How well armoured was the Roman army?

[Maximinus243]

While the Roman army is one of the most well armoured army of its time, I feel that there is a need to ask how well armoured the Roman army was. Was the Empire able to supply every single soldier with heavy armour ( meaning metal as opposed to leather)? Was the Roman army during the Principate more well armoured than the late republican army? Was the late Roman army more well armoured than the army of Principate percentage wise?

[Matthew Amt]

While the Roman army is one of the most well armoured army of its time, I feel that there is a need to ask how well armoured the Roman army was. Was the Empire able to supply every single soldier with heavy armour ( meaning metal as opposed to leather)? Was the Roman army during the Principate more well armoured than the late republican army? Was the late Roman army more well armoured than the army of Principate percentage wise?

It seems clear that the Roman army had a vastly higher proportion of armored men than most or any other army of the time, looking at artwork, literature, and the huge amount of archeological finds. The very fact that so much "grunt issue" armor has been found is proof, if nothing else, since in most non-Roman cultures metal armor was worn only by the wealthy. But it is also clear to me that not every legionary or auxiliary was armored, as we can see on the Arch of Orange, the Mainz column bases, and at least a couple late Republican/early Principate figurines. It's quite possible that the Romans *could* have armored every man, but it doesn't seem to have been necessary to them to do so.

Best to give up on ideas of leather armor, by the way, at least until you've studied all the previous discussions we've had on the topic! And bear in mind that many "heavy" legionaries in the earlier Republic wore only a little bronze pectoral and backplate weighing about 3 pounds--hardly "heavy" armor...

I'd be willing to bet that most late Republican legionaries had little or no body armor, though that may have varied by unit. Julius Caesar's men may have been better armored overall than one of the many legions raised during the civil wars after his death, for example. But I don't think there is much in the way of actual evidence to argue either way. Certainly the Late Roman army had plenty of armor, but that's not my area so I wouldn't want to start comparing ratios to the army of the Principate.

Vale,

Matthew

[texascavtrooper]

Also if I'm not mistaken the soldiers had to pay for thier own armour! So it would seem that the more money you wanted to spend the better armoured you would be.

[Ron Andrea]

If so, payment for their armor may have been among those deductions taken from the soldier's pay before he got it, as reported in AW's 2010 Special Issue 2010, p. 54.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, the basic equipment was deducted from their pay. But If you were wanting a nice embossed silvered belt for instance......booty would help fund that.
Caesar encouraged his men to put their booty back into their equipment.

[Astiryu1]

Yes, the basic equipment was deducted from their pay. But If you were wanting a nice embossed silvered belt for instance......booty would help fund that.
Caesar encouraged his men to put their booty back into their equipment.

(music)What ya' gonna do with all that junk, all that junk inside that trunk?(music) :twisted:

[Aulus Perrinius]

. . . bear in mind that many "heavy" legionaries in the earlier Republic wore only a little bronze pectoral and backplate weighing about 3 pounds--hardly "heavy" armor...

I'd be willing to bet that most late Republican legionaries had little or no body armor, though that may have varied by unit. Julius Caesar's men may have been better armored overall than one of the many legions raised during the civil wars after his death, for example. But I don't think there is much in the way of actual evidence to argue either way. Certainly the Late Roman army had plenty of armor, but that's not my area so I wouldn't want to start comparing ratios to the army of the Principate.

Vale,

Matthew

Correct if I'm wrong but wasn't that just one type of Legionary? IIRC the Trarii were pretty heavily armoured.

[Robert Vermaat]

Was the late Roman army more well armoured than the army of Principate percentage wise?

Impossible to say as we lack detailed knowledge. Only by the late 6th century we hear of advice to provide armour at least for the front and back rows, but no-one can tell if that was specific for that period or earlier. Claims by a 4th c. text (Vegetius) that the Roman army had dropped all armour have been amply prroven to be untrue.

Speaking generally, I would say that the Late Roman army command would have tried to provide as much armour for their troops as the Principate army command would have. Both infantry types were mainly of the heavy sort, although it has been argued that the Late Roman infantryman had a more versatile role. Meaning, he would not have worn heavy armour on all operations (such as search and destroy, commando-style night raaids etcetera), tasks that were more left to the auxilia during the Principate. In a pitched battle though, both would have had a lorica of some type, a helmet, and probably armour on at least the right arm and the left leg. I think.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

But we also have images and record of what appear to be lightly armoured legionaries on special assignment from the late republic and principate
Caesar and the Mainz reliefs spring to mind.

[Phaichtos]

This is a very interesting topic to me, because I admit it is something I have always wondered about. I feel that at times we tend to "over standardize" the past when in reality, things might have been much more variable. I would imagine this is the case with Roman armor. (And also, I think it makes it more interesting; sure, a whole field full of Roman reenactors decked out in lorica segmentata looks cool, but I think it's even cooler seeing all the different personal impressions that guys have of the soldiers' kit, with different armor, helmets, etc, precisely because I think that might be more authentic!)

Anyway, I'm curious what evidence we might have in the ancient sources to back up the idea of perhaps not all soldiers even being armored at any given battle. Obviously it makes sense for troops like archers and slingers and maybe even some "special" auxilia to not be weighed down with heavy armor, but I admit it is a little hard for me to get my head around the idea of a Roman heavy infantryman not having some sort of body armor.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Have a look at pictures of our website, in the link in my signature.
While it looks very uniform, even in shots where there are many segs worn, there is no uniformaty.

[Phaichtos]

Have a look at pictures of our website, in the link in my signature.
While it looks very uniform, even in shots where there are many segs worn, there is no uniformaty.

I was only speaking generally, not accusing anyone here of being "copycats" or anything

And as I had been "lurking" for quite some time before signing up, I've spent a fair bit of time visiting your website with your legion's impressive reproductions

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

:lol: No i was just using us as an example.
But basically, we are all copy cats......we are just trying to copy something that was done before....with a low percentage of finds to go by

[Matthew Amt]

Correct if I'm wrong but wasn't that just one type of Legionary? IIRC the Trarii were pretty heavily armoured.

The amount of armor depended on the soldier's wealth (and therefore social class), whereas assignment to principes, hastati, or triarii depended on *age* and experience. There has been a tendency to think of these older and wiser men to have accumulated a tad more wealth and armor over their years of service, but I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. For instance we know that some soldiers complained that years of service in the army meant their farms and businesses back home failed or were bought out in their absence. So unless there was some heavy loot coming in, the older men need not have had a higher proportion of mail or scale armor than the younger ones in the hastati.

...I admit it is a little hard for me to get my head around the idea of a Roman heavy infantryman not having some sort of body armor.

You may be a victim of modern stereotypes! The vast majority of warriors in the ancient world went to war with no body armor. Even helmets were pretty uncommon. They must have assumed that the shield was enough to get by with. Greek hoplites were somewhat of an exception, though by the Hellenistic era many of them are unarmored as well, with (as usual) wealthier men or hardened professionals in the front ranks having bronze cuirasses, etc. The Romans are also somewhat of an exception, but we should still not think of armor as the "default" and try to rationalize being unarmored from there. Shield and helmet was still better than just shield, especially since the Roman has to march hundreds of miles to get to battle while the naked tribesman is probably on an hour's stroll from home! If you think of body armor as a special bonus which a Roman is simply more likely to have than a non-Roman (speaking of the non-nobles, here!), you'll have a better viewpoint.

And yes, I really don't know many Roman groups that are at all uniform in their equipment!

Valete,

Matthew

[Phaichtos]

You may be a victim of modern stereotypes!

It is quite possible that I am! CURSE YOU, OSPREY WARRIOR SERIES!!! *shakes fist*

:lol: