07-21-2011, 02:02 AM
Just to toss in my 2 cents on the armour/no armour debate...
The more training and/or experience a soldier has, the more valuable he becomes.
Therefore, in an established military body, it makes a certain amount of sense to issue only the bare minimum to your recruits. This sort of policy can save you a lot of money, since recruits may decide to come in with better kit of their own or else buy it themselves out of wages during/after training. Once they've acquired some experience, you can pass out additional armour to your new "veterans" on an as-needed to bring them up to a certain (somewhat higher) minimum standard. At this point you have (in theory) already weeded out the ones who are naturally inept or incapable in battle -- meaning the (expensive to produce) armour you are giving them is less likely to end up on the repair bench or in enemy hands after the next battle. (you can further extend this argument by suggesting that you can save even more money by giving your new "veterans" equipment taken from the enemies' dead during that inaugural battle, etc.)
Was such a priority-based armouring scheme ever used by Rome? I don't know. But it does seem to crop up through many other parts of history, and personally I don't think the basic soldier/cost issue has really changed at any point prior to very modern times wherein TV gives every soldier a face and grieving family. Note: No disrespect is meant - I am simply pointing out that the reality of military casualties / public visibility & accountability is very different now from how it was even 100 years ago.
The more training and/or experience a soldier has, the more valuable he becomes.
Therefore, in an established military body, it makes a certain amount of sense to issue only the bare minimum to your recruits. This sort of policy can save you a lot of money, since recruits may decide to come in with better kit of their own or else buy it themselves out of wages during/after training. Once they've acquired some experience, you can pass out additional armour to your new "veterans" on an as-needed to bring them up to a certain (somewhat higher) minimum standard. At this point you have (in theory) already weeded out the ones who are naturally inept or incapable in battle -- meaning the (expensive to produce) armour you are giving them is less likely to end up on the repair bench or in enemy hands after the next battle. (you can further extend this argument by suggesting that you can save even more money by giving your new "veterans" equipment taken from the enemies' dead during that inaugural battle, etc.)
Was such a priority-based armouring scheme ever used by Rome? I don't know. But it does seem to crop up through many other parts of history, and personally I don't think the basic soldier/cost issue has really changed at any point prior to very modern times wherein TV gives every soldier a face and grieving family. Note: No disrespect is meant - I am simply pointing out that the reality of military casualties / public visibility & accountability is very different now from how it was even 100 years ago.
--------
Ross
[url="http://galeforcearmoury.blogspot.com"] Working on a segmentata.[/url]
Ross
[url="http://galeforcearmoury.blogspot.com"] Working on a segmentata.[/url]
