Army composition of the 3rd century crisis?

[EdwardL]

Hi guys, I didn't readily find anything in search, so i'm curious on this matter:


I'm wondering what the Army composition of the 3 empires would have been during the crisis of the third century - Gallic Empire, Palmyrene Empire, and the Central Roman empire remaining.


Timeframe in question would be during the reign of Zenobia, and ideally about 268-270 A.D.


My thoughts are as follows:


GALLIC EMPIRE - Would have been a Romanized theme; legionary troops/auxilia comprised of gallic and german bloodstock(perhaps italian defectors), with Frank cavalry and perhaps Iberian infantry auxillary?


CENTRAL ROMAN EMPIRE - Standard army composition of the era. However which auxilia would it have used during the crisis?


PALMYRENE EMPIRE - Really not sure here other than cataphract cavalry types. Would such an army be Roman legionary themed with Syrian bloodstock, and perhaps some eastern style armors? Or perhaps defector legions, maybe Legio XII and others?


Any feedback on the matter would be helpful, and certainly more so if specific legions could be named per faction.

[Robert Vermaat]

GALLIC EMPIRE - Would have been a Romanized theme; legionary troops/auxilia comprised of gallic and german bloodstock(perhaps italian defectors), with Frank cavalry and perhaps Iberian infantry auxillary?

Nope. Nothing really changed, the Gallic Empire was just like the rest of the Empire, only with local-bred leadership. The Roman army units present before the breakaway remained in place and were not disbanded during the rebellion, nor after the Gallic Empire rejoined the Roman empire. Effectively, the Gallic Empire was just like all the other Roman rebellions of the 3rd century, with the main difference that the leaders did not want to conquer Rome. The Gallic Empire foreshadowed the Diocletianic reorganisation of the Tetrarchy. Germanic mercenaries were hired and fired before and after this period, nothing new there.

[Nathan Ross]

PALMYRENE EMPIRE - Really not sure here other than cataphract cavalry types. Would such an army be Roman legionary themed with Syrian bloodstock, and perhaps some eastern style armors? Or perhaps defector legions, maybe Legio XII and others?

We briefly discussed this a while back:

The Army of Palmyra

It would seem that, if III Gallica are representative of other legions, the Roman army in the east remained loyal to Rome after the death of Odenathus. There could well have been defections, but as far as I know there's no evidence for this.

Palmyrene cavalry was very heavily armoured, so cataphracts would be a good guess. Otherwise, Zosimus gives Zenobia 'Syrians... Saracens and Armenians' - apparently light cavalry. Palmyra was a great trading centre, and probably made good use of mercenaries - the shifting allegiance of the Saracens and Armenians might reflect this.

Aurelian's army of the period was similarly polyglot: 'Mauritanian horse... Tyaneans... Mesopotamians... Syrians... Phoenicians, and... Palestinians' besides the Praetorians and legionary troops drawn from the Danube. (all quotes Zosimus , Historia Nova, Book I)

- Nathan

[EdwardL]

That clears things up a bit, thats guys

Is there a thread somewhere which would illustrate or discuss the armor of the period in detail?

and/or perhaps a breakdown of the legion placement for the period?

[Nathan Ross]

Is there a thread somewhere which would illustrate or discuss the armor of the period in detail?

'Detail' would be difficult as there's so little to go on! The later third century is one of the least well attested (and, for me, most interesting) periods in terms of Roman military equipment. There is some evidence, but it's a matter of filling in a few tiny patches in a larger area of uncertainty!

The 'Buch' helmet, found in an infantry fort in an unfinished state, is dated to c260. Fragments of helmets found in the Dura Europos excavations of around the same date appear to relate to similar helmet styles - the 'Niederbieber' or 'Heddernheim' type. After this we have a sizeable lacuna, the next piece that turns up in the record is the Duerne cavalry helmet of c.319, which is a 'ridge' type. A tombstone from Gamzigrad (copied in Southern & Dixon's Late Roman Army p.93) clearly shows a soldier in an 'Intercisa' type ridge helmet. It probably dates to the early fourth century Tetrarchic period.

The Deir el Medineh spangenhelm was originally dated to the late third century - more recently this dating has been challenged, I believe. Even so, soldiers on the Arch of Galerius (c.298) appear to be wearing something very similar. These could well be Danubian troops - Simon James (1986) suggested that the spangenhelm type was originally adopted by soldiers on the Danube, and the 'ridge helmet' by eastern legions, based on Sarmatian and Persian models respectively. The Persian helmet found at Dura Europos (c.260) is a 'ridge' type.

There is a theory that the big change in Roman equipment - helmets particularly - happened under Diocletian, who established state arms factories. As far as I know, there's not much evidence for this beyond a comment in Lactantius, but as a date for the change from the Buch/Neiderbieber to the Intercisa/Berkasova helmet type, the tetrarchic period appears better than most.

A fragment of a relief from the Arch of Diocletian (c300) shows two soldiers in full-sleeved mail or scale with large round shields and rather conical looking helmets. The Arch of Galerius troops also carry large oval shields, and wear scale, as do the cavalry on the Arch of Constantine (312). Macrinus' praetorians in battle with Elagabalus (AD218) are described as removing their coats of scale armour.

However, it's worth bearing in mind that the changes in equipment during the third century were probably gradual and regional rather than the result of some empire-wide act of policy. Legionaries in Spain were still apparently repairing their old lorica segmentata around AD 300!

This is, as I say, a very interesting topic and I'd welcome further input from others!

and/or perhaps a breakdown of the legion placement for the period?

