Roman Armor

[john roberts]

Of course it's foolish to fight naked. After all, single layer of thin cloth provides so much protection!

[Crispvs]

Clothing alone could actually provide a degree of potential protection, particularly if it is not tight or very close fitting.
Obviously a direct hit to the body or limb will take no notice of a layer or two of wool. However, if the projectile hit a man at an angle where it would cut or graze him (both of which could potentially debilitate a man in combat) rather than puncture him, then it could potentially catch in clothing and be diverted slightly from its course by the movement of the cloth so as to prevent injury. This would certainly not stop the projectile's motion or make it safe for those in close proximity, but it would certainly reduce its effect. This might sound far fetched, but in my days as a tenth/eleventh century combat re-enactor, fighting with a spear, I saw this happen many times.

Crispvs

[john roberts]

Come on, ordinary clothes, especially of the ancient Mediterranean kind, just give a false sense of security. Men just feel more vulnerable with their danglies flopping.

[Crispvs]

Well yes, in the main that would be true, but as I said above I have had the experience myself of weapons catching in clothing and being diverted away from the body by the clothing. As I said, clothing would be no defence against direct hits but some glancing blows could be frustrated by clothes. Surely we are not talking of Mediterranean clothing in any case, but Gallic clothing, which was surely not so different fundamentally to the Germanic style of clothing still worn in the tenth century and which I used to wear when fighting.

Crispvs

[Graham Sumner]

Crispus wrote:

As I said, clothing would be no defence against direct hits but some glancing blows could be frustrated by clothes.

I would agree Paul. I think there is a reference somewhere to cloaks worn by moving cavalry serving that purpose. There is also reference to cloaks being wrapped around the arm and used as makeshift shields as well as for signalling or being used to make sails!

Clothing alone could actually provide a degree of potential protection, particularly if it is not tight or very close fitting.

Ironically late Roman clothing based on Germanic styles tended to be tight fitting and more tailored than earlier fashions.

Graham.

[jkaler48]

Roman soldiers have been recorded using their cloaks as a defense when caught out without armor and shields.

Light Armed cohorts of the Legions may have not used body armor on occasion or even habitually. Also they possibly used curved oval shields and javelins as seen in some grave markers. Trajens column depicts some oval shields with Legionary insignia which may be light armed cohorts shields.

[Gaius Colletti]

To return to your original set of questions for a moment, there is evidence that the equipment of sailors and marines may have differed from that of regular infantry.

Letters dating to the early second century AD by Claudius Terentianus, who was in the navy, but wished to join a legion show that he lacked equipment which would have been normal for legionaries and he asks his father, who was a legionary, to send him pieces of equipment such as a sword, caligae and a pickaxe, which were presumably not issued to him by the navy.

Whatever happened to equipment fees being taken out of a legionary's salary? Perhaps this answer was lost to time and is best left alone?

But going to the clothing "armor" talk, although some fabric might cause an arrow or sword or spear to "maybe" go off course and just glance as opposed to causing a fatal injury, lets face the truth, certainly the last reason the Roman's wore clothing was to possibly deflect fatal blows.

And as to the armor vs unarmored legionary debate, although some legionaries perhaps didn't have armor, I think it is safe to say the Roman legionaries were for the most part armored. Numerous times the Roman legions were heavily outnumbered (the Battles of Alesia and Watling street first come to mind), and still pulled impressive victories, although they were very well trained and disciplined, I'm sure armor played a role somewhere in there.

After all these people were called "Marius' Mules" for a reason

[Fruitbat]

One thing which I found essential in my years of wearing a metal helmet in cold weather in northern Germany was a balaclava or scarf wrapped around the head and ears because metal attracts the cold like nothing else! I have seen WWII pictures of troops on the Russian front doing the same and also WWI. I think that the ancients would have done the same (unless they were some kind of supermen!)

As for the helmet and shield but no body armour troops mentioned, would there have been some kind of light infantry attached to a Legion, or auxillury troops maybe?

[Crispvs]

Well, it is always a possibility, and there are many supporters of the idea, but unfortunately we do mot get sufficient information from our sources to know one way or the other.

Regarding wearing something between the head and the helmet, it is axiomatic that armour requires a layer of padding to prevent blunt force shock passing straight through to the man underneath.

Crispvs

[Fruitbat]

Exactly, Crispus, therefore it is pretty safe to say that in winter in the north this would have been a given.

[Crispvs]

Both winter in the north and summer in the south. Most people think of armour as merely a metal skin which prevents blades from cutting you, but the padding underneath which prevents the shock of the blow from passing straight through to the man underneath is every bit as important. Under-armour padding is not a preference or affectation - it is essential if the armour is to be of any worth at all. Therefore, whatever you use to line/pad your helmet is not a matter of the climate you are stationed in - it is a matter of stopping your skull from developing a large crack the next time an enemy decides to hit your helmet with his weapon.

Regarding cold weather clothing for chilly northern climates (which is somewhat off-topic for this thread) have a look at this link:
http://www.romanarmy.net/coldweather.htm


Crispvs

[Caratacus]

At the risk of boring everyone with things they know already ....

There are two very important pieces of visual evidence for what your Roman squaddie wore to protect his little pink body - the Trajanic column and the metopes from the Adamklissi monument. To some degree, these are contradictory. The Adamklissi evidence shows the soldiers wearing either scale or mail armour (not one soldier is wearing LS), whereas the column shows all three types. It has been argued that the depiction on TC is a sort of code - the soldiers wearing lorica segmentata were citizen soldiers (i.e. Roman citizen troops), whereas the rest of them with scale/mail were auxiliaries (i.e. non-citizens) and that a Roman looking at this would have 'understood' the code (similarly, the Praetorian Guards are always shown in close proximity to the Emperor, who is always depicted wearing a body cuirass - as are his staff). However, in terms of this question, the answer would seem to be that these two monuments show that ALL Roman soldiers, whether citizen or not, wore body armour of some sort.

Of course, there are other pieces of evidence as well. Things such as tombstones show officers wearing scale and mail armour (e.g. the famous one of Marcus Coelius, a victim of the Varus disaster) - but these refer only to individuals, rather than the army as a whole.

There is one other factor. Almost uniquely (perhaps actually uniquely) in the ancient world, the Roman army was a professional body. These were men who made their living from being in a standing army - not a Royal bodyguard supplemented in times of war by a bunch of peasant farmers. They were not an ad hoc group raised for a campaigning season. It seems to me inconceivable that such a group of people would not be properly equipped for the task in hand. As supporting evidence for this I would cite the fact that lorica segmentata has been found all over the Roman world, in hot as well as cold climates. It has turned up at all legionary bases (or nearly all where they have been excavated properly) and not a few auxiliary forts as well, from Hadrian's Wall in the north of Britain, through France, down the Rhine/Danube frontier, into 'eastern' Europe, then to Syria Palaestrina and into Morocco and Tunisia - over 100 sites in all. The other types of armour are equally widely distributed. Bearing in mind that we are only finding a small fraction of that which originally existed, I'd say that was pretty fair evidence that your Roman squaddie was very likely to be clad in the stuff.

As to what the Roman marines wore - I can think of only one clear example, the small carving from Palestrina that shows the front end of a Roman war galley, together with the marines. They are clearly wearing mail armour, certainly not segmentata.

I would agree that literary (as in 'reliable') is hard to come buy. There are, however, passages in "The Jewish War" (Josephus) that suggest that the Roman soldier was solidly protected by armour. A group of Romans was ambushed at the siege of Jotapata, for example, and got off relatively easily because (we are told) of their excellent body protection. There is also the case of the centurion who was trapped because his nailed boots could not get a grip on the marble of the temple pavement when he fell over. He was eventually killed, but it took a lot of effort on the part of the Jewish soldiers because of his protective armour.

Mike Thomas
(Caratacus)

[Titus Marius Secundus]

haha, hey, this is my first reply :oops: , or better yet! First anything here on RAT! So, I hear you guys talking about armor and, on Trajan's column I see that most infantry are wearing a segmentata...not quite like our modern recreation...but yet, the majority wear it.now, I have kinda forgotten my motive..but meh, might be better for the poster to study Trajan's column some.. :wink: and, most importantly...!! A friendy hello to everyone!

[Tarbicus]

Fidelis Sam, welcome.

What are the chances of the TC sculptors having seen a Roman legionary or auxiliary, even cavalryman, in full battle gear, ever, given they would probably be based in Rome itself? Apply the same for a sculptor who worked on the Adamclissi metopes, which have a very different portrayal of Roman armour.

[Titus Marius Secundus]

Sorry, I see your point, just, I would expect it to be common knowledge what a soldier looked like those days. I also wouldn't expect paid sculptors to be allowed to sculpt random guesses of what the "person of honors" monument is of... After all, I'm sure there were many troops coming in and out of rome! Guards, and legionaries. I respect your reply and consider it :grin: