Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Basic kit for 5th century infantry?
#16
Paniarjdde, et. al.,

I was intrigued by your comment regarding the Late Roman Emperor Majorian. Actually, I believe he was one of the better late 4th-5th century emperors, from what I have read (e.g. Michael Grant). Unfortunately for Majorian, the Vandals were able to destroy the Roman fleet anchored roughly near what is now modern day Tunis. Once the fleet was lost, the Western Empire lost much of its strategic maneuver capabilities. The fait of the empire was then sealed, for the most part.

For point of reference,I am concentrating on the mid-and early-late 4th century, roughly around the time of the Emperor Valentinian I. From what I have been able to deduce from my research, the army in the West did not change profoundly from Valentinian's day to Majorian's rule. The profound change occurred sometime in the 3rd century, probably beginning around the time of the Emperor Septimus Severus. The changes took decades however. But one thing is certain, the army that accompanied Constantine at the Milvian bridge would have been unrecognizable to earlier emperors such as Claudius, Vespasian, Trajan, and Marcus Aurelius. I submit that Constantine probably would have recognized the army of Valentinian and probably Majorian's army as well. Others may disagree.

Best wishes, and good luck with your re-enactment quests!

Marcellus Valerius Gothicus
Marcellus Valerius Gothicus (aka Dave Dietrich)
Reply
#17
Regarding the Late Roman Army during the reign of the emperor Majorian (451-461 A.D.), here is another consideration- Although the army probably looked essentially like it did during the hundred years or so period that preceded his reign , the army would have been much more cavalry dominate and centric than before. As for infantry, there probably would have been much more emphasis on light infantry as opposed to heavy infantry, as many of the Roman infantrymen after the Battle of Andrianople (378 A.D.) would have been more resistant to the idea of wearing heavy battle kits (lorica hamatas, stangenhelms, and greaves). We can surmise this from the writings of Flavius Vegetius Renatus (The Military Institutions of the Romans). More likely, the typical Roman infantryman of Majorian’s day would have worn a tunic, Pannonian cap, trousers, and no heavy armor. That Late Roman infantry soldier would have relied on his shield for protection and plumbatae, Spiculum, and Spatha for personal weaponry.
Marcellus Valerius Gothicus (aka Dave Dietrich)
Reply
#18
Quote: As for infantry, there probably would have been much more emphasis on light infantry as opposed to heavy infantry, as many of the Roman infantrymen after the Battle of Andrianople (378 A.D.) would have been more resistant to the idea of wearing heavy battle kits (lorica hamatas, stangenhelms, and greaves). We can surmise this from the writings of Flavius Vegetius Renatus (The Military Institutions of the Romans).
I have never come across any source or any secondary study that mage a link between Adrianople and the supposed shedding of heavy armour. The utterings of Vegetius have been amply disproven by scholars who could point to enough evidence of the continuation of heavy armour in the Roman army.

Quote:More likely, the typical Roman infantryman of Majorian’s day would have worn a tunic, Pannonian cap, trousers, and no heavy armor. That Late Roman infantry soldier would have relied on his shield for protection and plumbatae, Spiculum, and Spatha for personal weaponry.
The absence of heavy armour will certainly have occurred due to its cost, and the diminishing abilities of the Roman state to provide enough money for the equipment of its forces. Also, the Roman army had to rely more and more on non-Roman forces, which were less and less equipped by the stae.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#19
Good points, but I did not say that no heavy armor was worn after Andrianople. What I said was there probably was increased resistence to wearing such armor.
Marcellus Valerius Gothicus (aka Dave Dietrich)
Reply
#20
Quote: I did not say that no heavy armor was worn after Andrianople. What I said was there probably was increased resistence to wearing such armor.
I know you didn't. But you mentioned that
Quote:many of the Roman infantrymen after the Battle of Andrianople (378 A.D.) would have been more resistant to the idea of wearing heavy battle kits (lorica hamatas, spangenhelms, and greaves
.
I know (I think) where that's coming from (Vegetius), but that's an old horse, and it's long been disproven that he was right anyway.
I just never heard the link between his claims about armour and Adrianople before, and I was interested to know why you came up with that.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#21
I apologize for taking so long to respond, but I have had computer problems and other demands of my time of late. The writings of Flavius Vegetius Renatus (and others such as Marcellinus) are in fact a consideration in trying to decipher what the Late Roman infantrymen would have looked liked. Take note that he wrote at the time of Valentinian II (375-392 AD) and obviously would not have been aware of the army of the 5th Century. Also, even Vegetius talked about heavy infantry and he, as I, did not say the army became light across the board. Rather, the essential claim was that Andrianople had a profound impact on the desire to resist heavy battle kits. I believe there were other factors at play as well, for example the relative domination of cavalry over infantry (horses cost a lot on money and something had to be the bill payer to fund them), and the need for mobility, particularly in warding-off and/or responding to brigands, small unit attacks, and the like. As time went on, the empire became ore strapped for cash, and funding a huge army equipped with a heavy battle kit would have been hard to maintain. Anyway, those are my thoughts. By the way, the observation was made that Vegetius claim was disproven. May we ask, by whom? Best wishes, and thanks for the great discussions. Big Grin
Marcellus Valerius Gothicus (aka Dave Dietrich)
Reply
#22
I'm sorry Dave, but I have to disagree.

Quote:The writings of Flavius Vegetius Renatus (and others such as Marcellinus) are in fact a consideration in trying to decipher what the Late Roman infantrymen would have looked like.

On this forum we have excessively discussed Vegetius, as well as his writings as a source for developments in infantry armour. I'm not going to do that all over again. I'll just repeat myself by stating that the claims of Vegetius regarding armour have been disproven. I'd say, search the foruk for those discussions, or read Coulston, J.C.N. (1990): Later Roman armour, 3rd-6th centuries A.D., in: Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 1, pp. 139-60 for a good start.

Quote:Rather, the essential claim was that Andrianople had a profound impact on the desire to resist heavy battle kits.
Who claimed that? Are you referring to your initial discussion or to ancient authors? If the latter, I must disagre - no ancient author made such a claim, that body armour was dropped in relation to the battle of Adrianople.

MarcellusCCLXXV:9zhc7u2a Wrote:I believe there were other factors at play as well, for example the relative domination of cavalry over infantry (horses cost a lot on money and something had to be the bill payer to fund them), and the need for mobility, particularly in warding-off and/or responding to brigands, small unit attacks, and the like. As time went on, the empire became ore strapped for cash, and funding a huge army equipped with a heavy battle kit would have been hard to maintain.
Cavalry was indeed costly, and expansion of the cavalry had to be paid for. But was that done by dropping body armour from the inventory? I'd like to see proof of that, of course! Dropping body armour means decreasing battle survivability which, as any soldier will tell you, is not what they want. That the equipping of armies during the 5th c. became more and more of a burden for the state had more relations to the drop in tax revenues than the rising cost of cavalry, but in the end it came down to the same thing. Never though, was there a decision made to drop armour as a means of cutting the cost of the army. At least not that we are aware of.
The East Roman empire for sure never dropped infantry armour, that's for sure.

By the way, cavalry mobility is highly overrated, as studies and sources have amply proven. Cavalry mobility is mostly restricted to the battlefield and to short actions. After a march of 3 days, the infantry overtakes the cavalry (without remounts).
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply


Forum Jump: