Bronze or Brass?

[Jesper D]

Hey,
Hehe, the origin of all this was really the cost-efficiency of using brass and/or bronze vs iron. I think we pretty much agreed on that coming down to "production in large numbers" or "mass-production" vs custom made gear. The workmanship involved in custom made gear would defend the use of more expensive materials and this would be reasonable as long as the troops were drawn from the rich land owning classes. The Marian reforms changed that and let proletarii enter the army, which they did in large numbers. A large looming question would then be who or what financed the gear of these proletarii troops - Let's say that Marius financed a large part of his troops and that the senate gave him certain funds as well - Would this be a model for the future? Surely the generals were rich, but somehow this seems slightly over the top. The earlier proposition of gear being "sold on credit" seems like a more likely long term solution IMHO.

I'm not sure they'd need too much in the way of mass-production. Some recruits were already equipped due to prior service. Some retiring veterans would either turn their gear in if they didn't own it, or maybe sell it off if it was theirs. And there really weren't that many occasions on which large numbers of troops were needed in a tearing hurry. So I have a strong feeling that the system already in place was adequate most of the time, though of course sometimes they'd have to go into "high gear" to meet demand. This wasn't being done in central factories, of course, but by small private workshops all over the place.

That's interesting it seems to me that Rome was always in a pressing hurry to get more troops and equip them. Also Rome was far from invincible, Rome s lost A LOT of battles in the early days. I wonder how many men and sets of armour Rome lost per century during say 300BC to 14AD? They just had this uncanny ability to bounce back quickly even after massive losses when most cultures would have sued for peace. That's just what seemed to be so fantastic about the romans, they always managed to come back quickly and efficiently with new troops - and new gear... I've always assumed that the romans did this(gearwise) due to a superior organisation. I know they had fabricae during the late empire in which the employed hundreds of workers. Is it so unlikely that they made use of central fabricae during the second punic wars or at least around 100BC? I know that the romans made use of captured celtic weapons to equip the slave legions after Cannae, so they seem to have kept captured weapons but I doubt that ordinary legionaries would stoop so low One always get the impression that romans were better equipped than everyone else...

Caesar said if you make it all with silver and gold the men are much less likely to lose it! The men took a lot of pride in their stuff, especially since they were paying for it themselves. Color and shine and a rich appearance was a major reason for wearing things like this into battle--they wanted to shine like gods and impress the heck out of foes and friends alike. It was a psychological advantage over any barbarian dirt farmer with nothing but a spear and a shield. It meant they always had something to clean, a MAJOR factor in keeping them busy and out of trouble. And in the days before hot rod cars and CD players, they needed something to blow their money on (besides drinking and women!). In short, it was incredibly good for morale, which is everything in ancient warfare.

And how would a legionary earning 10 asses a day pay for this kind of lordly gear? On instalments? :mrgreen:

And in any case, most of the lower-class soldiers up to that point had only the little pectoral plate for armor, which is almost no armor at all.

See, the whole society was used to the concept of rich men having more armor, poor men having less or none. So if after Marius some of the poor men had armor, whether a majority or a tiny minority, they would have seen that as great progress! We should not take "armored" as the default and see every unarmored legionary as a problem.

That's interesting, I thought it was even disputed that those were still in use during the second punic war - the pectoral plate that is. Richer proletarii seem to have been used extensively during the second punic war, as velites - raising the post Cannae amount from ~15% to ~30% of velites(this indicates that they paid for their gear yes?).
But seriously, if the richer proletarii were velites how were the poor Marian proletarii recruits equipped? If the earlier army already had 30% velites after they lowered the wealth limit for army service to 4000 asses - how many skirmishers would they have after the wealth limit was abolished? The legionary was described as a heavy infantryman even after Marius reforms no?

Thanks for your patience! :mrgreen:

[Matthew Amt]

Hey,
Hehe, the origin of all this was really the cost-efficiency of using brass and/or bronze vs iron. I think we pretty much agreed on that coming down to "production in large numbers" or "mass-production" vs custom made gear.

For the most part, agreed, with the caveat that almost all helmets from that transition era were copper alloy. Certainly iron helmets were in use by various cultures at that time, not to mention weapons, shield bosses, etc., so the technology was known. Yet Montefortino and Coolus types were the most common right into the first century AD. I'm not trying to make too much of a point, it's just a puzzle!

A large looming question would then be who or what financed the gear of these proletarii troops - Let's say that Marius financed a large part of his troops and that the senate gave him certain funds as well - Would this be a model for the future?

I honestly don't know, but I kind of doubt it. Marius and his methods made a great wake-up call for the Senate, and the impression I get is that they tried to keep better control of the military after that. Didn't work at first, they ended up with Caesar, but still... Under Augustus there was a separate fund in the treasury for military pay and pensions, I believe.

