Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Late Roman armor (or the lack thereof)
#1
I've read and heard many different arguments about the use (or lack of use) of Roman armor in the 5th century. I can see both sides of it and think that both may be right depending on location, time frame, troop type, etc. I think that we all agree that shields (round or oval depending on whether you listen to Aitor or Robert) and spears were wide spread. The question is how common were swords, helmets, and body armor? I would like others opinions on this subject.<br>
<br>
Vadormarius/Jim <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#2
Hi Vadormarius,<br>
I think you are correct in your post above, in that it really pretty much depended on the factors you mentioned, i.e. time, place, troop type, etc.<br>
My feeling on this is that the soldiers were probably irregularly armoured, with some wearing it, and some not, and I feel that the same holds true for swords and helmets. I have read that what armour was worn, was usually issued to soldiers on the first rank or two. But I'm sure that some of the soldiers also had armour that belonged to them personally, and was not issued, such as privately purchased, or battlefield loot.<br>
My best guess would be that all of the soldiers were at least equipped with a shield and a spear, the spear being the primary weapon of the soldier.<br>
So to sum up, I think it is correct either way...armoured or unarmoured, particularly for the later Roman army. Presently, I wear no body armour for my impression, but I do have a sword, a spear, a helmet, and a shield. If I do add armour later on, it will be a chainmail shirt, as I feel that mail was probably the most common late Roman armour, with scale perhaps a close second, when armour was worn at all. I hope this helps! <p>Lucius Aurelius Metellus, draconarius, Secunda Brittanica</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=luciusaureliusmetellus@romanarmytalk>Lucius Aurelius Metellus</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v384/Lucius68/Lucius.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 1/21/05 1:07 am<br></i>
Lucius Aurelius Metellus
a.k.a. Jeffrey L. Greene
MODERATOR
Reply
#3
Let's not forget the influence of the general on his men's equipment. The ratio of armored men to unarmored in the various armies could have been affected by the general's style of combat and preferences within that. He might like the survivability of heavily armored troops or the speed of unarmored. Obviously money could be a problem, but when they had cash it would be interesting to see what the armor ratios were. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=paullus@romanarmytalk>Paullus</A> at: 1/21/05 1:37 am<br></i>
Paul Basar - Member of Wildfire Game\'s Project 0 AD
Wildfire Games - Project 0 A.D.
Reply
#4
Hi Vadomarius,<br>
<br>
The origin of this discussion is the claim by Vegetius, that somewhere during the 4th century, the troops discarded both helmets and body armour. However, research of archaeological remains as well as the artistic record have dispelled this claim.<br>
<br>
However, it is impossible to say which troops wore what at what time. You're right about this probably depending on a lot of factors.<br>
<br>
Myself, I think that supply would be the largest influence.<br>
We have the <em>comitatenses</em> and the <em>limitanei</em>, and it has been claimed that the main difference between both was the supply of arms & armour from the state factories. That would mean that the <em>comitatenses</em> had probably the first pick, with the <em>limitanei</em> getting what was left.<br>
However, we have complaint to the Emperor of cavalry unit which had no horses, so the demand would almost certainly outstrip supply.<br>
<br>
There was a cash payment for troops to buy their own material, so that would make up for some shortages, but that would need the time to buy or order replacements for private suppliers.<br>
I can imagine that cash would not be plentiful anyway, and at the end of a campaign there must have been shortages of almost everything imaginable.<br>
Anyway, by the later 4th century the production of arms became a state monopoly, and the carrying of arms by civilians was punishable as well.<br>
<br>
Maurikios describes the front and the hind ranks of an infantry formation wearing armour, but not the ranks in between. I believe that this would also paint a good picture of the battlefield in the 4th and 5th century as the best situation possible.<br>
<p>Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]</p><i></i>
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#5
I think it varies quite a lot, especially in the west it's, well.... more a mess than anything else. The foederati for example were paid but were they equipped by the state? Probably not, but there are some cases of barbarian troops getting disarmed and given territory to settle after their deditio, like the Franks, which later reappear as foederati under Aetius, so they must have gotten their equippment from somewhere. Sometimes barbarian troops were part of the comitatenses but still foederati depending on how you want to interpret their legal status.<br>
<br>
in 397 for example Alarich and his Goths were stationed in Illyricum with Alarich as magister militum per Illyricum. So he was a legal Roman army leader and king of the Goths AND the emperor gave him control over the armouries and armour factories in the area!<br>
<br>
So his men probably got quite some equipment although they were/weren't "Roman" troops. So imho the equipment depends less on troop type (of course thecomitatenses weregenerally better equipped than the limitanei) but on the commander and the area where these units were stationed.<br>
<br>
The army led by Stilicho against Radagais on the other hand was mainly freshly recruited and these federate soldiers probably just wore what they had themselves.<br>
<br>
<br>
Another thing which might help:<br>
<br>
Herwig Wolfram writes that the western empire had an annual budget of about 20.000 goldpounds whereas the east had about 270.000 of which about45.000 were spent on the army. He further writes that around 450 around 60% of the western budget would have been necessary to pay an army of 30.000 elite soldiers, the east would have had to spend around 5%.<br>
and 30.000 wouldn'd have beenable to do too much, right?<br>
<br>
So more barbarian troops were hired because they were cheaper BUT not so well equipped and if the west doesn't have the money to pay it's army, how can it equip them <p></p><i></i>
RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS

DEDITICIVS MINERVAE ET MVSARVM

[Micha F.]
Reply
#6
Actually, Vorty, Maurice says that everybody should be armoured, IF POSSIBLE - which probably means: sometimes, sometimes not, depending on the size and composition of the force (and perhaps the state of the Empire's finances at that moment?).<br>
<br>
As for Wolfram's claims, I suspect they refer to the very late Empire in the 5th century, when the revenue from Africa, Britain and much of Spain and Gaul were no longer available.<br>
<br>
One of the things I'm wondering about, is how many soldiers during the Principate were actually armoured, including the auxiliaries. And how would this compare to the late army? Perhaps you have to think in terms of the tactical role of the soldier: is he supposed to be part of the main battle-line in an open battle against a tough enemy? Or is he mostly busy garrisoning border forts against raiders?<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Andreas Baede
Reply
#7
Yes Charry ,<br>
But I seem to recall these (front and back line) as his minimum requirements. <p>Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]</p><i></i>
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#8
Hi Cinna,<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>The foederati for example were paid but were they equipped by the state? Probably not<hr><br>
Yes, foederati are thought of to be equipped by the state. This seems to have been the main difference between 'allies' such as Alaric and his Gothic forces when they fought for the Empire, or troops which had settled certain areas of the Empire and defended them as part of a foedus, such as the Franks. Alaraic was never part of the Roman army, and he very much wished to be - his demands to the Empire reflect that.<br>
But of course this will have varied over the time of a century, and maybe agreements varied as well.<br>
There seems to have been some legal difference between <em>foederati</em>, <em>laeti</em> and <em>dedititii</em>, federates agreeing voluntary, laeti being resettled and dedititii possibly being the least voluntary. But the diffenrences aren't very clear.<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>So more barbarian troops were hired because they were cheaper BUT not so well equipped and if the west doesn't have the money to pay it's army, how can it equip them <hr><br>
Barbarian troops were probably only hired because this took far less time than raising and training new Roman units. the Romans weren't stupid and of course saw the risks of this policy. But such troops could also be disbanded after the action was over (one of Alaric's problems, because that meant his soldiers dispersed and he lost power). Barbarians may actually have cost more money to hire them, then was paid to regular Roman troops (actual figure are lacking but temporary workers generally cost more than workers under contract).<br>
Such temporary troops could be equipped from stocked arms as part of the agreement, or bring their own if neccesary. Equipment may not have differed that much from regular troops in egards of quality. As I wrote earlier today, some troops lacked almost everything, meaning sometimes there were shortages of equipment. <p>Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]</p><i></i>
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#9
<em>There seems to have been some legal difference between foederati, laeti and dedititii, federates agreeing voluntary, laeti being resettled and dedititii possibly being the least voluntary. But the diffenrences aren't very clear.</em><br>
<br>
The differences are quite clear imho:<br>
<br>
deditii surrender voluntarily as you said, if the tribe is split up, disarmed and spread around as "farmers bound to their land (much like the colons (engl. spelling?)" we talk of laeti.<br>
<br>
A foedus is an agreement between the empire and an independant tribe. What is not so clear is the term foederati itself.<br>
It changed throughout time. In Justinian's times Romans could be foederati as well for example.<br>
<br>
A good example are the Franks. They surrendered to Caesar Julianus and settled in modern day Netherlands as laeti. Later regained power and served as foederati under Aetius, therefore must have regained their independance again.<br>
<br>
"<em>Alaraic was never part of the Roman army, and he very much wished to be - his demands to the Empire reflect that.<br>
But of course this will have varied over the time of a century, and maybe agreements varied as well</em>. "<br>
<br>
As I said before he had an official Roman rank as military commander of Illyricum. Don't forget btw that the foedus was usually made between the leader of a group (or tribe if you want) and the emperor, NOT thetribe and the emperor, soit was very much dependant on the leader and had to berenewed once the leader died.<br>
<br>
I'm not so sure about the foederati being equipped by the state. As you say, it was a fast way to get troops, not only for emperors but usurpators as well. The Visigoths were equipped I'd saybecause of the mentioning of Alarich controlling the weapons factories as I said before. I don't think it was the usual procedure.<br>
<br>
<em>"Barbarians may actually have cost more money to hire them, then was paid to regular Roman troops (actual figure are lacking but temporary workers generally cost more than workers under contract)."</em><br>
<br>
Something about the prices from Pohl "Die Voelkerwanderung":<br>
<br>
He writes that the fleet Leo sent in 468 against the Vandals in Africa costed between 60.000 and 120.000 goldpounds. On the contrary Theoderich's campaign against Odoaker was for free, the highest sum paid to Attila was 2000, which people of the time thought of as a lot. The Goths in Pannonia got only 300 pounds whereas Odoaker paid 6.00 per year to Romulus Augustulus <p></p><i></i>
RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS

DEDITICIVS MINERVAE ET MVSARVM

[Micha F.]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Depictions of Late Roman Armor Flavivs Aetivs 25 4,516 02-16-2013, 12:35 AM
Last Post: Alanus
  Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire Eleatic Guest 112 33,190 05-16-2010, 10:08 AM
Last Post: Gaius Julius Caesar
  Publication wanted (or scans thereof!) Peroni 2 1,199 09-13-2007, 12:03 AM
Last Post: Peroni

Forum Jump: