Roman Full Plate Armor?

[M. Demetrius]

Crupellarii vs. the pointed end of a dolabra is a short fight, when facing an armed legionary.

[Matthew Amt]

Here's a question I have then: if they had the awareness of Sarmatian knights, of the Crupellarius equipped from head to toe, and there was no technical prohibition from outfitting a 12th century Medieval knight, but they didn't -- why do we assume it was because of a conceptual lack, and not something like tactical considerations?

Do we not tacitly assume that the knightly panoply was in some way intrinsically more desirable?

The crupellarius was practically a side-show freak, designed to be a real challenge to a single more lightly-armored opponent. (Well, that's an assumption! They might have liked to see pairs of crupellarii slugging it out, but most other types of bouts featured different opponents.) Sarmatian knights and Parthian cataphracts were *nobles*, aristocrats who could easily afford all their own armor. And contact with Parthians and Sarmatians came only after centuries of Hellenistic tradition, and after Roman nobility no longer fought as the heavies in the front rank. So the Romans who could afford complete armor saw no need to wear it, and those who might have liked it in combat couldn't afford it (and the state saw no need to supply it!), and probably didn't want to schlep it on the march. In the post-Roman period, the nobility goes back to supplying the armored warriors, and since they are mounted and can afford anything, armor once again evolves and grows to full coverage.

Generalizations, of course, but that's how I see it. Vale,

Matthew

[SigniferOne]

So the Romans who could afford complete armor saw no need to wear it, and [size=105:2wk9wx6l]those who might have liked it in combat couldn't afford it[/size]

Sorry but -- why would they have liked it in combat?

Isn't that precisely begging the question that I'm pointing out?

[Endre Fodstad]

Because even a full suit of maille, at least when you layer it with textile armour (again, the elusive subarmalia makes this one difficult for roman times) makes you practically impervious to harm from a great deal of weapons? Swords, spears and a great deal of missile weapons all have a great deal of trouble even scratching the wearer. With textile armour beneath, you don't suffer much impact damage either. Plate armour has many of the same advantages, to the extent that they stopped using shields, the warrior's premier line of defense since prehistoric times. If this does not come at a great cost in mobility (which seems to have been the problem with Tacitus' rerported crupellarius' suit) you would have to be an idiot not to prefer it in open battle if you can afford it and you are not functioning as a skirmisher or light infantry/cavalry.

[SigniferOne]

Because even a full suit of maille, at least when you layer it with textile armour (again, the elusive subarmalia makes this one difficult for roman times) makes you practically impervious to harm from a great deal of weapons? Swords, spears and a great deal of missile weapons all have a great deal of trouble even scratching the wearer. With textile armour beneath, you don't suffer much impact damage either. Plate armour has many of the same advantages, to the extent that they stopped using shields, the warrior's premier line of defense since prehistoric times. If this does not come at a great cost in mobility (which seems to have been the problem with Tacitus' rerported crupellarius' suit) you would have to be an idiot not to prefer it in open battle if you can afford it and you are not functioning as a skirmisher or light infantry/cavalry.

In that case let's look at a scenario that M. Demetrius hinted at -- would you say that a 12th century knight is every bit as nimble as the 1st century legionary?

[Olaf]

OK as I see the discussion has returned to the crupellarius.
As I am more versed in gladiatorial matters then in metallurgy I hope I can again provide some input in this discussion.
The first place there are mentioned (and the only one were their name is given is the passage in the Annals above.
Know I not an expert in latin, but he mentions the following attributes for the Crupellarii:
"clad after the national fashion in a complete covering of steel"
Now the Gallic national fashion would hardly be considered wearing as l.Seg, as the Gauls were fare better known for their chain maile.
And a covering of steel - actualy a better translation would be iron - does in no way refer to any form of plates.
"slaves who were being trained for (as?) gladiators"
So presumably in this context they were outfittet in the same armament they would use in the arena.
This is signifficant as there are only a few types of gladiators known wearing body armor.
We have a depiction of scale armored equites from the 1 century CE, which later seem to only wear tunica.
From the 2nd century AD onward we see the Scissor as being armored either in scale or in mail fighting against the retiarius armed with the trident mostly in the eastern provinces.
Significant here is the fact that the Scissor does not carry a shield even though the twohanded Trident is considered as the most penetrating of all gladiatorial weapons.
"though they were ill-adapted for inflicting wounds, they were impenetrable to them"
Now this puzzels me the most, because why would you use soldiers that are not effective in actually hurting the enemy?
But in gladiatorial terms the swords were actually gradually becoming shorter during the first century AD, some maybe Tacitus is refering to this.
And them being impenetrable to wounds doesnt seem to hold true as we read later.
by implication Tacitus also writes that they are not "armed like our legionaries", so how would a leginary at this time be armed?

