Login

03-05-2002, 11:31 PM

I am currently writing a book on the Byzantine military with a target audience among ancient and medieval wargamers. I would be interested in copies of articles that cover the 5th and 6th Centuries AD. My main interests are organisation, equipment, armour and clothing. 
 
Can someone please clarify if Nick Fuentes article on Roman military tunics was real or just humourous. Most of my sources indicate that tunics were white or natural colours, not red as worn by the Ermine Street group. 
 
 
Perry 
SAGA's new website www.saga-publishing.com/

03-06-2002, 08:16 AM

Hi Perry, 
 
Nick Fuentes article was not humourous, and IMHO is spot on with his observations. He talks at length and in some detail the tunic colours being white and that red was reserved for Centurions, as well explaining in detail the fit of the tunic and how it was worn. Have you read the paper? 
 
I am currently writing an article for the Society of Ancients journal Slingshot on the colour of Roman tunics 100BC to 200 AD but drawing on some interesting conclusions and having to look at data, just as Nick Fuentes did, from sources before and after this period. 
 
As for your interest I too am very interested this period of the Late Roman Empire, and I would start with the primary sources of Ammianus Marcellinus, Procopius, and Vegetius. I would also look at The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars AD226-363 by Dodgeon and Lieu. These two chaps are prolific and have used a large variety of sources to many to mention here. 
 
Other books (secondary) I would look at are The Byzantium and its Army by Treadgold, Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests by Kaegi, any books by Simon MacDowall (recommend Late Roman Infantryman and Cavalryman in the Osprey Warriors series), and possibly (this may seem obscure but one must look at a variety of sources for info.) Sassanid Persian by David Nicolle. 
 
I hope this information was of use. 
 
Kind Regards 
 
Mark

03-06-2002, 10:00 AM

Salve, 
 
In my opinion the article by Fuentes is useful for collecting source references, but his interpretation is not entirely convincing when it comes to linking rank and colours. The use of uniform clothing by the Roman army is not proven and may well be the projection of a modern concept. While white and off-white are indeed the most common tunic colours in the available sources, it does not mean that it was a regulation uniform colour rather than just the most common colour of clothing worn by soldiers. One of the Masada pay records lists a tunica alba, but that does not in itself prove that all tunics were white. Detailing the shade might even be an indication that other colours were worn as well, making specification necessary. Assigning particular colours to officer ranks simply because they are attested more sparingly without explicit reference seems a hazardous exercise, even more so considering that one reference in Tacitus' Historiae (2.89 ...ante aquilas praefecti castrorum tribunique et primi centurionum candida veste...) mentions centurions dressing in white and another in the SHA listing red tunics among the clothing of a tribune. 
 
Some relevant publications, there is overlap with the reading suggestions above. 
 
