01-21-2005, 12:05 AM
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>
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
a.k.a. Jeffrey L. Greene
MODERATOR
