and trousers in the 'Gothic' style. Probably only the first two ranks would have had body armour, the remaining ranks just having to rely on their large oval shield and helmet for protection. Weapons would have been the Spiculum, Verrutum, Martiobarbuli, Spatha, possibly an axe as well. Vegetius, possibly writing in the early part of the 5th Century, stated that the pilum was still in use by the infantry but was rarely used.

[Robert Vermaat]

There is some evidence that a 'typical' Late Roman infantry man during the late 5th Century AD would have worn a tunic and trousers in the 'Gothic' style.

I'm sure you can tell me more about why 'typical' infantry wore Gothic tunics and trousers, as well as what a 'typical' Gothic tunic and pair of trousers looked like?

Vegetius, possibly writing in the early part of the 5th Century, stated that the pilum was still in use by the infantry but was rarely used.

Vegetius also wrote that the Roman soldiers no longer wore armour, and we know that's nonsense from a number of sources. No evidence for such a late use of the pilum anywhere, or it must have been the germanic counterpart, the angon.

[ValentinianVictrix]

There is some evidence that a 'typical' Late Roman infantry man during the late 5th Century AD would have worn a tunic and trousers in the 'Gothic' style.

I'm sure you can tell me more about why 'typical' infantry wore Gothic tunics and trousers, as well as what a 'typical' Gothic tunic and pair of trousers looked like?

Vegetius, possibly writing in the early part of the 5th Century, stated that the pilum was still in use by the infantry but was rarely used.

Vegetius also wrote that the Roman soldiers no longer wore armour, and we know that's nonsense from a number of sources. No evidence for such a late use of the pilum anywhere, or it must have been the germanic counterpart, the angon.

I'm surprised you are apparently unaware of the reasons behind this post Robert.
Ok, the evidence for my statement is as thus-

From 382AD onwards the Late Roman's became increasingly reliant on Germanic 'barbarian' recruits, in the main mostly from the Goths, especially from Italy eastwards. The Column of Arcadius, erected in 401 AD to celebrate the victory over Gainas in 400AD, and only completed in 421 AD, shows caputured Goths who were under Gainas command. Some have a mail hauberk with long trousers, others have only a tunic and long trousers. These troops were technically 'Roman' in that Gainas himself was a Roman military commander, attaining the rank of Magister Militum, and incorporated Count Tribigild's forces with his own. So we may say that those Goth's were typical 'Roman' soldiers under a Gothic commander at the time. Now, your statement about Vegetius claiming that the infantry during his day were unarmoured being wrong is correct but only upto a point. We have no idea about the troops Vegetius had contact with, for all we know the only troops he ever saw were unarmoured Gothic auxilia, he may never have seen a legionary unit at all during his life as we do not really know where he was when he composed his Epitome.

Maurice's Strategikon, admittedly written at least 70 years after the period covered in this thread describes the clothing to be worn by the infantry as- '...either Gothic tunics coming down to their knees (as shown on the Column of Arcadius) or short ones split up the sides. They should have Gothic shoes with thick soles, broad toes, plain stiching, and fastened with no more than two clasps; the soles should be studded with a few small nails for greater durability. Boots or greaves are not required, for they are unsuitable for marching and, if worn, slow one down. Their mantles should be simple, not like Bulgarian cloaks. Their hair should be cut short, and it is better if it is not allowed to grow long.' Infantry at this stage only had body armour for the front two ranks at the very most, the rest were unarmoured. they were still armed with a spear, javelin, darts and sword, and had the typical Late Roman large oval shield.

As to the use of the Pilum, Vegetius is quite certain it was still in use, but rarely so, and that the 'barbarian shield-bearing infantry use these particularly, calling them bebrae...(and not Angons as you suggested)'

[Robert Vermaat]

There is some evidence that a 'typical' Late Roman infantry man during the late 5th Century AD would have worn a tunic and trousers in the 'Gothic' style.

I'm sure you can tell me more about why 'typical' infantry wore Gothic tunics and trousers, as well as what a 'typical' Gothic tunic and pair of trousers looked like?

I'm surprised you are apparently unaware of the reasons behind this post Robert.

Are you? :wink: You realize that your evidence is supporting your claim that this is the ‘typical’ Roman infantry we’re discussing? I mean, we need not be in disagreement about long trousers and tunics, which had been fairly standard for the period, both inside the Empire and outside it.

However, it’s your claim of the Gothic soldier representing the ‘typical’ Roman soldier that has my eyebrows arching upwards! hock:

Ok, the evidence for my statement is as thus-
From 382AD onwards the Late Roman's became increasingly reliant on Germanic 'barbarian' recruits, in the main mostly from the Goths, especially from Italy eastwards.

It’s certainly true that the Goths provided much manpower for the Roman army, as they indeed had done before 382 AD. However, they certainly were not the only source of manpower, indeed not as Germanic soldier went, nor were they so many in number that you could ever speak of Goths as the ‘typical’ Roman infantry. It has long been disproved that the Later Roman army consisted of such large numbers of barbarians (Germanics and others) that they made up the bulk of it. Perhaps that situation did change in the West during the mid-5th c. and afterwards, but again it would go too far to describe the bulk of those troops as being Gothic. For the East, that situation simply did not take place. The vast number of troops facing Persia were never in majority Gothic, and for the other armies of the eastern Romans, the Goths were only occasionally in a majority.

Goths can’t ever be the ‘typical’ Late Roman soldier. However, Goths in Roman service can surely be dressed as the 'typical' Roman soldier.

The Column of Arcadius, erected in 401 AD to celebrate the victory over Gainas in 400AD, and only completed in 421 AD, shows captured Goths who were under Gainas command. Some have a mail hauberk with long trousers, others have only a tunic and long trousers. These troops were technically 'Roman' in that Gainas himself was a Roman military commander, attaining the rank of Magister Militum, and incorporated Count Tribigild's forces with his own. So we may say that those Goth's were typical 'Roman' soldiers under a Gothic commander at the time.

Sure, what we can discern on the sparse drawings of that column are Goths. However, how do you make the leap from ‘Goths under Roman command’ to ‘Goths being the typical Roman soldiers’? I cannot follow there. I mean, even when we look how they were equipped: long trousers and tunics are not exactly Gothic, are they? In fact, most Germans and a lot of Roman citizens would have looked the same. We need not even discuss whether these troops were dressed in the Gothic fashion of if they were equipped with armour and clothing from the Roman army (the detail is so poor, we could not tell that anyway).

The Column of Arcadius may show what the artist saw as Roman troops, or what he saw as Gothic troops.

Now, your statement about Vegetius claiming that the infantry during his day were unarmoured being wrong is correct but only up to a point. We have no idea about the troops Vegetius had contact with, for all we know the only troops he ever saw were unarmoured Gothic auxilia, he may never have seen a legionary unit at all during his life as we do not really know where he was when he composed his Epitome.

Well, Vegetius is quite adamant about how the soldiers wrote to the Emperor complaining about their heavy armour, so what do you want? It’s the main problem with Vegetius – what is in the past, what in the present, what is correct and what is hearsay?
I’m not going to speculate about Gothic auxilia, because I would not even know in which century Vegetius wrote (could be 4th, could be 5th), perhaps he never even set eyes on any soldiers at all!

Maurice's Strategikon, admittedly written at least 70 years after the period

I’m not even going there. Mauricios, whose treatise I respect very much, was written 150 years after the mid-5th c. which we are discussing. His recommendations (we don’t even know whether they were implemented) describe a different situation as far as fashion goes, and cannot be used to describe the looks of the ‘typical’ Roman soldier during the mid-5th century.

Vegetius, possibly writing in the early part of the 5th Century, stated that the pilum was still in use by the infantry but was rarely used.

Vegetius also wrote that the Roman soldiers no longer wore armour, and we know that's nonsense from a number of sources. No evidence for such a late use of the pilum anywhere, or it must have been the Germanic counterpart, the angon.

As to the use of the Pilum, Vegetius is quite certain it was still in use, but rarely so, and that the 'barbarian shield-bearing infantry use these particularly, calling them bebrae...(and not Angons as you suggested)'

So, was it a pilum or a bebra? In fact, Vegetius mentioned that the bebra was a Germanic spear, carried by Germanic shield-baring infantry (I.20), who carried 2 or 3 of them. And he named the speculum as having replaced the pilum. The pilum, in fact, no longer turns up either in the archeological record or in artistic representation from at least the 4th century, while we encounter the angon during the 6th century. Whatever the speculum was, it was not as long and heavy as the pilum, whose penetrating function seems to have been taken over by the plumbata.

As far as we can tell today, the pilum was not in use during the 5th century AD.

[ValentinianVictrix]

In a number of points we will have to agree to disagree then Robert.

My reading of Zosimos, Claudian, and other Late Roman sources that talk about the 5th Century definately give the impression that Goths served in large numbers across the Eastern half of the empire. Their style of dress was different to that of the other Roman infantry shown on the pen and ink drawings of the Column of Theodosius and the Column of Arcadius. It is known that large numbers of Goths had been recruited from 376AD onwards because after the Battle of Adrianopolis in 378AD messages were sent to cities all over the East for the Goth's stationed in those cities to be lured to their deaths on the promise of receiving back pay. It is entirely conceivable that by 400AD some cities may not have seen what we would think of as a 'Roman' soldier as entire garrisons were made up of Goths. There were odd situations where there was a mix of both Roman's and Goths, the Armies of Theodosius I, Gainas and Alaric being examples.

I know modern historians have thrown a lot of doubt on the 'barbarisation' of the Late Roman army. However, reading the ancient sources one gets the impression that it was a case of sheer necessity that forced the Roman's to rely increasingly on the new Germanic's for troops, and the first large wave of them was the Goth's.

As to the Pilum, it was still in use during the late 360's AD and the early 370's AD as troops under Valentinian I and Valens are described in two battle accounts of throwing 'pilis'. The use of the Pilum may have been reintroduced by Valentinian I who appears to have been a bit of a military innoventor, and was described by Ammianus as 'an inventor of arms'.

Anyway, its always good to have a healthy, friendly debate, especially during the time of the Festival of Saturnalia!

[Robert Vermaat]

Agree to disagree is fine, but one has facts to deal with.

My reading of Zosimos, Claudian, and other Late Roman sources that talk about the 5th Century definately give the impression that Goths served in large numbers across the Eastern half of the empire.

Agreed, no argument there.
However, you were talking about the 'typical' Roman soldier, and among a Late Roman army totally about 645.000 (Agath. V.13), any number of Goths would have been a minority.

Their style of dress was different to that of the other Roman infantry shown on the pen and ink drawings of the Column of Theodosius and the Column of Arcadius.

Agreed, again no contest there. However, there is no basis to extend the dress of that group (as drawn by that artist) to all the Goths serving in all the Roman armies.

It is known that large numbers of Goths had been recruited from 376AD onwards because after the Battle of Adrianopolis in 378AD messages were sent to cities all over the East for the Goths stationed in those cities to be lured to their deaths on the promise of receiving back pay. It is entirely conceivable that by 400AD some cities may not have seen what we would think of as a 'Roman' soldier as entire garrisons were made up of Goths. There were odd situations where there was a mix of both Romans and Goths, the Armies of Theodosius I, Gainas and Alaric being examples.

Indeed, large numbers were recruited, and they served in a number of places. Some units 9a few) seem to have been recruited entirely from Goths, but as to the numbers serving in any other unit, it is total speculation to say that a majority was formed by Gothic recruits. I'm speaking of all the units of the entire army. There weren't that many Gothic recruits - how many Goths do you think there were anyway? I think you're totally overestimating their numbers in the Roman army.

I know modern historians have thrown a lot of doubt on the 'barbarisation' of the Late Roman army. However, reading the ancient sources one gets the impression that it was a case of sheer necessity that forced the Roman's to rely increasingly on the new Germanics for troops, and the first large wave of them was the Goths.

Well, that's just it - modern historians take a critical look as ancient sources. Overstaing facts to make a point (as Vegetius probably did when describing the dropping of body armour, resulting in Roman defeat - according to him) was entirely normal. Sources complained about the defence in depth, as they did about the barbarians serving in the army. But were their facts 100% correct? Research, for instance into names, suggest that it was an overstatement.

Sure, numbers went up, especially in the West, when the recruitment of citizens broke down and everybody hired german mercenaries, but by then the military system was already in dire straits.
Anyway, by that time it was any sort of Germanic warrior who could fight for Rome, so that - as was the original question - it's impossible to say that Goths were the typical Roman soldier by the mid-5th century.

As to the Pilum, it was still in use during the late 360's AD and the early 370's AD as troops under Valentinian I and Valens are described in two battle accounts of throwing 'pilis'. The use of the Pilum may have been reintroduced by Valentinian I who appears to have been a bit of a military innoventor, and was described by Ammianus as 'an inventor of arms'.

You should know that Ammianus uses archaizing language throughout his work: his Sassanids are still Parthi, his spathae are still gladii - pili are just a general word for 'spears', regardless of their type. It's no basis to suspect any re-inroduction of the old heavy pilum.

Anyway, its always good to have a healthy, friendly debate, especially during the time of the Festival of Saturnalia!

Indeed!

[Renatus]

As to the use of the Pilum, Vegetius is quite certain it was still in use, but rarely so, and that the 'barbarian shield-bearing infantry use these particularly, calling them bebrae...(and not Angons as you suggested)'

So, was it a pilum or a bebra? In fact, Vegetius mentioned that the bebra was a Germanic spear, carried by Germanic shield-baring infantry (I.20), who carried 2 or 3 of them. And he named the speculum as having replaced the pilum. The pilum, in fact, no longer turns up either in the archeological record or in artistic representation from at least the 4th century, while we encounter the angon during the 6th century. Whatever the speculum was, it was not as long and heavy as the pilum, whose penetrating function seems to have been taken over by the plumbata.

The position seems to be this. The pilum was little used by Roman troops in Vegetius' day but a weapon with similar characteristics (I will say no more than that) was particularly used by barbarian infantry, who called it bebra. Where it (or a similar weapon) was used by the Romans, it was called spiculum. Spiculum seems to be used in two senses, one of which is as a throwing spear. If there is doubt as to what it was, it is going too far to say that it did not have the characteristics of the pilum. Ammianus seems to confirm the association by using both terms in similar contexts. I quote myself in summarising the relationship between the two terms:

The pilum, the classic javelin of the legionary of the Republic and early Empire, was little used in Vegetius’ day (Veg. 1,20,20) and, according to him, its name had changed to spiculum (ibid. 2,15,5). He associates it with a lighter javelin, the verrutum, both being carried by the legionary (ibid. 2,15,5), but, as often with Vegetius, the period to which he refers is unclear. Ammianus puts pila in the hands of soldiers commanded by the usurper Procopius in 365 (Amm. 26,9,7), by the magister equitum per Gallias, Jovinus, in 365-6 (ibid. 27,2,3) and by the emperor Valentinian I in 368 (ibid. 27,10,15). In the last instance, he links pila with verruta (“verrutis . . . et pilis”). However, he uses spiculum in a different sense, as the head of other weapons – arrows (ibid. 25,1,13), other missiles (ibid. 19,2,9), fire-darts (malleoli) (ibid. 23,4,14) – or as a ballista bolt (ibid. 24,4,16). Nevertheless, he comes closer to Vegetius at one point when he refers to “spicula . . . verrutaque” (ibid. 16,12,46) in a linkage somewhat similar to that in 27,10,15. Interestingly, his use of this word for a ballista bolt is echoed by Vegetius who also uses it in this sense (Veg. 4,22,2) and, in addition, for the dart thrown by a manuballista (ibid. 4,22,6).

In short, a pilum-like weapon, called spiculum, seems to have remained in the Roman armoury, although it was rarely used, as Vegetius states and Ammianus demonstrates.

I appreciate that you have done a lot of work on the plumbata and that it is a nasty little weapon but can it really be said that it had the penetrating power of the pilum?

[Caballo]

To add an eye witness (Sidonius Appolinaris, a 5th century Gall-Roman aristocrat), he describes
-Ecdidius (a high ranking Gallo-Roman on horseback) as wearing a helmet, greaves, ring-mail, and sword.

-Avitus (an Emperor) "
"They bring him his body armour (lorica) , still clotted with gore, his lance (contus) blunted by wounds dealt upon the barbarians, and his sword (ensis) notched by unceasing slaughter. He encloses his legs with greaves (ocreae) and puts upon his head a gleaming helmet (galea) , on which a golden crest-base rises aloft, darting an angry flash from on high. Next he mounts his charger and tearing the gates from their hinges rushes forth."

- Theodoric ( a Gothic King) as having a bow which he uses on horseback and guards wearing leather/ skins

[Kai]

To add an eye witness (Sidonius Appolinaris, a 5th century Gall-Roman aristocrat), he describes

- Theodoric ( a Gothic King) as having a bow which he uses on horseback and guards wearing leather/ skins

The bow is explicitly described as carried when going to hunt, not when going to war; the guards are explicitly described as being in palace service, again not in combat. Both situations tell nothing about the military equipment of the Roman Federate Command whose soldiers were called Goths (sometimes...)
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/sidoni...1book1.htm

[Robert Vermaat]

I appreciate that you have done a lot of work on the plumbata and that it is a nasty little weapon but can it really be said that it had the penetrating power of the pilum?

By no means! If I seemed to suggest that, let me explain myself! The pilum was a very heavy spear, the plumbata is a light missile. However the plumbata, with its barbs, is meant to penetrate and get stuck in the opponent, his armour, his shield, and that seems to be a quality shared with a pilum and not with other missiles. But the comparison ends there, the missiles are of a different caliber. :wink:

[ValentinianVictrix]

My contention that during the 5th Century AD is that the vast majority of infantry and cavalry in the Roman army from Italy eastwards was made up from Gothic recruits is based on large part on Zosimus. Zosimus tells us that there were tens of thousands of Goths in the employment of the both of the Western and Eastern Empires, and that from time to time these technically 'Roman' troops, in that they were paid, and armed by the Roman state, broke allegiance with the Romans and attacked the Roman armies they had been formally attached too. Gainas fought initially on the behalf of the Eastern Empire before entertaining ideas above his station, leading to 7000 of his troops being burnt alive in a church in Constantinople (despite this he was still able to continue his 'war' with the Eastern Empire for another year). Alaric fought for both the Western and Eastern Empires before turning his attention to taking Rome itself. I suggest Gothic style clothing must have become something of a norm for the Roman army if a much later tactical manual advocated its infantry wearing it.

It was sheer necessity that forced the Romans to recruit from the Goth's, the Goth's appearing easilty able to deal with any forces raised against them, as a number of examples in Zosimus clearly demonstrate. And why would Zosimus particulary rail against the Goths, writing as he did at least a century after the events unless there was enough of a Gothic presence when Zosimus wrote to inspire such a tirade?

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Adrian,

Zosimus tells us that there were tens of thousands of Goths in the employment of the both of the Western and Eastern Empires, and that from time to time these technically 'Roman' troops, in that they were paid, and armed by the Roman state, broke allegiance with the Romans and attacked the Roman armies they had been formally attached too. Gainas fought initially on the behalf of the Eastern Empire before entertaining ideas above his station, leading to 7000 of his troops being burnt alive in a church in Constantinople (despite this he was still able to continue his 'war' with the Eastern Empire for another year). Alaric fought for both the Western and Eastern Empires before turning his attention to taking Rome itself.

Gainas was indeed leading Gothic troops serving in the Roman army, but Alaric never did. In fact, it was Alaric’s main wish to raise his troops from the status of federate to that of an official army, allowing him to equip his followers from the Roman fabricate. Alaric’s troops were never Roman soldiers, they only fought on behalf of Rome when called upon.

I suggest Gothic style clothing must have become something of a norm for the Roman army if a much later tactical manual advocated its infantry wearing it.

I have given my arguments as to why I don’t believe that was not the case at the time in question, the mid-5th century AD.

And why would Zosimus particulary rail against the Goths, writing as he did at least a century after the events unless there was enough of a Gothic presence when Zosimus wrote to inspire such a tirade?

The Romans recruited Goths as the did any other Germanic tribe. And apart from that, do we even have any evidence that there was a ‘Gothic’ fashion in clothing at that time? Despite what Maurikios had in mind 200 years later, by 400 the Goths were still no single ethnic people, but a mix of groups operating under a number of different leaders.
Why Zosimus wrote about them I can’t tell (he does not tell us so I won’t presume to know his [private thoughts), but a good guess would be that the eastern Empire had been dealing with the ‘Two Theodorics’, Theodoric Strabo (died 481) and Theodoric Amaling, who were competing with each other and Constantinople. The latter Theodoric was later sent to invade Italy (489), so Zosimos may well have had these Goths in mind.

My point remains: even if there was a ‘Gothic fashion’ in which all Goths wore the same style of clothing (which we have no information of), there were never enough Goths in the Roman army to dictate that fashion upon the rest of the army – even 10 to 20.000 Gothic recruits at one given moment – a vast number given the estimated strength of the Goths at Adrianople being given between those numbers – were a minority in an army numbering 645.000.

[ValentinianVictrix]

My point remains: even if there was a ‘Gothic fashion’ in which all Goths wore the same style of clothing (which we have no information of), there were never enough Goths in the Roman army to dictate that fashion upon the rest of the army – even 10 to 20.000 Gothic recruits at one given moment – a vast number given the estimated strength of the Goths at Adrianople being given between those numbers – were a minority in an army numbering 645.000.

Whilst I fully agree with the large number of at least 645000, rather than the 450000 given by modern authors who fail to see how the Late Romans could raise such a large force, we have to take into account that the 645000 includes everything from naval units, riverine units, frontier units, locally raised forces such as Indigenae etc. I would venture that a 'typical' Late Roman army size during the time of Valentinian I, when its possible the army was at its greatest extent, would have been around the 25,000 mark based on evidence within Ammianus. During Julian's Allemanic campaign he led an army of about 15000 strong, Barbatio had one of 25000 and Constantius II had one of a similar size, this was an unusual occurance for three armies to be campaigning at the same time. We know from Zosimus that during the civil war between Constantius II and Magnentius the combined army totals were possibly over 200000 strong, and the Battle of Mursa 353AD led to over 50000 Roman casualties, an event that was said to have fatally weakened the Late Roman Empire. Julian's Sasanid Persian invasion had him leading an army of between 60-90000 and Valens was raising an army for his proposed invasion of Sasanid Persia to equal or even exceed this number.

However, after Adrianopolis raising these numbers of troops seemed to be extremely difficult if not impossible without relying on barbarian fedorates.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Thank you for this reply Michael, I was scanning my copy of Ammianus for just this information whilst you posted it! The only thing I would like to add is that I'm not convinced that the Spiculum fell out of use until at least the reforms of Maurice. I think what Vegetius was saying is that the Spiculum replaced the Pilum as it retained the Pilum's former armour and shield piercing ability whilst at the same time being able to fend off cavalry better. I know that there are also mentions of the Spiculum in the Scriptores Historia Ausgustae, and that work is assumed to have been written sometime in the 4th Century AD.

[Kai]

First, we do have a number of 4th and 5th century authors describing Gothic fashion, like Claudian, Synesius of Cyrene, Rutilius Namatianus, and others. We read a lot about fur, animal-hides, torques, trousers and so on. This is also reflected in art, here is the base of the column of Theodosius e.g.:





What Maurice describes is a different fashion, most notably without any fur but also wide trousers over boots instead of tight fitting trousers and shoes, and it is usually linked to what we see on the chair of Maximian:





As far as the influence of that clothing is concerned, one should not easily dismiss it because there were only "few" 'Gothic' soldiers in the army. In fact Philipp von Rummel has published a number of papers and his thesis Habitus Barbarus about the significance of barbarian fashion in general and more specifically Gothic clothing in the contemporary political discourse, in questions of identity and ethnicity, and its interpretation. Gothic fashion among other Barbarian fashion, although not necessarily a marker of ethnicity at all, did impinge a lot on Roman military aristocracy. Civilian aristocrats, who are the authors we know, thus would stress the barbarism of that. Ambrosius' bitter accusation of sacrilege against Emperor Valens for wearing Gothic torques comes to mind.

regards