Austin, N.J.E. and N.B. Rankov, Exploratio. Military intelligence in the Roman world from the second Punic war to the battle of Adrianople (London 1995) 292p. 
Burns, T.S., 'The battle of Adrianople: a reconsideration' in: Historia 22 (1973), 336-345. Deals with the heavy cavalry myth. 
Burns, T.S., Barbarians within the gates of Rome. A study of Roman military policy and the barbarians, ca 375-425 AD (Bloomington and Indianapolis 1994) 417p. 
Coello, T., Unit Sizes in the Late Roman Army BAR S645 (Oxford 1996). 
Crump, G.A., 'Ammianus and the Late Roman Army' in: Historia 22 (1973), 91-103. 
Crump, G.A., Ammianus as a military historian. Historia Einzelschriften 27 (Stuttgart 1975) 140p. 
Dixon, K.R. and P. Southern, The late Roman army (London 1996) 206p. Read together with Elton. 
Duncan-Jones, R.P., 'Pay and numbers in Diocletian's army' in: Chiron 8 (1978), 541-560. 
Dennis, G.T., Maurice's Strategikon. handbook of Byzantine military strategy ( Philadelphia 1984) 178p. 
Elton, H., Warfare in Roman Europe AD 350-425 (Oxford 1996)[/i] 312p. Important for correction of barbarisation theories. 
Grosse, R., RÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¶mische MilitÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¤rgeschichte (Berlin 1920). 
Haldon, J., Warfare, state and society in the Byzantine world 565-1204 (London 1999) 389p. 
Hoffmann, D., Das spÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¤trÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¶mische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia Dignitatum (Dusseldorf 1969). Views on barbarisation outdated. 
Jones, A.H.M., The later Roman empire (Oxford 1964). Good chapter on military affairs. 
Luttwak, E.N., The grand strategy of the Roman Empire (Baltimore 1976) 255p. 
MacDowall, S., Late Roman Infantryman W 9 (London 1994) 64p. Above average Osprey. 
MacDowall, S., Late Roman Cavalryman W 15 (London 1995) 64p. Idem. 
MacDowall, S., Adrianople AD 378 CA 84 (London 2001) 96p. Idem. 
MacMullen, R., Soldier and civilian in the Later Roman Empire (Cambridge Mass. 1963). 
Milner, N.P., Vegetius: epitome of military science (Liverpool 1993) 152p. 
Nicasie, M.J., The twilight of empire. The Roman army from the reign of Diocletian until the battle of Adrianople(Amsterdam 1998) 321p. 
Raaflaub, K. and N. Rosenstein (ed.), War and society in the ancient and medieval world (Cambridge MA 1999) 484p. 
Scharf, R., 'Seniores-Iuniores und die Heeresteilung des Jahres 364' in: ZPE 89 (1991), 265-272. 
Seeck, O. (ed.), Notitia Dignitatum (Frankfurt aM 1876) 339p. 
Shaw, B.D., 'War and violence' in: G.W. Bowersock, P. Brown, O. Grabat (eds.), Late Antiquity: a guide to the postclassical world (Harvard 1999), 130-169. 
Speidel, M.P., Roman army studies I (Amsterdam). Various relevant articles. 
Speidel, M.P., Roman army studies II (Stuttgart 1992) 430p. 
Speidel, M.P., The framework of an imperial legion (Cardiff 1992) 47p. 
Tomlin, R.S.O., 'Seniores-Iuniores in the Late-Roman field army' in: American Journal of Philology 93 (1972), 253-278. 
Tomlin, R.S.O, 'Rome's decline and fall' in: Cross, R. (ed.) Warfare: a chronological history (London 1991), 46-59. 
Tomlin, R.S.O., 'The Army of the Late Empire', in Wacher, J., ed., The Roman World (London 1987), 107-133 (also wrote the late Roman chapter in Connolly's Greece and Rome at war, good article on late Roman legions in Brewer, R.J. (ed.), Roman fortresses and their legions (London 2000) 187p.) 
Treadgold, W., Byzantium and its army 284- (Stanford 1995) 249p. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 3/7/02 5:08:00 pm

03-06-2002, 04:09 PM

Hi, 
 
Given your explanantion below, I would take it that you have a view of what colours the Roman Army wore ? 
 
IMHO N. Fuentes has made a good logical case, more so than others saying they always wore red......... 
 
But before you go OTT I always say "we weren't there so we can never be sure".........but I am interested to hear your view 
 
K Rgds 
 
Mark

03-06-2002, 04:29 PM

Salve, 
 
There is a whole range of colours attested for tunics worn by Roman soldiers (ao white, off-white, yellow, brown, red, blue, green). While I agree with Fuentes that white and off-white is the prevalent colour in available sources, both literary sources and depictions, I am not convinced that this constitutes evidence for a true uniform, a regulation type of clothing of similar appearance and colour. There exists a tacit assumption that since the Roman army appears very modern in some respects, it must have been similar in other respects as well even if this is not directly hinted at in the available evidence. There are no explicit references to uniformity in tunic colours, while these do exist for instance for common unit shield designs. The Roman army originated as a citizen militia and characteristics of that origin persisted after the army had developed into a long service force. Troops in the early imperial army were still expected to equip themselves at their own costs and could get their weapons and equipment from various sources. The same is true of clothing, some items being acquired on an individual basis, by direct purchase or from relatives, both military and civilian, while other items are attested as being acquired in bulk via the unit. In my opinion there would have been no true uniform and soldiers would wear clothing in what colours were fashionable and/or available. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

03-06-2002, 05:34 PM

Hi Sander, 
 
Interesting. Some thoughts though. Every soldier (Imp army only for arguments sakes) was expected to have the following equipment a shield, helmet, sword, and a throwing weapon could be pilum or as attested by arrian) lancea, dagger and a tunic, sandals/boots. That to me sounds regular. There is evidence for uniform appearance of shields for a unit. But why stop at the shield ? A design on a shield cannot be seen very far away, but colour can be observed at a greater distance as well as the difference between foot and horse see G.Brueggemans site. 
 
