Late Empire provision of swords?

[Richie]

My first post so please acept my apologies if this subject has been covered previously. I have seached the forum but cannot find the same subject being discussed but if I it has and someone can redirect me then I would appreciate it.

My question concerns whether the late empire, 4th century onwards, would have been able to equip all legionaries with the spatha. I understand swords in other ancient and medieval societies were symbols of prestige and extremely expensive. Whilst the Romans did have factories producing weapons and armour I would be interested in people's views as to whether, with all the pressures the late empire came under both economic and military, it would have had the resources to mass produce enough of these swords to equip its entire army, both the field army and those troops on the frontiers.

i.e. is it possible some legionaries were armed with poor quality swords, extremely old swords or no sword at all?

Regards

Mark

[Caballo]

Good question- certainly in the iconography of the empire fewer swords are shown- certainly compared with (say) Trajans Column. And by the Migration period, swords seem to have become a prestige item. So, I would agree.

Example below

[Longovicium]

It is always possible. What the state is set up to equip and what actually happens on the ground, as it were, is always open to difference. The fabricae set up under Diocletian specialised in different items: 12 for weapons and armour, 18 for shields 2 for armour alone, 3 for swords alone, 1 spears alone, 4 for clibanarii armour alone, 1 for saddles, 2 for arrows, 1 for bows, and 2 for catapults.

The 12 fabricae for armour and weapons would include spatha and spears (poss. throwing darts, too) as a single fabrica for spatha and a single one for spears would not have been sufficient to equip all the armies in the east and west.

Swords became a side-arm in this period as the spear or the heavy throwing javelin (which could also be retained for thrusting use) became the main infantry weapon. The iconography reflects this. However, swords remained important in the soldier's arsenal as can be seen both in Vegetius and Mauricius (admitedly a later period but it does show continuity!).

As the empire fell apart, though, I would imagine centralised supply would break down and local troops would have had to fall back on limited (did you see what I did there?) workshops. It would be quite possible that swords became the preserve of front-rankers and/or officers with the middle/rear rankers being armed solely with the hasta and perhaps a dagger.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

And so leading on to the reversion to spearmen in the following era's?

[Richie]

Thanks very much for all replies. Certainly interested in the iconography angle and will look for more evidence of this.

What the state is set up to equip and what actually happens on the ground, as it were, is always open to difference.

Sounds very probable and has likely been the same throughout history.

[i]And so leading on to the reversion to spearmen in the following era's?[/i]

Again this is interesting. Presumably if you didn't have a sword or at least a good quality side arm you would not want as your primary weapon something you threw at the enemy?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Your spear is often used as a stabbing weapon, not thrown like a javalin, although the
smaller spears could be thrown too.

[Richie]

Your spear is often used as a stabbing weapon, not thrown like a javalin, although the
smaller spears could be thrown too.

Yes sorry didn't explain myself too well. By throwing weapon I meant pilum, spiculum etc, where once you had launched this you would want a decent sidearm to then use. Therefore it would make sense that in the absence of a decent sword a thrusting spear would become the primary weapon.

I have just done a quick search of Ammianus and he does refer quite a number of times to swords so they were presumbaly still quite common, at least until the late 4th century, although many of the battles he describes are major ones which do have an Emperor or Caesar present so possibly these would be well equipped troops.

[rrgg]

Well, even with a thrusting spear a soldier would probably want a decent side arm if he could afford it just in case.

I think the big question would be what the relative prices for swords were compared to spears, daggers, shields, armor, horses, etc.

[Robert Vermaat]

The state would have wanted to equip every soldier (infantry and cavalry) with a spatha. In peaceful times, this would not have been a problem. Soldiers would even have spent private money to obtain better weapons. However, in times of crisis this could present a problem. No doubt we all see that, despite obvious stockpiles, after the disaster of Adrianople it may not have been easy to outfit every newly trained unit with a spatha (or body armour etc.).

From the 5th c. onwards, economics are clearly getting worse and we hear of units without proper material, i.e. cavalry units without horses etc. it's comparable to any modern army in the later days of its existance. No doubt one of the reasons that so many Germanis were hired en block (besides money being available and the numbers of the mercenaries) was that they came equipped and ready for action (where instead during the 4th c. we see that such troops were outfitted by the Romans!).

By the 6th c. we hear of lack of equipment being common - maurikios clearly advocates to put the men with body armour in front and behind, therby indicating that it was quite normal for a unit to lack this as common equipment.

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, even with a thrusting spear a soldier would probably want a decent side arm if he could afford it just in case.

Not 'just in case', I think it's fair to say that any battle would go past a point where long lances were needed, or damaged. I think even that the front rank may hve dropped their hasta when contact was made, and fought on with the spatha. The shorter semispatha may have been a secondary side-arm, but it's existence speaks volumes.

I think the big question would be what the relative prices for swords were compared to spears, daggers, shields, armor, horses, etc.

Spear(heads) are cheap, shield (bosses) also, daggers can be simple, body armour comes in all sorts of quality (but can be pricy), helmets are expensive 9espeically the intricate ones), horses (trained!) are very costly.

I'd say a spatha would end up between a helmet and a horse when good quality?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The state would have wanted to equip every soldier (infantry and cavalry) with a spatha. In peaceful times, this would not have been a problem. Soldiers would even have spent private money to obtain better weapons. However, in times of crisis this could present a problem. No doubt we all see that, despite obvious stockpiles, after the disaster of Adrianople it may not have been easy to outfit every newly trained unit with a spatha (or body armour etc.).

From the 5th c. onwards, economics are clearly getting worse and we hear of units without proper material, i.e. cavalry units without horses etc. it's comparable to any modern army in the later days of its existance. No doubt one of the reasons that so many Germanis were hired en block (besides money being available and the numbers of the mercenaries) was that they came equipped and ready for action (where instead during the 4th c. we see that such troops were outfitted by the Romans!).

By the 6th c. we hear of lack of equipment being common - maurikios clearly advocates to put the men with body armour in front and behind, therby indicating that it was quite normal for a unit to lack this as common equipment.

I once argued that Vegetius may have (presuming that he was writing after the disaster at Adrianople) that when he mentions the lack of armor and good discipline, it could have been due to the inablity of the fabrica to supply the troops with the necessary equipment fast enough, and that the new recruits were just given a crash course and thrown into the field to fight the Goths.

Also, the Germans weren't necessarily as mass -hired as you may think. The generalissimos of the 5th century including Stilicho, Aetius, and Ricimerus served their own interests, and more likely used privately hired and trained Bucellarii than Foederati. Aetius has a private retainer of Huns, and the gallic landownign class they served could have each given money to train troops to protect their fortified estates. A good example of this is when Sidonius Appolinaris and company trained a large force with private money to defend thier estates against the visigoths, which proved effective until around 470. (I have a source for that but i can't find it right now, I think it's one of sidonius apollinaris' Carmina or something)