Anti-roman armor

[PMBardunias]

I have seen the emergence of many articles of roman armor attributed to an adaptation to fighting Gauls, Dacians, etc. I don't think it is wrong to say that more Romans were killed in fighting other Romans than most barbarian peoples. Because of this I am wondering if there are any elements of Roman kit specifically adopted to defend against the weapons and tactics of other Romans?

[Dan Howard]

I don't think so. One of their primary tactics seems to have been to bash with the shield and then stab to the groin, stomach, or face while the opponent was off balance. The standard kit leaves the Roman legionary vulnerable in all these locations. A longer hamata might protect the former two locations. Nothing short of a Corinthian would do much against the latter.

[Iagoba]

Well, I always thought that a pilum is one of the best weapons against romans. A legionary without shield is half defeatened...so civil wars must have been very deadly in this aspect.
(I´m still learning, wait ten years and it would be a 25 pages essay :twisted: written in 10 minutes :twisted: )

[Hibernicus]

But, so far, based on the current level of experiments, it seems that a scutum is rather impermeable to pila.

Makes the idea of Roman closing to do sword work against each other rather brutal.

[Matthew Amt]

Why do you think more Romans were killed by each other than by enemies? The various civil wars are all very well documented, but they are hardly as common as foreign wars (or rebellions of provincials). You just have to dig a little further to find mention of them.

In any case, I'd be surprised if there were any evidence that the Romans took any special equipment measures for the express purpose of fighting each other.

There is a rather gripping account of Octavian's and Antony's veteran legions duking it out at Forum Gallorum, by the way. They didn't bother with battle cries to try to psyche each other out, just closed in and went at it in silence. Must have been something!

Matthew

[PMBardunias]

Why do you think more Romans were killed by each other than by enemies?

Even if it were only half as common to face Romans, in each battle "Romans" definitely lose and any casualties on either side are Romans.

[Matthew Amt]

Hmm, okay, I see what you're saying. But I can think of several foreign battles or wars for every civil war from the time of Marius through Vespasian. And then there was a stretch from there up through, what, Marcus Aurelius at least? --with no civil wars. (Don't know my later details very well, sorry!)

If you go back into the earlier Republic, there was a lot of fighting in Italy against folks like the Samnites, who were equipped basically the same as the Romans. So you could say that all their gear developed to fight their own style of weapons and combat. But.... but I think I've lost my train of logic! I still don't think anything during the Empire shows that fighting other Romans had any real effect on their gear.

Matthew

[Urselius]

We tend to know less about the nitty-gritty of Romans fighting Romans as this was not considered a very laudable thing. No Roman commander ever had a formal triumph for coming out top in a civil war, very little physical recording of civil conflicts happened either (the panels depicting Milvian Bridge on the Arch of Constantine being the only ones I can think of). The civil wars of Augustus were on a massive scale and their commemoration was the "Altar of Augustan Peace" not a military monument.

The majority of Roman civil strife was resolved by means other than full-scale battles. Often the soldiery of one side would be suborned by the other and one leader would be murdered by his own troops; a very pragmatic way of dealing with military rebellion. When this approach didn't work commanders would put considerable effort into stratagems to avoid pitched battles, with campaigns of manoeuvre and attempts to fight only on favourable terrain being common. When two Roman armies did meet in a pitched battle with little advantage to one side the results, as at Mursa (Constantius II and Magnentius) could be very bloody indeed.

[andersao]

I think it's safe to say that developments in equipment are related to the types of combat soldiers most commonly found themselves engaged in. That said, I think it should be pointed out that the development of lorica segmentata is usually attributed to the time of Augustus/early empire. Could this development have come from the years of civil war that the Romans saw after 49 BCE?
I'm not sure anything can be said with certainty, but I find this an interesting possibility.

In any case, looking for changes in Roman equipment during periods of civil war might provide you with possible answers to your question, Paul.

[Dan Howard]

Segmentata never replaced anything. It enabled more of the army to be equipped in metal armour. Those with the money would still go for something more effective such as mail or a breastplate. I don't think it had anything at all to do with the opponents the Romans faced. It was the "munitions plate" of the iron age - massed produced peasant armour.

[andersao]

I never said it "replaced" anything, Dan. And I see your point that segmentata was likely easier to mass produce, although I'm not sure I would deem it "peasant" armour (but your comment regarding those with more money "going for mail" is intriguing, do you have a reference for this?). Bishop & Coulston have acknowledged the idea that segmentata may have been easier to produce than mail for the lone craftsman, but as they say, "an increase in manpower would greatly facilitate production [of mail]." (2006, p. 98 )
Let's not forget that auxilia were likely equipped with mostly hamata (or squamata), and there were just as many auxiliary soldiers as legionaries during the Principate. So to me, easy mass production doesn't seem to be the only reason for the development of segmentata, since if that was the case, it may have been cheaper to supply the entire army with segmentata, rather than just the citizen soldiers.
I do think that with the professionalization of the army, developments in military equipment evolved from how easily they could have been mass produced, but I also think that functionality and how easy armour was to maintain also played a role in these developments. As Bishop & Coulston point out, segmentata also provided excellent shoulder protection, and being a 'soft-armour', better absorbed blows than mail did. So, again, I would consider the functionality of equipment, along with ease of production (and maintenance!) when considering developments in Roman armour.

[Dan Howard]

I agree that an increase in manpower would assist the production of mail and I think that improved mass production techniques was one of the reasons why segmentata was phased out. I don't think it has anything to do with the introduction of segmentata though.
I find it hard to believe that segmentata was easier to maintain than mail. With the flimsy nature of the fittings and the amount of broken ones that are dug up one would think that seg maintenance was a full time occupation.
I haven't read a decent paper discussing the cost of production for various types of Roman armour. My evidence comes from Medieval Europe where documents from England through to Eastern Europe all indicate that mail was more expensive to produce than all but the most expensive custom tailored plate.

[Tarbicus]

The other reason many give for mail being preferable is ease of field repairs. Is there any reason to suppose that a seg couldn't be repaired as easily in the field? Pre-cut spare parts and minimal riveting must have made it feasible? A large number of seg finds with odd and asymmetrical parts show the legionary wasn't particularly fussy as long as the gaps were filled.

[Artorius13]

The very thought of having to face fellow legionaries in battle must have been a fearful one indeed! I would equate it to a U.S. armored divsion of M1A1 tanks having to face another U.S. armored division of M1A1's (I served on M1A1's for years and know the destruction they can wreck).

It would be nerve-wracking to be equipped better than any army on the planet, with superior tactics, and a sense of invincibility; only to have to face an army with identical equipment and tactics. I was thinking that when watching HBO's "ROME" when Brutus and Cassius' troops face off against the armies of Octavian and Antony.

[Matthew Amt]

When the forces of Vitellius and Vespasian came head-to-head at Cremona in the Year of Four Emperors, the troops were so rabid to fight that discipline went out the window. They refused their commanders' orders to stop and make camp for the night, but insisted on forming up for battle and fighting, even though it was almost nightfall. They couldn't WAIT to tangle with other Romans! Wacky stuff, for sure, but maybe they liked the idea of a challenge, or saw other Romans as truly worthy opponents. Sure, there were probably some guys who were a little more reserved about the whole idea, or who were justifiably worried about their enemies' weapons and abilities, but they clearly weren't setting the trend.

Valete,

Matthew