The Notitia Dignitatum (late 4th century) positions many of the old Imperial legions in the same garrisons they'd occupied since the Principiate (for an overview, see Jona Lendering's Livius page on Roman Legions ). However, the conflicts of the third century often involved mobile vexillations of legions operating far from home, and these detachments may in time have acquired an independent character. A vexillation from Legion XI Claudia, based in Moesia Inferior, turns up in Egypt around 295, and possibly the same men were in Mesopotamia a few years later. Aurelian's eastern force, as noted above, contained vexillations drawn from the Rhine and Danube legions, together with local auxiliaries - it's uncertain if Zosimus is referring to the ethnic origin of these latter troops, or just the places where they were originally stationed.

Again, I'm sure other people can offer more considered opinions!

- Nathan

[Crispvs]

"the next piece that turns up in the record is the Duerne cavalry helmet of c.319, which is a 'ridge' type."

For a slight update on that, there may be a single Intercissa type helmet depicted on the Arch of Constantine, being worn by one of the soldiers defending the city of Verona in this scene.
http://sights.seindal.dk/photo/8173,s299f.html
Although it is not so obvious in this photo, I certainly got the impression it was an Intercissa when I saw the arch when I was in Rome.


"A tombstone from Gamzigrad (copied in Southern & Dixon's Late Roman Army p.93) clearly shows a soldier in an 'Intercisa' type ridge helmet. It probably dates to the early fourth century Tetrarchic period."

Perhaps also of interest is the fact that the other man depicted on the Gamzigrad tombstone, in addition to being mounted, wears a 'pillbox' hat and carries an axe. Similar hats are shown in the early sections of the Constaninian sculpture on the Arch of Constantine.
http://www.beastcoins.com/Topical/VLPP/H...Frieze.jpg

Thinking again though of the mid to late third century, I recall this thread being a rather stimulating discussion which could be relevant:
http://www.ancient-warfare.org/index.php...d=40#18049


Crispvs

[jho]

The lacuna may at least partly be filled soon.

Christian Miks is preparing a publication of the helmet fragments from Poitiers which apparently were found in a dated 270s AD context. They can apparently be reconstructed as Niederbieber style helmets which in place of the usual crossed reinforcements bear Intercisa style crests. He mentioned this in the publication of the Koblenz helmet exposition in Mainz but I believe the full report is scheduled for publication this year.

[Nathan Ross]

Christian Miks is preparing a publication of the helmet fragments from Poitiers which apparently were found in a dated 270s AD context... He mentioned this in the publication of the Koblenz helmet exposition in Mainz but I believe the full report is scheduled for publication this year.

Jens - that's fantastic news! Do you have any idea how fragmentary these fragments were? i.e. how conclusive the reconstruction might be?

I'm assuming the report will be in German, and therefore might take a while to filter through to English-language scholarship. Could you perhaps post up a summary here on RAT, when it's published? mile:

They can apparently be reconstructed as Niederbieber style helmets which in place of the usual crossed reinforcements bear Intercisa style crests.

Very interesting! Might the original have resembled these helmets, portrayed at Piazza Armerina?:



On a similar subject - does anyone have a theory as to when the wide baldric and ring buckle belt was replaced by the narrow baldric and wide 'Germanic' belt with stiffeners? I don't know if there are any dateable representations that could be used to estimate this...

- Nathan

[jho]

Nathan,

There is only a small photo in the Koblenz helmet publication. The crest is more or less complete and the other fragments are fairly numerous and large (about hand size), therefore - although the fragments really only look like chunks of dirt - I would assume that the reconstruction is based on a reasonable degree of certainty. Personally I believe that the mosaic you posted shows fully developed Intercisa helmets in a classicizing way rather than the Poitier type which appears to have a typical Niederbieber one piece skull with a deep neck guard.

I am not sure of the language of the publication (hopefully not French!) but will definitely post a note on RAT when I become aware that it has been published.

BTW, in the Koblenz helmet publication, Miks points out that the fully developed Intercisa helmet from Augst was found in a context which would also imply a 280s AD dating (the city was apparently destroyed then), but this was later explained away by a possible later presence of troops passing through the ruins.

On the baldric dating issue, I would believe that this is covered in Miks' book on Roman swords but I do not have that here at the moment.

[Nathan Ross]

I am not sure of the language of the publication (hopefully not French!) but will definitely post a note on RAT when I become aware that it has been published.

Thanks!

the fully developed Intercisa helmet from Augst was found in a context which would also imply a 280s AD dating

As Crispvs points out above, the Arch of Constantine appears to depict Intercisa types (along with others), so perhaps an even earlier dating is indeed feasible... Interesting stuff!

- Nathan

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Jens,

Miks points out that the fully developed Intercisa helmet from Augst was found in a context which would also imply a 280s AD dating (the city was apparently destroyed then), but this was later explained away by a possible later presence of troops passing through the ruins.

I must say I'm not convinced by either explanation. The helmet was found in part of a wall I think, which would perhaps be better explained by the wall being (partly) ruined, but it's no proof. The best (at least most honest!) arachaeological qualification should perhaps be "Undated, possibly late 3rd to 4th century AD".

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi nathan,

Might the original have resembled these helmets, portrayed at Piazza Armerina?:

Do you agree with me that the helmets to the left and right have (horse)hair crests, and only the one in the middle looks like the (smaller) metal Intercisa IV crest?

[Nathan Ross]

Do you agree with me that the helmets to the left and right have (horse)hair crests, and only the one in the middle looks like the (smaller) metal Intercisa IV crest?

Could be. But there are several examples of later Roman helmets (the 'cavalry sports' variety) with very tall elaborate metal crests, sometimes with sculpted feathers. Possibly these in turn would have had real feathers or horsehair added. The shape of the helmets in the mosaic do suggest the Intercisa type, and clearly the crests are different, but could just as easily relate to something like this:



Although I don't think it's possible to determine exactly what sort of things we're seeing here - they could represent something otherwise unknown, of course!

- Nathan