How well armoured was the Roman army?

[Caratacus]

What we can say for certain is that the use of armour (of all types) was widely distributed throughout the whole of the Empire in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. I, personally, know of well over 100 sites where (for example) bits of lorica segmentata have been found - half of them at British sites, curiously. This includes sites all the way along the Rhine/Danube frontier as well as into Eastern Europe, Palestine and North Africa. Many of these sites also yield evidence for the use of hamata and squamata armour (and many other sites don't show lor seg, but do have these alternatives).

I've always thought that a group of legionaries would have presented a very mottley appearance 'in parade'. Given that they bought their own gear (and we know from things like papyri that they did own their own stuff), what they wore would be what they could afford (or, were prepared to afford). A helmet and a shield would have been the absolute minimum (the shield being provided by the Army, I assume). You might, perhaps, have expected an 'honour guard' (the beneficarii) of picked men for the legatus to be a bit more 'spiffy' and uniform, perhaps?

Moving on to the later empire, we know from the Notitia Dignitatum that production of armour and weaponry was centralised by the state. Particular factories were tasked with producing shields, swords, armour, etc. The implication is that the army was well-cared for in terms of their personal protection. Given that the late empire was what we today would probably term a 'military dictatorship' this isn't all that surprising. Bit like the Soviet army of the Cold War era - which went First Class while everyone else went 3rd!

Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)

[Phaichtos]

What we can say for certain is that the use of armour (of all types) was widely distributed throughout the whole of the Empire in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. I, personally, know of well over 100 sites where (for example) bits of lorica segmentata have been found - half of them at British sites, curiously. This includes sites all the way along the Rhine/Danube frontier as well as into Eastern Europe, Palestine and North Africa. Many of these sites also yield evidence for the use of hamata and squamata armour (and many other sites don't show lor seg, but do have these alternatives).

I've always thought that a group of legionaries would have presented a very mottley appearance 'in parade'. Given that they bought their own gear (and we know from things like papyri that they did own their own stuff), what they wore would be what they could afford (or, were prepared to afford). A helmet and a shield would have been the absolute minimum (the shield being provided by the Army, I assume). You might, perhaps, have expected an 'honour guard' (the beneficarii) of picked men for the legatus to be a bit more 'spiffy' and uniform, perhaps?

Moving on to the later empire, we know from the Notitia Dignitatum that production of armour and weaponry was centralised by the state. Particular factories were tasked with producing shields, swords, armour, etc. The implication is that the army was well-cared for in terms of their personal protection. Given that the late empire was what we today would probably term a 'military dictatorship' this isn't all that surprising. Bit like the Soviet army of the Cold War era - which went First Class while everyone else went 3rd!

Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)

Yeah it's curious because nearly every museum I've been to in Europe has at least a few pieces of lorica segmentata in the cases. Usually it seems to be the little metal fasteners and stuff, since I'd imagine those would be the natural weak points in the armor, but occasionally they'll have some of the plates too. But nearly every time, the museum has to put up the little bits they have against a background poster showing what the complete armor looked like.

As for the standardization aspect (or lack thereof) I'm definitely in agreement with you. I can't imagine an army that essentially had to arm itself was at all "uniform" in its...well...uniform lol:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

i get the impression that even in the late Republic, where the likes of Caesar and Pompey et al were raising Legions, the ywere doing a good bit of the supply themselves, so you would expect there to be a good deal of standard issue armour from reliable sources....therefore there would be lots of equipment from a variety of suppliers, with a modicum of standardization...not a bunch of clones mind you, but an army wearing Montefortinos despite a cariety of suppliers would look fairly uniform but different at the same time.

[john m roberts]

And recall that the warlords of the civil war era, Caesar, Pompey, Brutus, Antonius and so forth, were vastly wealthy men, and regarded these legions as their personal property as did, indeed, the soldiers themselves. They were raising large numbers of legions, fast. It was in their personal interest to equip these men as fully as they could, out of their own personal fortunes (plus the huge indemnities they levied on any eastern city they could intimidate). With so much at stake, literally the whole world, economy would be the last thing on their minds. The better-equipped their men were, the more likely they were to win. And after a battle, the victor would usually have all the loser's armor (of course many of the loser's men would defect as well, and were usually gladly accepted). Later, more stable governments could afford to be more stingy, not that the occasional cash donative wasn't called for from time to time.

[Aulus Perrinius]

I've always thought that a group of legionaries would have presented a very mottley appearance 'in parade'. Given that they bought their own gear (and we know from things like papyri that they did own their own stuff), what they wore would be what they could afford (or, were prepared to afford). A helmet and a shield would have been the absolute minimum (the shield being provided by the Army, I assume). You might, perhaps, have expected an 'honour guard' (the beneficarii) of picked men for the legatus to be a bit more 'spiffy' and uniform, perhaps?

Moving on to the later empire, we know from the Notitia Dignitatum that production of armour and weaponry was centralised by the state. Particular factories were tasked with producing shields, swords, armour, etc. The implication is that the army was well-cared for in terms of their personal protection. Given that the late empire was what we today would probably term a 'military dictatorship' this isn't all that surprising. Bit like the Soviet army of the Cold War era - which went First Class while everyone else went 3rd!

Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)

Yeah it's curious because nearly every museum I've been to in Europe has at least a few pieces of lorica segmentata in the cases. Usually it seems to be the little metal fasteners and stuff, since I'd imagine those would be the natural weak points in the armor, but occasionally they'll have some of the plates too. But nearly every time, the museum has to put up the little bits they have against a background poster showing what the complete armor looked like.

As for the standardization aspect (or lack thereof) I'm definitely in agreement with you. I can't imagine an army that essentially had to arm itself was at all "uniform" in its...well...uniform lol: [/quote]


Indeed. A roman legionary would probably have gear that suited his tastes and funds. If Peter Lendon is to be believed (His theory is that legionaries basically worked more like a zulu horde on the field, than the robots they're commonly portrayed as) that might contribute to an individualistic style of personal gear. And back then it might have been easier to indentify a soldier based on his gear. 'Yep Cent, this is Crassus, he was the only one who liked that tacky brass color.'

As for voluntarily standing in line, it's a pretty common practice throughout the ages to only armour the guys in the first ranks, or only put the guys with a decent amount of gear in the front ranks.

That being said I think we can safely assume a legionary would have taken extra armour when and where he could get it (Unless his job was that a light infantryman). Modern soldiers don't like their body armor but they always take it when they can.

[Maximinus243]

And recall that the warlords of the civil war era, Caesar, Pompey, Brutus, Antonius and so forth, were vastly wealthy men, and regarded these legions as their personal property as did, indeed, the soldiers themselves. They were raising large numbers of legions, fast. It was in their personal interest to equip these men as fully as they could, out of their own personal fortunes (plus the huge indemnities they levied on any eastern city they could intimidate). With so much at stake, literally the whole world, economy would be the last thing on their minds. The better-equipped their men were, the more likely they were to win. And after a battle, the victor would usually have all the loser's armor (of course many of the loser's men would defect as well, and were usually gladly accepted). Later, more stable governments could afford to be more stingy, not that the occasional cash donative wasn't called for from time to time.

But even a rich man cannot speed up the production process in ancient times where there is no industries to speak off. Sure, he got the money to buy enough body armour for his entire army, but where the hell is he going to find all those armour to buy from?

It would not be easy for a pre-industrialised nation to produce enough armour on the same efficiency as a industrialised nation.

[Quintius Clavus]

At the end of the civil wars, when Augustus was the man on top, he apparently made sure the extra armor from the demobilized legions was stored. There were warehouses full of armor and weaponry in Rome and other locations in Italy. With an army pared down to 28 legions, and auxiliaries not being so formalized as they later were by Claudius' time, much of the armor probably went to the legionary troops. Recruits for the legions were still primarily from the Italian peninsula in the early years of the Principate. They opened the warehouses or armories to equip troops raised in the emergencies of AD 6 and AD 9. There does appear to have been some difference between what types of armor or armament went to citizens as opposed to non-citizens because care was exhibited in making sure appropriate armor, etc. went to the appropriate men raised in those two emergencies.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

But even a rich man cannot speed up the production process in ancient times where there is no industries to speak off. Sure, he got the money to buy enough body armour for his entire army, but where the hell is he going to find all those armour to buy from?

It would not be easy for a pre-industrialised nation to produce enough armour on the same efficiency as a industrialised nation.

the quality probably suffered a bit, but it was done. The montefortinos apparently can be seen of simpler construction, i.e. 1 rivet for cheek pieces instead of 2, no crest knobs etc.....

[Quintius Clavus]

The Romans had more of a "command" economy than we moderns give them credit for. And, as Mike Bishop/Jon Coulston have written in their book, Roman Military Equipment, were capable of assembly-line production of armor (and other commodities, too, I'm sure). In a ramp up for a campaign or to equip a newly raised legion, most of which until into the Third Century, were raised still in Italy, they could get numbers of shops - some large, some small - working on equipment for the troops. The cities of the East already had manufacturing centers.
Sara Phang, in Roman Military Service, discusses the changes she perceived in the provision of armor to the troops. She notes that sometime mid-2nd Century AD (AD 140 or so), that there are no longer pay-stoppages for armor. She interprets that to mean the soldiers now had to purchase their armor themselves-directly from suppliers. I don't have the book with me, and so can't check her references. Her theory was that corruption may have been a cause for the change - corruption on the part of the officers handling the supply to the soldiers, and this was (Hadrian's) solution. She then sees a greater disparity between what wealthier soldiers could afford as opposed to those who were less well-off, and who may very well have not been able to afford much.
The unarmored conventions in Roman scupture, etc, have always intrigued me - how much artistic license and convention and how much the reality on the ground? Most seem to be helmeted at least! Obviously a helmet and the large, long scutum cover the body pretty well. On the Adamklissi monument and Trajan's Column, as far as I recall, the troops engaged in fighting are all armored.

[jkaler48]

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.

There are frequent mentioned of "Light Armed" troops in ancient sources. I take this to mean on occasion auxillia without armor but it often seems to refer to Legionary troops
perhaps also without armor and armed with javelins and a lighter oval shield (a few memorials depict this)

[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.

There are frequent mentioned of "Light Armed" troops in ancient sources. I take this to mean on occasion auxillia without armor but it often seems to refer to Legionary troops
perhaps also without armor and armed with javelins and a lighter oval shield (a few memorials depict this)

Hmm, that's true. I was always a little unclear on the distinction (if there was any) between troops like velites and say principes in the Republican armies; technically speaking the former seem to have been the younger, greener troops with little or no access to armor. But I've wondered if whether the real distinction wasn't necessarily things like age, but more if you could afford the armor, you'd be in the regular battle lines with hastati and principes, and if you didn't, you would be a skirmisher of some sort. Also, if there was any degree of back and forth mobility between these kind of troops, aside from things like getting older and more experienced and becoming part of the triarii, for instance

[Lunico]

I have a question regarding the Lorica segmentata. One of my Osprey books about the roman army shows a legionair in britain in 43 AD. He wears a Lorica Segmentata. The book states that the Segmentata wasn't common or standard among the legion by then. It says that probably only 'specialists' wore that kind of armor at that time. Is that assumption correct? If so, who were considered 'specialists'?

[jvrjenivs]

The book states that the Segmentata wasn't common or standard among the legion by then.

I personally think this statement is true. The armour used by legionnaires (and auxilia) seems to be quite different from person to person. Hamata and squamata were also common. Also, the segmentata got it highest popularity a bit later as 43, I think.

It says that probably only 'specialists' wore that kind of armor at that time. Is that assumption correct? If so, who were considered 'specialists'?

Don't know where this is based on and not at all who would be considered specialists. Of course the army had much specialists, but what the kind of armour had to do with that, I don't know.

[Lunico]

The book states that the Segmentata wasn't common or standard among the legion by then.

I personally think this statement is true. The armour used by legionnaires (and auxilia) seems to be quite different from person to person. Hamata and squamata were also common. Also, the segmentata got it highest popularity a bit later as 43, I think.

Many thanks for your response!
Please allow one more question - at what time was the segmentatas' highest popularity?

[Bucephalus]

The book states that the Segmentata wasn't common or standard among the legion by then.

I personally think this statement is true. The armour used by legionnaires (and auxilia) seems to be quite different from person to person. Hamata and squamata were also common. Also, the segmentata got it highest popularity a bit later as 43, I think.

Many thanks for your response!
Please allow one more question - at what time was the segmentatas' highest popularity?

Theories abound as to when lorica segmentata was adopted (ie. Carrhae in 53 BC and Florus/Sacrovir in AD 21). It would have been relatively easy to manufacture or mass produce, but it's susceptible to corrosion and wear...not something you want on long marches and battle conditions. Probably for these reasons, it falls out of favor around the 3rd century. As to the height of its popularity, I'd say around the later 1st and early 2nd century. The plates would have been good protection against downward sword blows (Germanic wars and conquest of Britain), but poor against piercing missile weapons (so probably not so popular in the east). Even at the height of its popularity, though, I think mail was still far more common.

As per it not being standard or common, in my view there was no "standard" legionary armor at the time. Soldiers seem to have used what armor was available and what they personally preferred.