06-11-2002, 08:24 AM
Salve<br>
<br>
One thing that has been bugging me is how the Romans got such a degree of uniformity in their equipment types. I know that they had many different types of weapons and armour operating at the same time, but within that there is a remarkable degree of consistency - i.e. there are several types of Gallic helmet from different sites that can all be called 'G'. Also, if H.R.R. is right, then there appears to be convergent evolution in different families of helmets - just look at the neck-guards from the Gallic and Italic helmets - the Gallic 'I' and Italic 'E' have the same sloping design and appear to have been made at the same time. This would seem to imply that there was some kind of a central controlling authority that was dictating new innovations to the various makers, presumably by making pattern pieces and distributing them to the various makers around the empire. I know Diocletian centralised weapons production at the end of the 3rd century, but was he innovating, or merely restoring the status quo of 50 years before?<br>
<br>
Medeival and renaissance armour and weapons evolved from a variety of sources: spangly new kit being flashed around at tournaments (and artistic depictions of the event), the migration of workers to new armouries (i.e. Greenwich and Innsbruck), and battlefield experience including looting choice items from the defeated. To an large extent I believe that this dictated the early Roman equipment and their basic patterns (i.e. Greek and Celtic influence) but the later modification and improvements of equipment appear to have come from within the Roman army itself, and this is the area that interests me.<br>
<br>
What I am asking in all the above bluster, is what evidence is there for this weapons R&D in the early Roman empire? Or alternatively, did the evolution of equipment happen simply by market forces. One particularly innovative legion might approach their local contrators and order modified equipment, then as the soldiers and their kit get shunted around from unit to unit throughout their career, the idea would spread, which could explain why so many obsolete helmet types carried on in production, being contantly upgraded.<br>
<br>
Any help with this would be greatful appreciated.<br>
<br>
Vale<br>
<br>
Celer. <p></p><i></i>
<br>
One thing that has been bugging me is how the Romans got such a degree of uniformity in their equipment types. I know that they had many different types of weapons and armour operating at the same time, but within that there is a remarkable degree of consistency - i.e. there are several types of Gallic helmet from different sites that can all be called 'G'. Also, if H.R.R. is right, then there appears to be convergent evolution in different families of helmets - just look at the neck-guards from the Gallic and Italic helmets - the Gallic 'I' and Italic 'E' have the same sloping design and appear to have been made at the same time. This would seem to imply that there was some kind of a central controlling authority that was dictating new innovations to the various makers, presumably by making pattern pieces and distributing them to the various makers around the empire. I know Diocletian centralised weapons production at the end of the 3rd century, but was he innovating, or merely restoring the status quo of 50 years before?<br>
<br>
Medeival and renaissance armour and weapons evolved from a variety of sources: spangly new kit being flashed around at tournaments (and artistic depictions of the event), the migration of workers to new armouries (i.e. Greenwich and Innsbruck), and battlefield experience including looting choice items from the defeated. To an large extent I believe that this dictated the early Roman equipment and their basic patterns (i.e. Greek and Celtic influence) but the later modification and improvements of equipment appear to have come from within the Roman army itself, and this is the area that interests me.<br>
<br>
What I am asking in all the above bluster, is what evidence is there for this weapons R&D in the early Roman empire? Or alternatively, did the evolution of equipment happen simply by market forces. One particularly innovative legion might approach their local contrators and order modified equipment, then as the soldiers and their kit get shunted around from unit to unit throughout their career, the idea would spread, which could explain why so many obsolete helmet types carried on in production, being contantly upgraded.<br>
<br>
Any help with this would be greatful appreciated.<br>
<br>
Vale<br>
<br>
Celer. <p></p><i></i>