IMHO, during the period of about 14AD to 200AD the Roman army was equipped uniformly, and we could speculate that a uniform colour may have been adopted, to distinguish itself from the days of the republic (the militia army) to the future of the empire (professional army) as well as to identify friend from foe and give a visible sign of the Roman Empires power. 
 
But I also believe that as the Legionnaire campaigned his original tunic would have worn out and he would have replaced it, with either local or unit supplier. 
 
Now I agree with you that there is no strong evidence for a uniform colour for tunics, but there is also no strong evidence for multi-coloured tunic units. 
 
Yes you are correct in saying that there is evidence for a multitude of colours and that N.Fuentes points out that white seems to be the most popular colour, and that the early imp. soldier had to pay for his equipment, but this may have changed as the empire grew stronger and more money was at the disposal of the empire. We know the empire had huge armament factories - these producing manufactured equipment, suppliers of cloth were asked to supply the army with an uniformed colour tunic, which to me says regular. 
 
It is a contensious subject at best, yet we are all waiting for the next piece of evidence aand hopefully forming those jigsawed pieces into a picture of clarity. 
 
Thank you for your time and view, I dare say that many more people have different views......... 
 
Kind Regards 
 
Mark

Richomeres · 03-06-2002, 06:26 PM

You maybe right, but don' t you think a Roman soldier could be told form a Parthian or Germanic warrior by differences in equipment and appearance, ever over some distance? 
 
Regarding the state issued tunics you mentioned, I think the quantity of tunics issued has to be considered. If several legions have to be dressed, quite some money could be saved if the fabric was left undyed. 
 
However this is just my personal opinion. 
 
Regards, 
 
Helge

03-06-2002, 10:25 PM

I would like to thank everyone for their input. My own opinion is that the soldiers may have begun their campaign in state issued uniforms, but replaced them with local clothing when necessary. Their is some evidence that the soldiers used local clothing to help acclimatise to the enviroment in which they served. So trousers, cloaks, hats and other cold weather items may have been added to the attire during the winter in northern Europe, and cotton or linen in Egypt and the Middle East. 
 
Descriptions of Wellington's army during the Penninsular War (1808-1814) stated that the soldiers were often a motley lot with their various civilian clothes. Such descriptions may be applicable to troops seving for long periods away from their clothing depot. 
 
In addition, the Roman and Byzantine soldiers some times received a clothing allowance in cash rather than the clothing. The money may have been used to purchase local clothing thus a more individual appearance developed among the troops. Soldiers may also have acquired better clothing and equipment by looting the prisoners and dead of a defeated foe. 
 
perry

03-06-2002, 10:28 PM

Mark, 
 
I have most of the books that cover the Byzantine army except John Haldon's Byzantine Praetorians. I am looking for articles that are regularly used as sources in the books. 
 
Several have already been collected from other wargamers and I was hoping that members of this group may be able to supply others. 
 
Perry

03-07-2002, 10:40 AM

Salve, 
 
There were also standards to which the republican troops had to conform when called up for service. Such regulations seem to have been very loose however and troops used various kinds of all different types of equipment in both republican - and imperial times (eg the varying equipment depicted on the Tropaeum Traiani metopes). The difference between the republican - and imperial armies was the result of a gradual development. The imperial army retained a number of the characteristics of a militia army, retaining for instance conscription, now enforced for a longer stint than usual before, and in general (with the exception of the praetorians) requiring soldiers to acquire their equipment at their own costs. 
 
Like weapons, armour and other kit, clothing is attested as coming from various sources, some issued via the unit and some acquired at the individual soldier's initative. As you indicated such diverse sources of supply would have made any uniformity hard to enforce and would have resulted in a somewhat motley appearance of troops in practice. Such uniformity is however an assumption and not solidly based on available evidence for regulations. Therefore I think that with the currently available material it seems likely that not only would the Roman army not have been uniformly dressed in practice, but that any uniform regulations were lacking altogether. 
 
There are in fact several depictions that show a number of Roman soldiers wearing various shades of tunics, most notably the Piazza Armerina mosaic, but also for instance the painting from Pompeii or the Ravenna mosaic of late Roman guard troops. Troops had to smartly dressed according to sources, but these do not hint at uniformity of attire whereas the same do state that shield designs were uniform. 
 
Vegetius, Epitoma rei militaris 2.13 
 
 ...ut bene vestiti et calciati sint,... 
 
'...that they are well clad and shod,...' 
 
Vegetius, Epitoma rei militaris 2.18 
 
 Sed ne milites aliquando in tumultu proelii a suis contubernalibus aberrarent, diversis cohortibus diversa in scutis signa pingebant, ut ipsi nominant, digmata, sicut etiam nunc moris est fieri... 
 
'But in order to prevent that soldiers in the confusion of combat would wander off from their squadmates, they used to paint different symbols on the shields in the various cohorts, digmata as they call them themselves, just as it is still the custom to do nowadays...' 
 
Some letters from Claudius Terentianus in which clothing supplied from other sources than the army. 
 
www.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/....apis.2444 
www.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/....apis.2445 
 
The armament factories and state run cloth mills appeared in the later period, at a time that soldiers began to be issued with equipment. However these did not fully replace the acquisition of arms, equipment and clothing by other means and when state finances allowed issues in kind were commuted back to money grants, allowing the troops to buy what they needed at their own initiative. There was serious trouble when there were attempts to reverse this in the late sixth century army. Issues in kind were an economy measure and attempts to introduce them a sign of weak government funds. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

03-07-2002, 10:59 AM

Hi Helge, 
 
Not so. I believe that mankinds eye sight has probably not changed over the millenia, and therefore what a General could see would be the same throughout history. 
 
At a certain distance 700 yards you cannot tell a body is enemy or not but you can tell if its horse or foot. 
 
At about 500 yards you can see colouring of shields and equipment. At 250 yards tunic colours can be made out. 
 
Now I believe sillohettes are something different above I was describing detail of a body coming towards you. I believe you could tell the difference between a Roman Imp. Unit and a Germanic Warband at about 500 yards. 
 
So not much time for reaction !

03-07-2002, 12:10 PM

Hi Sander, 
 
You said "The imperial army retained a number of the characteristics of a militia army, retaining for instance conscription, now enforced for a longer stint than usual before, and in general (with the exception of the praetorians) requiring soldiers to acquire their equipment at their own costs" 
 
According to A.K.Goldsworthy in his book The Roman Army at War 100BC to 200AD page 28 "the majority of men in the legions under the principate were volunteers. 
He makes a note of a ref. to P.A.Brunts work "Conscription and Volunteering in the Roman Imperial Army". AKG then goes on to say that conscription was more common in the Auxilia. 
 
Another "Warfare in the Ancient World" Sir John Hackett page 170 Lawrence Keppie on the Late Reublican Roman says "Two major reforms are nowadays ascribed to Marius. The first was his sweeping away of the old system by which men were conscripted for a fairly short span of 6 years and their replacement by volunteers who remained under arms for much longer periods." 
 
He then goes onto talk about volunteers raised by Marius from the capitae censi, a class of citizenry who owned no property and who were thus normally excluded from military service. (this to me alone says the State provided the necessary clothing and equipment to the soldier !) 
 
More importantly he talks of a law being passed in 122 BC by Gaius Gracchus of the state providing the soldiers clothing. The provision of arms, weapons and clothing by state factories. already normal by Marius's time, must have encouraged uniformity of equipment, militating old divisions. (And again). 
 
In the same book under The Empire by Dr Brian Dobson, this system remains in place and that conscription was only forced upon by local circumstances or disasters. 
 
Dr Brian Dobson then goes onto discuss the burden on the state to provide land and money grants of cessation from military duty was considerable and if the State did not provide such grants at the end of a soldiers military service then rebellions were more than likely to occur ! 
 
This and the rise of equipment factories and clothing mills during the Empire shows that the Principate provided the Legionaries with equipment and clothing initially, you even provided evidence for such practice from Vegetius, yet based on the evidence you have provided above the legionaire would have to subsequently provide for themsleves if damage or loss occurred to the equipment. (This would not have been as frequent as we are led to believe). 
 
As for Vegetius, he is one of the worst to choose from when considering evidence it is well known that he takes information from throughout Roman History and "polishes" it to fit into his arguments and thereby creating archaisms. 
 
IMHO we need more evidence and hopefully discussions like this on forums will help generate interest and useful debates. 
 
Kind Regards 
 
Mark

03-07-2002, 12:10 PM

Someone mentioned Wellington's army and I think the comparison worthy of study. During the napoleonic wars, differences between regiments were more often than not very small: the color of the cuffs and collars, the shape and color of helmet crests for the cavalry and so on. For instance, the difference between french line grenadiers (close order) and "chasseurs" (open order) was a small copper flaming grenade sewn on their coattails for the former and a small copper hunting horn for the latter. Besides that, there was no difference. I suspect it was the same in the roman imperial army: When not in battle dress soldiers from different regiments could probably be identified by small details, such as the style of their belts or the decoration of their daggers. Finds from different parts of the Empire show that the standard military belt and buckle for instance, while outwardly similar, has marked stylistic differences reflecting local traditions and tastes. 
BTW, three cheers for the new Deepeka pugio and belt. Very colorful and rightly so. Before the advent of the machine gun and the camouflage, all soldiers were very colorful and very elegant. Romans were no different. 
No one really knows about whether tunics were red or white or off-white during the principate. However I believe there was a dominant color in the roman army (e.g. blue for the french, red for the british, white for the Austrans and so on, during the Napo.wars) and I think it was red. A vexillum flag from Egypt is red, the scutum shield from Dura is red, and red is the color of the enamel decorating some legionary helmets. 
It may not have been the regulation color of the tunics but red certainly was prominent. 
What's also certain is that at some point late in the principate decorative patches and stripes were added on the shoulders hems and cuffs of the garments. The Piazza Armerina mosaics show that the majority were off-white or yellowish color. The tradition persisted for several centuries in the Byzantine Empire. 
And as far as recognizing a unit from a distance, soldiers of those days could actually tell by the shape of the dust cloud whether a unit approaching was infantry or cavalry. The dust rose differently.. 
But anyways, what strikes me as odd is that uniform was known for the civilians, in a way. Black worn for mourning, special shoes for senators, narrow stripe or broad stripe on the garments and so on. The Romans loved uniformity, long rows of similar columns, straight lines and clearly defined things. They'd put labels on everything so much so that the tabula ansata (the roman Post-it..) became a simple ornamental design. 
I can't reconcile this way of thinking with an army lacking a uniform of some kind, or at least a system allowing quick identification (e.g. legion and rank) of a particular soldier. 
Now, in order not to put our hopes too high I'd like to mention that heated debates are going on right now about details of the uniforms of some WWII units. And we have films, photos and live witnesses for that one...

03-07-2002, 01:08 PM

Salve, 
 
Brunt has collected the evidence for continuing use of conscription in the late republican period and under the early empire. There are continuing references to the use of conscription both in literary sources (eg the letters of Plinius where lecti, voluntarii and vicarii are distinguished) and in inscriptions. There are also several references to the difficulty of attracting volunteers. There are indications that volunteers predominated in the army under the Severan emperors, but this was after a major raise in pay and the introduction of better service conditions (such as the right to contract a marriage according to Roman law). The references also suggest that this was a change from the previous era. It seems doubtful that one can generalise from that and declare that volunteers dominated the ranks throughout the early imperial period as is very commonly done in modern publications. 
 
The Marian reforms have begun to lead a life of their own in modern historiography and there has been quite a bit of embellishment of what is actually recorded. Marius called on extra volunteers from the capite censi in addition to those he raised by the normal methods of conscription and calling for volunteers from the propertied classes. It did not replace earlier methods, but rather constituted an additional source of troops. Army pay in this period lay below that of a manual labourer and only after Caesar doubled the rate would soldiering have been possible without other sources of income. Propertied conscripts remained important, especially when during civil wars massive armies were levied by the various warring parties. 
 
There are no indications that provision of arms and equipment by state factories was normal by the time of Marius. Only very occasionally took the Roman government responsibility for providing arms to its troops as with the legions raised after Cannae who received arms from the spoils of the Gallic victories. As Tacitus records, troops involved in the mutinies of 14 CE complained how they had to pay for their arms out of their pay, no different from republican times and confirmed by various entries in pay records. The provision of clothing may have been a just for special circumstances since again, apart from the complaints in Tacitus about deductions made for clothing, the pay records for the early imperial army show deductions for clothing, indicating that this was by no means a permanent privilege. Perhaps the destitute soldiers entering service through volunteering or drafting were issued arms, but it is very likely that the costs would have been reclaimed from their pay. 
 
The arms factories and clothing mills only appeared in the course of the third century when troops began to be issued with their equipment, to be returned after leaving the service. However this did not fully replace the supply by other means and using their cash allowances late Roman and Byzantine troops could get theirs from other sources as well. The notion that a soldier had to provide his own kit was enduring. Only under special cirumstances was equipment provided as government issue. 
 
Here are a number of source references: 
 
Deductions from pay 
 
Tacitus , Annales 1.17. 
 
 ... denis in diem assibus animam et corpus aestimari: hinc vestem arma tentoria, hinc saevitiam centurionum et vacationes munerum redimi ... 
 
'At ten asses a day body and soul are valued: this is is paid back for clothing, weapons, tents, this is paid back for the savagery of the centurions and freedom of fatigue duties' 
 
P. Vindb. L72 
 
 in refec(tio) arm(orum) for repair of weapons 
 
Price of weaponry 
 
P. Columbia inv 325 
 
 in armis 20 denarii/27,5 obols 
 
P. Fouad 1.45 
 
 in pretium armorum (against cost of weapons) 50 denarii 
 
P. Vindob L135. 
 
silver plated helmet and inlaid dagger sheath: 100 denarii 
 
Loss of weapons by a recruit 
 
 Digestae 49.16.14 
 
 Arma alienasse grave crimen est ... tironi in hoc crimine facilius parcetur armorumque custos plerumque culpa imputatur, si arma militi commisit non suo tempore 
 
'It is a serious crime to lose weapons ... with such a crime a recruit will be spared more easily and a weapons keeper will incur more guilt, when he has issued weapons to him before the proper time.' 
 
A recruit's request for arms 
 
 P. Mich 8.467 
 
This is an excerpt from a letter by Claudius Terentianus, who asked his father, a speculator in a legion, for weapons and other equipment when he joined the navy. 
 
'... I ask and beg you, father, for I have no one dear to me except you, after the gods, to send to me by Valerius a battle sword, a . . ., a pickaxe, a grappling iron, two of the best lances obtainable, a cloak of beaver skin, and a girdled tunic, together with my trousers, so that I may have them, since I wore out my tunic before I entered the service and my trousers were laid away new. And if you are going to send anything, put an address on everything and describe the distinguishing features to me by letter lest any exchange be made en route. And if you write me a letter, address it: on the liburnian of Neptune...' 
 
Translation taken from the APIS project 
http://www.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/cul/api ... .apis.2445
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 3/8/02 4:37:11 pm

03-07-2002, 01:28 PM

Hi Antoninus Lucretius 
 
"Now, in order not to put our hopes too high I'd like to mention that heated debates are going on right now about details of the uniforms of some WWII units. And we have films, photos and live witnesses for that one..." 
 
Who said it was heated 
 
I believe that Sander has a valid point and so do I. And when the evidence becomes available, in the fullness of time it will confirm both points as being correct.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Gaius Marius Early Life & Battle Information	Lewis Moorhead	5	2,215	05-21-2015, 05:30 PM Last Post: Bryan
	Early byzantine army effectiveness and equipment	Vexillation	1	1,587	04-22-2015, 02:40 PM Last Post: Urselius
	Information on Rome\'s early barbarian opponents	Paullus	12	3,527	06-29-2004, 07:03 AM Last Post: Anonymous