That's interesting it seems to me that Rome was always in a pressing hurry to get more troops and equip them.

Hmm, no, I think there were a few distinct occasions when they needed large forces quickly, but after that there were slower build-ups, or just the recruiting necessary to maintain strength.

Also Rome was far from invincible, Rome s lost A LOT of battles in the early days. I wonder how many men and sets of armour Rome lost per century during say 300BC to 14AD?

Most defeats did not involve the annihilation of the force involved. Carrhae is one of those that pretty much did, but I have a feeling that Crassus' drinking buddies were more of the "Good riddance" frame of mind. They didn't need those troops or their gear. But farther back, yeah, it would have been a bigger problem, such as the defeats inflicted by Brennus, was it? Before Marius took over. The Jugurthine Wars, too.

They just had this uncanny ability to bounce back quickly even after massive losses when most cultures would have sued for peace. That's just what seemed to be so fantastic about the romans, they always managed to come back quickly and efficiently with new troops - and new gear...

Agreed, that really seems to have been the big secret to Rome's success, even more than a highly trained army. Their manpower base kept growing as they absorbed more neighbors. And many of those places already had booming economies and were very capable of producing lots of metalwork and other necessities.

I've always assumed that the romans did this(gearwise) due to a superior organisation. I know they had fabricae during the late empire in which the employed hundreds of workers. Is it so unlikely that they made use of central fabricae during the second punic wars or at least around 100BC?

There just doesn't seem to be any evidence for that, as far as I've heard. There were certainly areas that featured higher production of specific products or materials, but it always seems to have been done by independent workshops. They weren't necessarily just one guy and his son and a couple slaves, of course, but I don't think we're talking "factories" here in any modern sense.

And how would a legionary earning 10 asses a day pay for this kind of lordly gear? On instalments? :mrgreen:

Sure! But I expect plunder helped a lot. Caesar's men made out very well in loot and slaves.

That's interesting, I thought it was even disputed that those were still in use during the second punic war - the pectoral plate that is.

I recall some debate, but since Polybius describes them and at least one was found at Numantia, I'd be inclined to think they were still around.

Richer proletarii seem to have been used extensively during the second punic war, as velites - raising the post Cannae amount from ~15% to ~30% of velites(this indicates that they paid for their gear yes?).
But seriously, if the richer proletarii were velites how were the poor Marian proletarii recruits equipped? If the earlier army already had 30% velites after they lowered the wealth limit for army service to 3000 sesterces - how many skirmishers would they have after the wealth limit was abolished? The legionary was described as a heavy infantryman even after Marius reforms no?

Ya got me there! I didn't know about the changing percentage of velites. My impression is that Marius' troops were largely heavy infantry (though strictly speaking velites *were* legionaries!), but like I said, you don't really need body armor to be a heavy.

We need more data! I just don't know the primary sources well enough for the Republic, unfortunately. And the archeological finds are pretty scarce.

Vale,

Matthew

[Jesper D]

This is all taken from Terence Wise's armies of the carthaginian wars(osprey)... Pages 29-30...

After the drastic lowering of the property qualification for army service in about 214-215BC the book states that up to about 75 000 - 100 000 proletarii would possibly have been made available. It also mentions that proletarii had been levied for the army, at public expense, as early as 281 - 280 BC. Furthermore 6 legions were recruited just before Cannae and these men seem to have been raised from the proletarii as indicated by the fact that slaves were authorized to be used as rowers by 214 BC - prior to this(e.g. 217BC) proletarii had been used as rowers.

He goes on to state that the army was reformed after Cannae with a complete reorganisation of the light troops. An earlier legion would contain 600-800 velites(14-15%) whilst polybius later legion contained 1300-1500 velites(28-30%).

After Cannae two urban legions were formed by men under the military age, 6000 criminals and debtors were armed and used as volunteers. 8000 volunteer slaves were bought and armed to form two legions.

[Jesper D]

Studies in Ancient Greek and Roman Society By Robin Osborne...
The prize of bronze in 5th century Athens seems to have been ~2-6 Drachmae(athens) per kilo. These figures were derived from the material in bronze coins(85/15)...

Author estimates a simple hoplite bronze cuirass(he assumes the use of 10kg of bronze) at about 50-60 Drachmae and a full suit of bronze hoplite armour at 75-100 Drachmae(very coarse estimate!), but points out that another source quotes 300 drachmae for a full hoplite armour suit.

Some general stuff not from the book:
A day's wage for manual labour was probably 2-6 obols(6 obols being 1 Drachma) so bronze was certainly not dear by this standard. A hoplite or skilled worker could earn about 1 drachma a day or slightly more.
The Athenian drachma was seen as equal to one denarius when Rome introduced its own currency(211 B.C.).
Originally one Denarius was 10 asses or 4 sesterces(211 B.C.).

[Jesper D]

General comments on the recruitment of Rome and the recruits economy...

Btw I have changed what I wrote about property qualification for army service, it was 11000 asses(not sesterces!) before ~215BC and 400 drachmae(4000 asses) after(according to Terence Wise the armies of the carthaginian wars). The first number is taken from Livy(he quotes from the "servian constitution") and the second from Polybius(commenting on the roman army post second punic war ~200BC). Also Cicero mentions 1500 asses later... It seems like the limit went down further and further until Marius simply removed it...

The first census of Rome is the base of what is called the servian constitution after the legendary king of rome Servius Tullius. The fifth census class(based on wealth!) was 11000 asses - this was Livy's source. Note that this class was considered quite poor and were used as velites or for other light tasks.

Cornell suggests that infantry started to get paid by 406BC. I thought that did not happen until Marius...
Same thing goes for the horses of the equites, they were apparantly paid for by the public - equo publico.
The equites were the 12th first centuries in the first census class(100 000 asses or more) plus the 6 patrician centuries that belonged to the first class by birth. Once the equites eqou privato started to appear in around 403BC, according to Livy, that is volunteer cavalry not belonging to to the first 18th centuries, but to the first class, and thus having to provide their own horse. I also did not know the 18 centuries of equites became hereditary, the 6 patrician always was but even the pleibeian 12 seem to have become hereditary. I do not understand that... what happened to new people entering the 18th century? I've also seen the figure 400 000 sesterces being thrown around a lot, is this a comment of Cicero? The comment is about the equites census in his time(NOT in 403BC!!)? Slightly confused how there could have been both a wealth limit if all equites were hereditary??

Most of this is taken from this wikipedia(yes..salt..I know..) article btw, looks excellent! hock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equites

[Jesper D]

I honestly don't know, but I kind of doubt it. Marius and his methods made a great wake-up call for the Senate, and the impression I get is that they tried to keep better control of the military after that. Didn't work at first, they ended up with Caesar, but still... Under Augustus there was a separate fund in the treasury for military pay and pensions, I believe.

The troops pensions were totally dependent on their generals success after Marius' reforms, Augustus obviously didnt think that was a good idea. Instead he formed the emperor's praetorian guard, which turned out to be an even greater idea eh?

A companion to the roman republic, chapter 13 by Paul Erdkamp, page 291 regarding Marius:
"In other words, he enlisted men from the proletariat in his army who did not qualify for infantry service, and he paid for their equipment from the public treasury"

"Although, theoretically, the legionaries were still expected to provide their own arms and armour, by the time of the punic wars these were normally purchased from the state, giving a uniformity of armour and weapons which was now essential because of the manipular formation, which required that all men within the hastati and pricipes classes to be armed and armoured in similar fashion. The first known example of the state providing armour occurs in 281 B.C.: the introduction of the manipular formation was c. 300 B.C. As a result of the state supplying the men's armour, the citizen militia was stripped of its class character, and from these dates onwards the legionaries were armed and armoured very much alike, the only real distinction remaining being between the heavy infantry, armed in the hoplite fashion, and the unarmoured light troops" Terence Wise, Armies of the carthaginian wars 265-146BC, page 25.
He later clarifies that with hoplite fashion he means hasta(principes, triarii) or pilum(hastati, principes), cuirass, possibly greaves, helmet and short sword. The 3rd century seems to have been a period where the principes went from hastae armed to pilum armed.

Most defeats did not involve the annihilation of the force involved. Carrhae is one of those that pretty much did, but I have a feeling that Crassus' drinking buddies were more of the "Good riddance" frame of mind. They didn't need those troops or their gear. But farther back, yeah, it would have been a bigger problem, such as the defeats inflicted by Brennus, was it? Before Marius took over. The Jugurthine Wars, too.

Well some of the Hannibal battles, (Brennus was the 387bc sack of rome)Caepio and Maximus aginst Cimbri and Teutones at Arausio(105bc 80-120 000 roman losses...) are the worst ones. I bet Rome's male population was pretty low after the second punic war. Those surely was a time when they needed more than 100 000 sets of swords and armour in just months. My point was that Romes was involved in many battles, lost some and won more. If you stack up the losses of men and armour though, they become massive.

but I don't think we're talking "factories" here in any modern sense.

No but fabricae in a roman sense!

Sure! But I expect plunder helped a lot. Caesar's men made out very well in loot and slaves.

Silver, gold or highly ornate decorations on state issued gear? I bet some well off soldiers bought fancy gear with the spoils of war after extremely successful campaigns(like Caesars men) but you will have a difficult time to get me to believe the senate would spend Rome's wealth on grunt proletarii gear.

I recall some debate, but since Polybius describes them and at least one was found at Numantia, I'd be inclined to think they were still around.

The ones at Numantia were probably from Italian allies as Polybius describes the roman ones as square according to Duncan Head's Armies of the Macedonian and Punic wars. Yeah Polybius does describe that soldiers to poor to to afford their own armour got a regulation armour pectorale, the cost being reclaimed from their salaries. "but as this is now cheap governement issue it will not have been very ornate" again Duncan Head's book.

Ya got me there! I didn't know about the changing percentage of velites. My impression is that Marius' troops were largely heavy infantry (though strictly speaking velites *were* legionaries!), but like I said, you don't really need body armor to be a heavy.

Well traditionally heavy infantry is just men that are meant to fight in close combat in tight formation rather then skirmish in open formation like light infantry. It's not armour dependent, but task dependent- although it would be fair to give the men the armour they need for their task!!

Yes, the roman velites were supposed to disappear together with all the other specialisations, the equites became infantry officers instead. Legionary cavalry were abolished by 88BC. Also all italian allies were included into the legions, specialist tasks were instead transferred to the auxilia i.e. the non-italian allies attached to each legions.

My point is that if you increase the ppl that cannot pay for their gear you either need to have some sort of light troops and increase their numbers - as they did after they lowered the property qualification limit for the army after the second punic war. Or you need to pay up, as in simple but sturdy armour - and this is what Marius must have done if he got rid of the roman velites. Actually its becoming rather clear to me that this was done a lot earlier than Marius i.e. state issued armour and weapons.

If Marius legionaries were supposed to be uniform heavy infantry and professional soldiers I find it difficult to imagine one with a mail shirt, greaves and helmet and one with no armour at all or simply a helmet... Especially if the minimum armour for roman heavy infantry seems to have been the pectorale 100 years before Marius.

[Alanus]

I just read this thread, more or less post mortum.
It seems to me that Jesper D's original question was, "Brass or Bronze." Here are few thoughts on brass.
While reworking my auxilliary belt, the brass parts grind exceedingly fast. Soft metal.
I traded a perfectly good Gallic H helmet to my friend Quintus for a brass Coolus. It is heavier than the Gallic H but fits my long head better. However, given corrections in design I would prefer the iron Gallic for its superior strength.

What's inherently wrong with brass?-- as opposed to bronze or steel?
No strength. Too brittle.

I was, for years, a licensed fishing captain and operated several boats. In marine circles, no one uses brass. An example would be a prop shaft. The best are made of stainless steel or bronze, with monel as a third choice. Nobody even makes a brass shaft since it cannot stand up to torque. This exclusion of brass in a large industry might carry through to the same reasons helmets and segmentata, and chain mail, were preferred in steel (iron) during ancient times. Brass is weak in all its applications. Bronze is expensive in all its uses (due to the inherent tin content). And therefore we are left with iron-steel as the most popular and effective protective metal. In modifying anything made of brass, it breaks.

The great flaw of brass can be explained by the simple observation that nobody would even think of producing a brass sword. :roll: Just a thought on the subject that excludes all the vageries of politics, who owned what, reforms of the Senate, and the trials of Caesar. :wink:

[Matthew Amt]

And yet we find brass helmets produced well into the 3rd century AD, so they must have been good enough protection for those who wore them! Weight is going to vary by thickness, regardless of the metal. And we tend to find that the Gallic and Italic styles of helmets, whether iron or copper alloy, tend to be more oval in plan and fit the head better than the Coolus types. Interestingly, back around 2500 BC there were plenty of copper weapons, which have been shown to be quite deadly. Even some Late Bronze Age swords have a very low tin content, so they wouldn't be any harder than a nice high zinc brass.

We just can't draw solid historical conclusions based on our own modern experiences. All we can do is look at the artifacts that remain, which clearly worked just fine.

Vale,

Matthew

[PhilusEstilius]

Matthew. I find your comments interesting with regard to helmet shapes ie Gallics and Italics where as you rightly say they are more oval in shape than the Coolus types, what I have found now over many years of creating Roman gear the Coolus types appear to have been created more in the fashion of being beaten out.
Where as I have now come to consider many of the Gallics and others that are oval in shape may well have been drop forged, if I may speak from much experience of beating all kinds of bowls of many sizes I have come to the conclusion that as per the Coolus type bowl.
There is a certain ratio to this beating of metal whereby it becomes difficult to take a bowl down much more than the radius of the diameter of a bowl ie similar to the Coolus type.
If we check most Coolus bowls we find that they nearly all tend to have decayed at about just over one third up from the helmet rim all around the bowl, most of the pictures of these helmets shown by H.R.Robinson does show this. Then of course from my own experience I have found that all beaten bowls do tend to have this weakness point, and also may well be the reason why the Coolus neck guards come straight out from the bowl and are the stronger part of the helmet.