Question regarding evolution of Roman armor

[Matthew Amt]

Exactly. While the spolas was (we believe) originally leather, in the Hellenistic era the same form was used for other materials, such as lamellar, quilted linen, and mail. The scary thing is that many examples of the Roman musculata also look like the spolas--short length, pteruges, shoulder flaps, square neckline, etc. Which of course brings us back to the whole "leather musculata" debate...

Matthew

[PMBardunias]

The scary thing is that many examples of the Roman musculata also look like the spolas--short length, pteruges, shoulder flaps, square neckline, etc. Which of course brings us back to the whole "leather musculata" debate...

One thing that I think came out of the extensive debate on the "linothorax" is that we should divorce the cut of the armor, Tube and yoke construction, from the material it is made of. Thus it could be made of leather, quilted linen, either one covered in metal scales, or even the all-iron hellenistic version. Some features usually associated with the T-Y can also be transferred on their own, making the whole thing more confusing- like a bronze thorakes with pteryges, or an iron breast-plate with seemingly extraneous epomides of purely artistic value.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Actually, both times the Thoracomacus is mentioned in 'De Rebus Bellicis' (DRB XV & XIX) it could be argued that the author of DRB states that the infantry could be protected purely by wearing the Thoracomacus alone.

The illustration that I remember seeing in the medieval manuscript of it looked a lot like a 13th century gambeson, a quilted padded tunic. There are some earlier Roman illustrations that also seem to show something quilted. But I get the impression that the *padding* is the defense against weapons, while the leather covering is more for keeping the rain off it.

And surely no one is 100% that Roman infantry never worn leather armour (I have a feeling Graham Sumner believes they may have if memory serves?)

Oh, there are a few! Obviously it's not a tenable position. All we can say is that the reliable evidence is so scarce that it could not have been common in the late Republic or Principate.

Vale,

Matthew

There is a much better depiction of the Thorachomacus in another DRB manuscript that looks like the illustrator attempted to keep to the original style as much as possible without being overly influenced by early medieval styles prevailent at the times. This depiction shows what looks like the typical tunic with an almost identical tunic underneath. This leads me to believe that the thorachomacus was designed to be worn directly over the top of the tunic, without the need for armour which is oddly not shown in the illustration.

[Robert Vermaat]

There is a much better depiction of the Thorachomacus in another DRB manuscript that looks like the illustrator attempted to keep to the original style as much as possible without being overly influenced by early medieval styles prevailent at the times. This depiction shows what looks like the typical tunic with an almost identical tunic underneath. This leads me to believe that the thorachomacus was designed to be worn directly over the top of the tunic, without the need for armour which is oddly not shown in the illustration.

I disagree about the armour not being shown. We have a quite distorted drawing here, in which the artist clearly shows he does not understand what he is copying. We see an unarmoured soldier, with two garments behind him. If one is the thoracomachus (which would be logical due to the text), the other does not need to be a tunic. It could equally be a lorica hamata, which would look quite similar to both tunic and thoracomachus.

[Marcus Velius Avitus]

you'll know a LOT LESS than you do now, ha! As I say, good research generally questions the answers rather than answering the questions.

Valete,

Matthew

Amen to that LOL! The more I think I know, the more I find that I don't know on this forum, and thats a good thing!

[Crispvs]

Returning to the idea of the development of equipment during the Republic, we also have the equipping of different classes of soldier at different times.

Whilst originally Roman warriors may have had nothing more than a leather helmet covered with horn or metal plates and a shield, soon after these helmets had been translated into bronze (actually, some Italian pot helmets of the period look as though they are simply metal versions of felt or leather hats) and teamed up with pectoral armours of various sorts. There were certainly round shields in use at the time but also oval shields with cut outs at the sides and probably rectangular shields as well. Weapons may well have been of bronze.

In the sixth century BC the Romans adopted hoplite equipment and/or tactics from the Etruscans and their equipment would have changed to reflect this, so round shields and greaves would have been adopted around this time. Iron weapons would have been becoming increasingly more common. However, it may be that not all warriors were equipped to the same level, especially as all men would have had to provide their own equipment. Different wealth classes may have had their own distinctive equipment if we are to take the evidence of a series of warriors shown on a fifth century BC situla from Certosa at face value. The warriors shown on it are shown in five groups. The first group consists of two men on horseback wearing pot helmets. The next group shows five warriors with oval shields and long spears wearing pointed helmets which appear to be covered in metal discs or bosses and appear to have chin straps. The next group consists of four warriors carrying square shields with bevelled corners, spears and weariing pot helmets with crests. The next group is identical to the previous group but carries Greek type Argive shields. The last group wear pointed helmets which look rather like 'coolie hats' and what may be textile armour of some sort. They are armed with what appear to be axes and carry no shields. Precisely what sort of body armour the men with shields might be wearing is open to question.

This sort of thing might be the origin of the five classes of soldier Livy describes for the early republic. Livy says that in addition to the cavalry there were five classes of foot soldier. According to Livy the heaviest class wore helmets, breastplates, two greaves and carried shields, swords and spears. The next class wore helmets and greaves and carried rectangular shields, swords and spears. The next class wore helmets but no greaves and carried swords, spears and rectangular shields. The next class wore no armour and carried shields and javelins and spears. The last class wore helmets but not breastplates or greaves and carried shields and javelins.

By the fourth century BC, equipment seems to have been very similar to Greek hoplite equipment. It may have been so already but the evidence is lacking. Muscle cuirasses were being used and these probably later gave way to composite cuirasses and the linothorax. In all likelihood many warriors would still be wearing pectoral plates, as these were used before and after the period of hoplite warfare and were common in other parts of Italy. Pectoral plates could have been square, round (which seems to have been fairly common over much of Italy) or of the Samnite triple disc type. The most common type of helmet in this period was probably the Italo-Corinthian type.

Following the Gallic invasion of Italy and their sack of Rome, the Romans seem to have replaced the hoplite phalanx with the 'Manipular' formation, consisting of blocks of troops with spaces between them, which could advance or retreat independently of the rest of the battle line. Montifortino type helmets appear to have become common and Plutarch and Dionysius of Halicarnassis both say that curving oval scuta and pila were introduced to replace the round shields and spears which were a feature of hoplite warfare. It may be that there was also a shift away from Greek style body armour in response to the new, more mobile style of warfare.
Livy's five classes seem to carry on into the manipular army, and they are given names: the rorarii, the accensi, the triarii, the hastati and the principes. The equipment has clearly changed though and Livy says the the triarii were armed with spears and implies that the hastati and principes were armed with pila (presumably an early form known as the hasta velitaris which probably had a socketed head). He also assigns both javelins and spears to the rorarii and accensi, but there is other evidence to suggest that 'rorarii' may have been an early name for what were later known as velites and the accensi may have been nothing more than baggage and animal handlers. The fourth century BC formation may therefore have looked very similar to the type of formation still being used when Polybius described the Roman army in the mid second century BC.
During the Punic wars of the early second century BC, the Romans began to replace their Greek style swords with the Spanish sword (the gladius hispaniensis) and mail probably began to become common amongst the more wealthy. By the time of the battle Pydna in 168BC enough Roman soldiers were wearing mail that Aemilius Paulus was able to portray all of the Roman soldiers on his triumphal column at Delphi as all being equipped with mail with Greek style shoulder doubling. All of these figure wear waist belts. We know though that these were still the minority at the time and Polybius makes it clear that most Roman soldiers were still using pectoral plates. Polybius describes pectoral plates nine inches square, but the discovery of what are probably round pectoral pates during excavations at Numantia in Spain would suggest that round plates may still have been in use at the time as well. Although Polybius does not mention it, scale armour would also probably been reasonably common. A single greave was also worn on the leading leg, although this practice may have been dying out by the mid second century BC. It was probably normal for helmets to have cheek guards by this time and Polybius tells us that black or purple feathers one cubit long were attached to the crown of the helmet (presumably stuck into the crest knobs of Montifortino helmets and into feather tubes or applied crest knobs on other types of helmet). By tis time it was common for centuriones to tin or silver their helmets to make them stand out. Although transverse crests had been used by some Greek hoplites in earlier times there is no evidence to show that they were being used by Roman centuriones as early as the second century BC. Pila were probably of the types found at Numantia, with either large flat tangs flanged at the edges to prevent movement, shortish iron shanks and barbed heads or socketed pila with somewhat longer shanks and barbed heads.

During the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus in 133BC, the state began to issue limited amounts of equipment to poorer soldiers. This probably reflects the need for a larger number of soldiers as number of provinces which had to be garrisoned increased, but it may also point to an increasing level of standardisation and the gradual abandonment of different classes of legionary. Over the next few years the Roman state issued an increasing amount of equipment, as the property qualification was progressively lowered to allow poorer men to be taken into military service, particularly as Rome became embroiled in the long drawn out war in Numidia. Then of course, late in the second century BC, Gaius Marius, as consul, abolished the property qualification altogether, creating the possibility of professional armies. By this time probably the majority of equipment was state issued and was often of poorer quality. Mail and scale were probably very common by this time but it seems likely that many men would still have been wearing pectoral plates. Some northern Italian javelin types probably entered service with the Roman army at this time, including early versions of the spike tanged pilum. Over time a system had also arisen which enabled men on military service to be paid to compensate them for any lost income caused by being away from their farms. Once Marius had removed the property qualification poor men flocked to sign up and all of their equipment needed to be provided for them. The need to produce so much equipment is probably the reason quality seems to decline markedly during this period. The system probably adopted during that time was probably for generals to outfit their men and then bill the cost back to the Roman state.

The Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, dating to some time in the first half of the first century BC, shows mailed infantry soldiers with a variety of Attic and Montifortino helmets, as well as a cavalryman wearing mail and what appears to be a Boeotian helmet. They have what appear to be flowing horsehair crests on their helmets and each man's mail exhibits a different style. Belts are shown as being plain and the swords have a spiral pattern on their grips. Scuta are curved and are shown in two sizes, one of them extremely large. Of course these soldiers may not be representative of all soldiers of their time and there is every possibility that the feathers described by Polybius were still in use as well as scale and pectoral plates. There is also limited evidence for the use of decorated bely mounts, although these may well have been far from common. Sword pommels of this period probably commonly featured decorative patterns of rivets or studs.
During the second quarter of the first century BC, it is likely that a good deal of equipment was made in the former Macedonian Successor states, as both Lucullus and Pompey campaigned extensively in the east against Mithridates and both would have put both allied and captured towns and cities to work producing equipment for their armies, which may be the reason for the appearance of Attic helmet styles in Roman art. From the middle of the first century BC on, there would also have been an increasingly large amount of equipment being produced in Gaul for Caesar's armies and Coolus, Agen and Port type helmets would have found their way into the equipment of soldiers as they were both captured and made by Gallic workshops under orders to produce equipment for Caesar. Caesar would also have set Gallic workshops to work making mail as well. Some of the resultant mail shirts would have had Greek style shoulder doubling but others would have had the 'cape' type of doubling which resembled a shoulder cape. Breast hooks would probably have been straight bars, although many, if not the majority, may have featured gallic decorative patterns. As Caesar recruited two legions at short notice prior to leaving for Gaul, it is likely that most of those men would have gone off to war with Caesar with little or no equipment, meaning that he would have been equipping them as the campaign went on and whilst some equipment would undoubtedly have been made in Italy and sent out to him, much of their equipment must have been produced in Gaul. This Gallic influence would have begun to spread to other areas when Pompey demanded the return of a legion he had lent Caesar some years before and the senate also required Caesar to send one of his other legions to Pompey. Both these legions must have been using a good deal of Gallic equipment by this time. A pilum found at the scene of Caesar's siege of Alesia is very similar to those found at Numantia which must have been in use around a century before, but lacks the flanges seen on the Numantian examples, although examples from Slovenia and other places show that some pila still had flanged tangs. Socketed pila also seem still have been common at this time as well. A number of small javelin heads were also found at Alesia, which were like miniature pilum heads with spiked tangs pierced by a single rivet and collets.
A pugio blade was also found at Alesia with a blade of very similar form to some Iberian examples. It may be that pugiones had been in service with Roman soldiers since the Punic wars but if so we are lacking evidence to prove it.

Although the republic was rapidly ceasing to be at this period and your question was about the repulic it seems sensible to continue up to the end of the century. During the latter half of the first century AD, Gallic and Gallic derived helmets would have increased in Roman service alongside Attic and Montifortino types and the Mainz type sword developed out of the somewhat longer gladius hispaniensis (although the Romans appear to have kept the same name). These late first century BC swords had scabbards which frequently featured 'cage-like' fittings on their fronts. Both socketed and flat tanged pila carried on in use along with spike tanged pila which seem gradually to have taken over from the flat tanged type. Flat tangs seem to have become narrower as the century progressed, leading to the well known Oberaden style, which was in use by the end of the century. Pugiones seem to have become more common and first century BC handles normally feature circular pommel expansions and external rivets on the grip either above or below the central expansion. Belt plates probably became more common and the apron seems to have developed around this time. Near the end of the century Kalkriese type 'lorica segmentata' makes its first appearance in the archaeological record of the Roman army. This type of armour appears to have been in use for some time in the east, so it may have entered service in the eastern end of the empire first, and it is conceivable that it may even have entered Roman service during Lucullus and Pompeys campaigns against Mithridates. However, if so the evidence is entirely lacking, making it seem less likely, as segmentata tends to produce broken fittings in some number and thus we would expect to see some evidence from military sites of the mid first century BC, whereas the earliest evidence for this type of armour in Roman service comes from Dangstetten in Germany and can be dated to 9BC.

Well, this has been a long post, but I hope it goes some way to answering your original question.

Crispvs

[Alexand96]

Wow Crispvs, I truly enjoyed reading your post. I do feel now that I understand to a greater extent how the armor developed, and why.

I find it very interesting that the armor found after the Marian reforms seems to have taken a turn for the worse in the QC department. As well, your point that Caesar must have incorporated much Gallic armor into his armies seems fascinating as well - of course, I have this unfounded precept in my mind that the armies of Julius Caesar, the greatest Roman general of them all, must look readily identifiable as 'ROMAN.' However, if I understand what you and others have said correctly, the Roman military seems to have always been taking the best equipment and technology from subjugated nations and territories almost as policy: from the Greeks, Etruscans, Spanish, Guals, all the way to the Persians and perhaps more.

[Matthew Amt]

Absolutely, but remember that the Romans also took MANPOWER from all those people, too! And remember that military fashion influence was never just a one-way thing--other cultures copied from each other and from the Romans all the time.

Matthew

[Renatus]

There is a much better depiction of the Thorachomacus in another DRB manuscript that looks like the illustrator attempted to keep to the original style as much as possible without being overly influenced by early medieval styles prevailent at the times. This depiction shows what looks like the typical tunic with an almost identical tunic underneath. This leads me to believe that the thorachomacus was designed to be worn directly over the top of the tunic, without the need for armour which is oddly not shown in the illustration.

I disagree about the armour not being shown. We have a quite distorted drawing here, in which the artist clearly shows he does not understand what he is copying. We see an unarmoured soldier, with two garments behind him. If one is the thoracomachus (which would be logical due to the text), the other does not need to be a tunic. It could equally be a lorica hamata, which would look quite similar to both tunic and thoracomachus.

I am not convinced. Matthew Amt has already drawn attention to the protective overgarment which the text states should be made of well-treated Libyan hides in the shape of the thoracomachus itself (ad instar eiusdem thoracomachi). One should be cautious about placing too much reliance on illustrations several removes from the original, with the potential for accumulating errors at each stage, but the depiction of two virtually identical garments in the manuscript illustrations conforms very much with the description in the text. Given the Anonymous' predilection for illustrating his inventions, it is more likely that the two garments shown are the thoracomachus and the protective overtunic. If one wants to look for armour, one should, perhaps, consider the image of the soldier himself. He is shown without armour but it is possible that he may have been drawn originally wearing a mail shirt and that, with successive copyings, this has become converted into a simple tunic. This is mere speculation, however.

(See generally J.P. Wild, 'Fourth century underwear with special reference to the thoracomachus' in M.W.C. Hassall and R.I. Ireland (eds.), De Rebus Bellicis, BAR International Series 63, Oxford, 1979, 105-110)

[Robert Vermaat]

Ah yes, I forgot how the author described the overgarment as 'shaped exactly like the thoracomachus'. That way he could have portrayed these two. At least neither is a tunic.
I don't think that the original picture showed the soldiers with a mail shirt on however, because the helmet and greaves are shown separate, hence my idea about the shirt shown separate as well.
But indeed, who knows what the original looked like.

Btw, I am of the opinion that the author had a very dim idea of a soldier's cloting and armour. A protective garment, worn over the tunic but underneath the armour, cannot possibly be shaped exactly like a protective garment that's to be worn over the rest - if only, it would be larger. Bur besides that, most if not all garments worn between armour and clothing that we know of are of the subarmalis-type. Which, I think, did not have long sleeves at all, but consisted of a body plus pteryges. So either this 'thoracomachus' was an invention of the author (yet he does not claim this), or he misunderstood someone's description perhaps?