Unarmored Legionaries?

[The Alexandrian]

In his account of the battle between Macrinus and Elagabalus in 218 AD, Cassius Dio remarks that Macrinus had his legionaries fight unarmored and with smaller shields than usual. I was curious if anyone knows how common of an occurence this was - is there evidence for legionaries fighting unarmored at other times, or was this a one-time occasion?

[Ross Cowan]

Macrinus had his praetorians - the core of his army - fight without body armour and their regular scuta. I suspect that some references to legionaries fighting expediti, e.g. in Caesar's army, suggest they were unarmoured. I think M.P. Speidel, 'Who Fought in the Front?' in G. Alföldy et al., Kaiser, Heer und Gesellschaft in der römischen Kaiserzeit (2000), 473-482, has some examples of later Roman troops discarding cuirasses to enable them to fight in a more 'heroic' manner.

Cheers,

R

[Iagoba]

I think M.P. in G. Alföldy et al., Kaiser, Heer und Gesellschaft in der römischen Kaiserzeit (2000), 473-482, has some examples of later Roman troops discarding cuirasses to enable them to fight in a more 'heroic' manner.

That would be something better explanation than the over-quoted Vegetius "lazyness". Perhaps this "heroism" was not welcolme from a Roman point of view, if it was seen as "barbarian" custom.

I´ll try have a look on it, probably that its explained.

Thanks :wink:

[Marcus Iulius Chattus]

There exist some evidences ( some Gravestones from Legio II in Apamea/Syria for example), that these non-armored troops were called Lanciarii. It seems, that there were used in battle in the same way as the earlier, Republican Velites or Antesegnanii, as Skirmishers.
Herodian describes some light-armored troops in the battle of Nisibis in 217, that were almost certainly Lanciarii:
"...... and the spaces in the centre (between the heavy legionaires) were filled with light armed troops capable of making marauding forays...."
Arrian describes in his Extasis Contra Alanos, that Lanciarii could also be drawn behind there heavy-armed comrades and supply missile support over there heads.

[Matthew Amt]

One of the legionaries shown on the Mainz column base is apparently unarmored, and that's a battle scene. There are a couple figurines (one shown in a Simkins book?) that appear to be of late Republican legionaries (judging by helmet and shield), in "action" poses, again lacking body armor. Check the Arch of Orange, too. Caesar's men at Dhyrrachium made themselves coats or tunics of hide and fabric to protect themselves from Pompey's archers, which they would not have had to do if they'd had mail.

Taken together, that really tells me that not all legionaries were armored.

Vale,

Matthew

[jvrjenivs]

You can also find some more depictions of soldiers fighting in what appears to be just tunics in the great new book of Graham Sumner 'Roman military dress'

[marka]

the lanciarii probably only wore leather armour or similar
i doubt however that legionaries were unarmoured all the time,it would make no sense especially when their enemies were increasingly wearing armour-i wouldn't want to face persian clibanarii or german infantry without armour.
However in some circumstances-fighting on swampy ground,imperial guard duty-they may not have worn armour.

[Marcus Iulius Chattus]

@ Marka
From wich sources you have the evidences, that Lanciarii wore leather-armor? Non-armored troops can stand against armored foes (especially in some ambush), because they are much more nimble.

[Sardaukar]

One of the legionaries shown on the Mainz column base is apparently unarmored, and that's a battle scene. There are a couple figurines (one shown in a Simkins book?) that appear to be of late Republican legionaries (judging by helmet and shield), in "action" poses, again lacking body armor. Check the Arch of Orange, too. Caesar's men at Dhyrrachium made themselves coats or tunics of hide and fabric to protect themselves from Pompey's archers, which they would not have had to do if they'd had mail.

Taken together, that really tells me that not all legionaries were armored.

Vale,

Matthew

I have thought that Caesar's men were making themselves coats and tunics of hide and fabric as ADDITIONAL armour over their mail. Maube, because they had to work with both hands and thus without shield. But it can be intrepreted many ways.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Here are fragments of an ivory frieze from a piece of furniture dated to the 2nd c CE, now at the Ephesus Archaeological Museum. The fragments show Roman soldiers in tunics fighting. Another group of soldiers in tunics is depicted alongside a soldier wearing a hamata.

[john m roberts]

Great pics, Curius, I've never seen those before. The guy at top right seems to be wearing a Hollywood-Attic helmet.

[Iagoba]

cvrivs, just thanks for adding the pics :o (

[Robert Vermaat]

cvrivs, just thanks for adding the pics :o (

I think those with less than five can't award karma point - so I gave him one from me and one from you. :wink:

[Ceannt]

From what i have read it depended on the battle. Legionaries were trained to use other weapons as well as the glaidus and not every battle was a pitched battle in full kit
(Caesar only had to fight one pitched battle in the whole of his campaing in gaul)

You would not wear aromur fighting in mountainus terrain, and so on

Thats my two cents

[Matthew Amt]

From what i have read it depended on the battle. Legionaries were trained to use other weapons as well as the glaidus and not every battle was a pitched battle in full kit
(Caesar only had to fight one pitched battle in the whole of his campaing in gaul)

One?? Been a while since I read Caesar, but I seem to remember more than that. A good stand-up fight against the Helvetii, I believe, plus a sudden attack on his troops as they're entrenching by a river; several full-scale fights at Avaricum and Alesia at least. Not to mention a couple goodies in Britain. There were also a few battles during the winter that he missed himself though his troops were involved.

You would not wear aromur fighting in mountainus terrain, and so on

I would! You really don't hear of many actions fought on precipitous slopes, or by troops hopping across rockfalls or glaciers. The action would take place in the flatter spaces, between more-or-less ordered lines of troops. Sure, if you catch the other guys winding along a narrow road at the bottom of a gorge, it's a cake walk to string your troops along the top and drop rocks on them. But I really think that's more Hollywood than history--if you can get up there, why can't the other guys? You might suggest battles like Trasimene, but take a look at how big that battlefield is! Plenty of space for a couple legions in the flat area, and the hillsides are way too far away to throw rocks down. If you do end up in a more restricted space, bordered by bad slopes or rocky terrain or water, that just gives you a good place to anchor your flanks, eh? Perfect for a phalanx!

People keep saying that Italy is too hilly for ordered formations. Say what? It's far larger and less hilly overall than Greece, where the phalanx was invented! Again, you don't bother trying to fight on a sheer rocky hillside--there are plenty of wide open fields and plains for battle. After all, there were any number of large battles in Italy during the middle ages, with all manner of heavy infantry and armored cavalry. It doesn't take much real estate to fit a battle which is very much "pitched" to those involved.

Valete,

Matthew