Now we look at Annals 40.46:

The men in mail were somewhat of an obstacle, as the iron plates did not yield to javelins or swords; but our men, snatching up hatchets and pickaxes, hacked at their bodies and their armour as if they were battering a wall. Some beat down the unwieldy mass with pikes and forked poles, and they were left lying on the ground, without an effort to rise, like dead men.

paulum morae attulere ferrati, restantibus lamminis adversum pila et gladios; set miles correptis securibus et dolabris, ut si murum perrumperet, caedere tegmina et corpora; quidam trudibus aut furcis inertem molem prosternere, iacentesque nullo ad resurgendum nisu quasi exanimes linquebantur.

Now this is interresting.
Here we see the aformentioned fighters in actual battle.
The translation doesnt seem to be clear if they were "in mail" or having "iron plates" so I would be gratefull if someone more knowlegable in Latin can give me a better answer.
Also they seem to have a good defense against thrown pila and stabbing gladii, but were overcome by the use of dolabris.
And they also had a problem with getting up once toppled over (though his might be an exageration, just like them being impervius to harm)

Now lets look at the statue (pictured in Junkelmanns book here before me).
Mike Bishops drawing seems to be correct in the details as far as I can tell from the small photo.
Junkelmann writes that i was found in a gallo roman shrine in Versigny and is dated to the first century AD.
He says that the statue seems to portrait a crupellarius refering to Picard but challenging Picards view of the statue portraing a blind fighter, because the helmet clearly shows holes.
Junkelmann consideres the banded armor parts to be segmented, but notes that the abdominal area and the hip does not show such armor, and supposes a shield has to be worn with the suit.
(Weapon and shield do not seem to have been found with the statue, but Junkelmann supposes there were items attached to the hands)

If the statue is indeed portraing a gladiator oly mentioned once in the Annnals, I am not sure If I woud identify the ines on the body as segmented armor at all.
Is there any l.Seg known where se shoulder segments meet in the middle of the breast as the vertical line seem to implicate?
Also the metal manicae known to us dont completely encase the arm or leg (leather and fabric manicae being a differnt story altogether) - but I haveto admitt its difficult to actually discern if the lines do go round the arms and legs without being able to see it in person.
Know the helmet is also very peculiar as during the beginning of the first century AD many gladiators still fought without visors that only gradually became full face protection during the second half of the first century.
Even then the construction seen on the statue with its many punctured holes is olny known from depictions and statues of gladiators from the second century onwards. Most notably those identified as Secutors.
Actually in statues these helmets show a pronounced ridge running vertically down the face...

Now I will leave the rest to your imagination as I will not jump to any conclusions from this, but might the crupellarii actually have been an early form of Scissors?
Even disregarding the Versigny statue a Scissor would be covered in metall (hamata or squamta going down over the knees + 2 short greaves and a helmet with only small eyeholes), be impervious to attack (armored against the trident), maybe even ill adapt to inflict wounds with the left arm only having the typical spherical knife attached and a sword in the right hand, and not very agile with that much armor and limited sight.

But still this is only my theory as almost nothing regarding the crupellarii can be backed up with certainty.

[Endre Fodstad]

"Every bit as nimble" is a relative term, but In regards to what matters for melee combat, I have no trouble moving around and fighting in either a full suit of maille and helmet or l.seg and helmet, at least (although as most high medieval warriors, I would not wear a barrel helmet when fighting on foot in a battle, swapping it for an open helm instead). Now I am not a 12th century knight or man-at-arms, trained from birth or young age for war, nor a roman legionaire with up to 20 years experience (or more) in war - both would likely outperform me considerably(to put it mildly) in the armour they are familiar with, especially since the last year has seen me slacking in my WMA training. Both are more tiring to wear than fighting unarmoured, but I think there is a reason Talhoffer exclaims "God Help Them" when he starts his section on unarmoured Messer fighting...more on that later.

If given the choice of wearing a full suite of maille with textile armour underneath and open infantry combat helmet, and a l.seg. and helmet in battle, all other things being equal, I think I would have chosen the former. It would have protected larger areas of my body and I would not, as in the latter case, been vulnerable to having my unarmoured arms and hands slashed open. Of course, if I was a later era legionaire, I could and would have armoured up farther. Equally, given the choice between any form of practical armour and fighting unarmoured with real weapons, I would have chosen the armour. Helmet? Yes, please: rather a concussion than a split skull. Gauntlets or mittens? Oh yes: my finger tendons, not to mention fingers, can and will be cut off with even a light blow that would glance off a mitten.

Since Tacitus' description has these crupellarii being unable to rise after being knocked to the ground and unable to kill anybody due to being unmanageable, it sounds like something else entirely from medieval fully covering armour (Olaf has of course speculated that it might be an exaggaration).

I have some reasons for my armour fetishism:

I've been part of test cutting experiments and public demonstrations for years now, suspending pig's haunches and carcasses from jigs and covering them with different pieces of armour. Few if any in the audience doubt the effectiveness of armour aftor going away from those. I can, with a good cut, cut straight through a pig's haunch - stronger and tougher than any man's thigh - with a sword. Even a 20cm spearhead can produce horrifying cuts to the bone into flesh and gristle. Penetrating an unarmoured carcass with a spear or sword thrust barely requires any energy at all: I can set the spear to the flesh and push it through with a finger, even if it is just a hanging haunch with little resistance due to weight. Small, quick, backhand swordstrokes can produce extremely nasty, deep wounds, even through thick muscle and gristle.

Now for armour: Even a thin 10-linen layer textile armour will save the haunch from being cut apart by a sword-cut: it might be cut through and produce a wound, but it will not produce a killing blow. A thrust will be more effective, but hardly as immediately lethal as the unarmoured flesh.
Add maille, and the haunch is practically impervious to sword cuts, even when we ramp up the force. Getting a spear - even one with an armour-piercing tip - through maille and textile is no mean feat: 120lbs bodkin point arrows launched at ten paces get through, but do not produce mortal wounds (there is an account from Jean of Joinville's crusading experience with St.Louis where he is unable to put his armour back on again after being showered with arrows due to the pain of many wounds - but he fought through the battle even when pincushioned none the less, that illustrate this effect).
If we add the last pieces of high medieval body armour - either the coat-of-plates or especially another, thicker, layer of textile armour as described in a number of ordnances, item registrers and equipment "standard" descriptions, we have so far been unable to damage the flesh effectively with swords, spears, arrows from 120lbs bows. Our distance shooter (that now can work a 150lbs bow) has been absent the last few years, so we haven't tried forces above that besides a steel lathe crossbow that underperformed severely (likely because it is of less than ideal quality, even if it measures to 160lbs draw or so) We don't feel we have good results with axes as to make much of the results, as the two we have used have been rather low quality. A new two-handed broad axe for test cutting is on the project list.

You are of course not invulnerable, even in fully covering "white plate". There will always be weaker areas and possible entry points. But freeform sparring with modern protective equipment, which I greatly enjoy (especially when we ramp it up and allow grappling), illustrates the vulnerability of the head, hands and arms in a fighting situation with swords or axes. The face must be uncovered for you to see your opponent, but it is fairly easy to dodge a thrust to it. The next two are exposed to your enemy when you make attacks - especially if you fight with a large shield (bucklers allow you to follow your hands with the buckler, and with careful footwork and entry techniques you can keep your opponents counterattacks off you). With bladed polearms the legs and feet become really vulnerable. With stabbing polearms, a feint to the head can end up as a downward thrust impaling your foot: the only real defense against that is evasion by retreating, which means you sacrifice initiative.

As a side note, the use of polearms, especially stabbing ones, is difficult to do in a safe manner, even with modern protective gear and very experienced fighters. Do not try at home unless you've been sparring with rebated steel for years and years and really know what you are doing.

[edit: I hereby pledge to write less in this thread, even if I love the subject of armour. This is getting ridiculous ]

[Matt Lukes]

This is such a cool thread LOL I'm very impressed by all so far and hope it continues- no need for writing less either Endre, others of us have an armour fetish too :wink:

My two denarii is pretty minimal just now since I'm in the midst of a bunch of stuff, but I would echo the aspect of 'need'- that the Legions seemingly didn't so much have a need for such heavy armour- by pointing out that even the armour they did have was full of openings or wasn't super-strong and yet was considered sufficient for centuries. The L. segmentata, for example, has a nice opening at the base of the neck, and huge spaces under the arms. It must also be borne in mind that body armour is the last line of defense, never meant to be hit.

And a clear example of why it's not impossible that they could have had it is the iron muscled cuirass from Corfu- so material and technique wasn't a restriction.

[Sean Manning]

I mostly share Matthew's views here. Common soldiers wore body armour, a helmet, and maybe one more item of armour, because it was affordable, not too heavy on the march, and gave them a good chance of surviving wounds in combat. Medieval knights had more money, and servants and pack-horses to carry their armour, so they wore more of it. We do see some Roman cavalry in nearly complete armour, and my impression is that such cavalry get more common as time goes on.

The one disadvantage of well-made full armour I can think of is that men and horses in full armour will tend to tire and overheat faster. But many armies located in hot regions like Southwest Asia have felt that heavy armour for cavalry and charioteers was worth the cost.

[Endre Fodstad]

I mostly share Matthew's views here. Common soldiers wore body armour, a helmet, and maybe one more item of armour, because it was affordable, not too heavy on the march, and gave them a good chance of surviving wounds in combat.

Very true. To provide comparative exampes:
We have several sets of laws preserved from the 13th century in Norway regarding the equipment nobles, men-at-arms, and the leidang naval levies were supposed to bring to the muster. The King's Mirror (c.1250) says that a well-equipped noble, besides his horse and arms and whatnot, should have a full suit of textile armour close to the body, covered by a full suite of maille. On his head, he should have a helmet (he is advised to own two, as I recall; a closed one for mounted and a "Stálhufvu" (Steel Head/Cap) open-faced helmet for dismounted warfare). He should have a coat-of-plates on his torso (under the maille, in fact) and a thick textile torso armour on top. That's one heavily armoured noble!

In the Laws and Ordinances govering the King's Hird of the 1290s, there are five classes of man-at arms:
The skutilsvein (often translated knight since they are often in later sources referred to as knights, equally often translated as man-at-arms, likely more correctly as he does not need to be an actual noble) is required to have, as a minimum, "full harness": textile armour, full maille, barrel helmet and/or open helmet, and coat-of-plates.
The hirdman (often translated man-at-arms) is required to have, as a minimum a textile armour tunic covered by either maille armour or another, thicker textile armour such as the one described in the king's mirror, and a open helmet.
The guest (light infantry also serving as secret police) is required to have at least "strong" textile armour and open helmet.
The kjertesvein (squire, lit. "candle-boy"/"candle-man") , a noncombatant, is required to be equipped as the guests.

In the Laws of the Land of Norway (that was legalized by the assembly in 1274, although older, less detailed laws date back to the 11th century), the levies are divided into wealth classes, where the poorest are not required to bring armour at all, the next richer required to own open helmets, the next richer requried to own open helmets and "strong textile armour" and the wealthiest (this is not the truly rich, who often paid for a replacement professional to go in their stead to the muster, only the well-to-do commoner) required to bring open helmets and maille (likely with textile armour beneath).

The hirdmen all are supposed to have bucklers and "good shields" plus sword and/or hand axe, spears and a crossbow or warbow. Only the poorest levies gets away with bringing only shield and hand axe; the rest must bring spears, "red shields" and swords or hand axes. Fully half the militia are required to bring bows (the regulations for the bows are under the organizatorial section covering ship's companies, supply and ordering of row benches).

Now a hirdman, the professional soldier, is not required to (although he of course can get more - the king, bishop or noble whose retinue he belongs to seems to have provided the basic required equipment of him) be much more heavily armoured than a roman legionaire: helmet and body armour, in addition to the shield, buckler (for guard duty and light infantry work), sword and/or hand axe, warbow or crossbow and spear (sometimes 2) he is required to have to qualify for the hird. The same thing applies for the wealthier leidangsman. We have several images and written sources where the hirdmen (the term is ambigeous as all the members of the hird are technically hirdmen, but it is used in other instances as well) are equipped with more armour (and weapons, the medieval norse still loved them that "broad" two-handed axe), but the codified demand is the "minimum entry".

While there are few medieval laws (or indeed, levy laws preserved anywhere until recently) as detailed as this, the snippets we have from elsewhere in latin territories give the same impression, especially in the poorer kingdoms, marcher territories with a population militarized above even the usual standard, or city-republics where they were dependent on militia or levies to fill out the ranks. Increasingly, the equipment of the infantrymen get heavier, and in the latter part 14th century, as the ferrous metals production rises, you can often see continental images of for example mercenary companies of infantry decked out in fully covering armour. It is only with the advent of firearms that armour is rolled back, seemingly, although many 17th century infantrymen are often seen wearing armour to a level a well-equipped high medieval or late medieval infantryman would have recognized.

Medieval knights had more money, and servants and pack-horses to carry their armour, so they wore more of it.

It is of course also a matter that sometimes, high and late medieval infantry would fight as "dragoons", riding to battle and dismounting before combat. 100 years war chevauchée raids are just one example. This became increasingly common in the later 14th century, but I know of a french 12th century poem describing the order of march of an army, where a large proportion of the infantry are mounted (many as outriders), spanish marcher warfare accounts where you see the same, and anglo-norman warfare with infantry riding to battle and dismounting. I also know a 13th century winter campaign description from the saga of king Haakon IV, where the king sends an expedition to root out a nest of rebels: in addition to the cavalry, the infantry are either mounted on horses (with snowshoes!) or transported in horse-drawn sleds, and some other norwegian civil war descriptions where the leaders decide against ship travel (the usual transportation method of medieval norwegian armies) because their enemies are dominating the sea-lines, and instead mount up and travel cross-country with their best troops, infantry and cavalry all.

[Ah well. My promise broken. Gargantuapost again]

[D B Campbell]

... the Legions seemingly didn't so much have a need for such heavy armour- by pointing out that even the armour they did have was full of openings or wasn't super-strong ... L. segmentata, for example, has a nice opening at the base of the neck, and huge spaces under the arms. It must also be borne in mind that body armour is the last line of defense, never meant to be hit.

Aren't we perhaps seeing "style of combat" as a factor here? Your dismounted medieval knight is presumably on foot to fight a single combat, where (as Endre's post graphically illustrates) he requires maximum protection. The legionary lined up in a shield-wall requires less detailed protection, because (in that context, as Matt reminds us) the large body shield is his main protection. (btw I apologise for my ignorance of medieval warfare: I am a dyed-in-the-wool Romanist.)

We do see some Roman cavalry in nearly complete armour, and my impression is that such cavalry get more common as time goes on.

Sean's observation is interesting, because cavalry skirmishing is quite different from infantry battle (to my mind, at least). Also, it is often cavalry that we read about engaging in single combat. And, equally, it is often dismounted cavalry that we find assigned to perilous tasks (e.g. storming a breach). In this context, I have always believed that the close-fitting, head-encasing helmets (the Robinson classification eludes me at the moment; perhaps someone can assist?) are cavalry helmets, and for this very reason.

[Endre Fodstad]

Your dismounted medieval knight is presumably on foot to fight a single combat, where (as Endre's post graphically illustrates) he requires maximum protection. The legionary lined up in a shield-wall requires less detailed protection, because (in that context, as Matt reminds us) the large body shield is his main protection. (btw I apologise for my ignorance of medieval warfare: I am a dyed-in-the-wool Romanist.)

There are several accounts of medieval men-at-arms and knights dismounting to fight in the battle line; tactical flexibility was, as always, vital. In the norwegian examples, they probably fought more dismounted than mounted in many periods, due to the aforementioned tendency for the medieval norse to use ships for strategic movement. There are few, if any, accounts of high medieval norwegian forces fighting mounted during, for example, the war with the scots (1262-1266) or during the wars with the hanseatic leaguge and Denmark (off and on, 13th century). It is only when trouble starts with neighbouring swedes (or the aforementioned border rebels of King Haakon's time, who the winter campaign pursued into Sweden) who can actually get to the norwegian core territories on land, that we start hearing of mounted warriors.

Protection is also important in the battle-line, but of course it all comes down to cost, again. If somebody thrusts feints at your face and shift to your foot, both uncovered by the shield, you can in many cases move it out of the way. It is when you can't that you thank yourself for that extra armour...the common foot soldier, professional legionaire or hirdman or levied hastati or leidangsman, probably could not afford to equip himself with the best equipment. Considering how (relatively) rare conflict would be even in a career soldier's life, more armour might not have been the first thing a soldier would have bought...it was, after all, very expensive.

[Matt Lukes]

I must too admit a fair amount of ignorance about the intiricacies of medieval systems, but I do wonder if the 'requirements' (which are fascinating to learn about) may be more of a product of the feudal system- necessary to make sure a Baron, or whomever, would outfit his contribution to a war such that the King's forces are not outclassed. And the 'requirement' for nobles to have this or that might have been as much to be sure those with power weren't killed off and thus the King's support decreased as to it being a true necessity with respect to the nature of warfare of the time. Plus of course those with money have a whole lot more to lose, so wanting to be sure one isn't maimed or killed is a motivator to improve protection to be sure :wink: It would seem to me that knights or nobles are not a proper analog to examine with respect to Legionary kit- but rather the simpler Man-At-Arms (the hirdman in the Norweigan text?).

...the common foot soldier, professional legionaire or hirdman or levied hastati or leidangsman, probably could not afford to equip himself with the best equipment. Considering how (relatively) rare conflict would be even in a career soldier's life, more armour might not have been the first thing a soldier would have bought...it was, after all, very expensive.

Perhaps so- Imperial Roman soldiers were issued with arms and armor and the cost came out of their pay- however given the decoration of most pugiones, the use of precious metals in sword acoutrements, and so on certainly begs the question of whether or not extra money was spent on better things or 'prettier' things... afterall, something cool-looking has more 'use' than functional armor one might use in battle once a year or every few years.

[john m roberts]

There was a brief period in the 5th-6th century BC that a hoplite could have something close to full plate. I've seen at least one figurine of a hoplite in helmet, bell cuirass with pendant lower-abdomen/groin plate, thigh guards, greaves, upper and lower arm guards for the right arm, plus a shield. There were even hinged foot guards available. As noted before, the ancients never worked out articulation for the joints, but it was more complete armor for the footman than was to be seen again for centuries. However, the supplementary pieces soon fell from favor and the hoplites were again content with the classic combination of helmet, cuirass and greaves. So there was nothing impracticable about fuller plate coverage, it just wasn't considered desirable.

[Endre Fodstad]

I must too admit a fair amount of ignorance about the intiricacies of medieval systems, but I do wonder if the 'requirements' (which are fascinating to learn about) may be more of a product of the feudal system- necessary to make sure a Baron, or whomever, would outfit his contribution to a war such that the King's forces are not outclassed. And the 'requirement' for nobles to have this or that might have been as much to be sure those with power weren't killed off and thus the King's support decreased as to it being a true necessity with respect to the nature of warfare of the time. Plus of course those with money have a whole lot more to lose, so wanting to be sure one isn't maimed or killed is a motivator to improve protection to be sure :wink: It would seem to me that knights or nobles are not a proper analog to examine with respect to Legionary kit- but rather the simpler Man-At-Arms (the hirdman in the Norweigan text?).

By the time these texts were written, the feudal system was not what it used to be, especially not in Norway, where the civil wars of the 12th century more or less had exterminated the old noble class. But that is another story.

The King's Mirror listing is not a list of requirements per se, it is what was later called things like "How a (gentle)man ought to be armed", although it is part of a much larger "Prince's Mirror" text detailing how the (well-born) man should behave in the king's court, from simple advise to table etiquette. Accompanying it is another large text detailing how the well-born man should behave should he wish to earn his keep as a merchant (that's the one where the author explains night and day, akining the earth to an apple spinning in a dark room, illuminated by a single bright candle...always liked that one). It is not a manual exclusively for the higher nobility, although it certainly panders to the educated aristocrat - one hypothesis is that it was compiled for the son of King Magnus the Law-mender (although why he would want to know how to peddle wares between Norway and the atlantic colonies is an open question).

The Hirdskraa is also a much larger document, detailing guard duties, how to conduct the watch when the king is conducting a public parade and a great deal of administrational detail as well (the Hird was more than just a bodyguard; it was a part of the apparatus of state with a number of offices). There was mobility within the ranks of hird - the hirdman could aspire to be a skutilsvein, with all the rights - and duties, such as equipping oneself with more arms and armour) or serve in one of the offices within the hird, for example. It is only the guests that are barred from advancing.

The comparison thus becomes difficult no matter what; within the professional warrior segment, both in scandinavia and elsewhere in Europe, the Man-at-Arms spanned from regular infantry to heavy infantry (and, more common on the continent) to cavalry to heavy shock cavalry, and could serve in all those roles. But it is true that the hirdman and the legionaire are wearing the same "level" of equipment in battle...although hirdmen also seems to have served as archers if need be, not only as melee infantry. Direct comparisons will always be difficult.

[edit] An interesting note about armour, battle and weapons is that the skeletal remains from Korsbetningem, Gotland (from the mass graves made after the Battle of Wisby, 1361) indicate that most wounds were inflicted on the extremities of the milita that died there, and they were under-equipped yeomen. This seems to have been the case even in flight, when the pursuers could "pick and choose" what part of the body they attacked; thus the armour they had served its purpose well.