Hunnic invasion costume

[Dan D'Silva]

I'd like to compile a comprehensive list and description of all the clothes, weapons and accessories needed to recreate a Western Empire infantry kit at the time of the Battle of Chalons/Catalaunian Plains.  I might not be able to afford to actually assemble one in the near future, but I would like the information necessary to do so.  Could anyone point me to good sources?

[Nathan Ross]

I'd like to compile a comprehensive list and description of all the clothes, weapons and accessories needed to recreate a Western Empire infantry kit at the time of the Battle of Chalons/Catalaunian Plains.

I would suggest there were no western empire infantry present at the battle. Aside from Aetius himself and his officers, and at least some of his buccellarii bodyguard, the 'Roman' force was made up of 'barbarian' allied contingents and foederati, and perhaps provincial militia. This is what the few sources we have on the battle seem to suggest anyway.

However, many of these 'barbarian' troops may have been armed and equipped in Roman style, perhaps from Roman arsenals, and by this date it may have been difficult to distinguish 'Roman' from 'barbarian' on the battlefield (or anywhere else!).

How a mid-5th century soldier might have differed from a later 4th-century one might be hard to establish. As I understand it, the last 'Intercisa' style ridge helmets date to the late 4th, and the 'Augsburg II', 'Burgh Castle' and 'Heteny' helmet style to c.350-400. I think only the Concesti and Iatrus style might fall into the early-mid 5th. 'Baldenheim' helmets probably did not appear until the century's end, while the 'Deir el Medina' type is still in historical limbo, so we're in a bit of a black hole, helmet-wise... 

The same might go for much of the rest of the military equipment of the day. But others know far more about that than me!

[Robert Vermaat]

I would add the word 'regular' to the statement "there were no western empire infantry present at the battle". After all, we cannot know that Aetius' bucellarii were all infantry, nor that he had no Roman troops present that were (or had been until a short while ago) part of the Roman army. While we can discuss the status of the military forces available to people such as Aetius or Syagrius, it's entirely conceivable that to them (or an innocent bystander) these troops were part of the Roman army. Trained, clothed and equipped as well - including the men available to the Goths and Franks.

[Nathan Ross]

we cannot know that Aetius' bucellarii were all infantry, nor that he had no Roman troops present

I'd imagine his buccellarii were mostly cavalry. There's the comment in Sidonius Apollinaris that Aetius crossed into Gaul without any soldiers (sine milites), which I think we ought to take seriously. Presumably he left his troops to defend the cities of Italy, which we hear of them doing - or trying to do - a year or two later?

We might think that there was a regular field army in Gaul as well - but if so, where was it, who was commanding it, and why is it invisible in the sources for at least 30 years beforehand? Roman commanders active in Gaul in the 5th century seem to be commanding Hunnic foederati. Presumably there were regular Roman troops holding the cities like Orleans and Metz. But why would a commander risk mobilising his precious infantry reserves when he could fight battles solely with foederati and allied contingents?

When Jordanes even lists mysterious folk like the Olibrones, 'who were once Roman soldiers' (whatever that means!) in Aetius's army at Chalons, I think we can be fairly sure that there were no actual Roman regulars present.

As for the original question - beyond a basic long-sleeved tunic, breeches, a round shield and a spear, perhaps a spatha, perhaps a helmet similar to the Leiden spangenhelm (something must have filled the gap between the Intercisa ridge helmets and the Baldenheim types, if we don't know exactly what), and perhaps a mail or scale shirt, I don't think we can be more exact about the appearance of infantry in this period, can we?

[Robert Vermaat]

"I'd imagine his buccellarii were mostly cavalry. There's the comment in Sidonius Apollinaris that Aetius crossed into Gaul without any soldiers (sine milites), which I think we ought to take seriously. Presumably he left his troops to defend the cities of Italy, which we hear of them doing - or trying to do - a year or two later?"

That is entirely possible. And maybe his buccellarii were cavalry - we just don't know that for sure. Nor do we know if he aquired other troops to strengthen his personal force, but (granted) these would not be Roman troops.

"We might think that there was a regular field army in Gaul as well - but if so, where was it, who was commanding it, and why is it invisible in the sources for at least 30 years beforehand?"

To that I would say that so much changed in those 30 years (after all, we see usurpations, invasions and restauration [a splendid book title!] in that period), that this army would not need to show up - it could have come to Gaul under the restauration of Constantius III. 
I have no proof either way of course, but somehow I don't accept that no regular forces had been permanently stationed in Gaul c.420 and later. 

"But why would a commander risk mobilising his precious infantry reserves when he could fight battles solely with foederati and allied contingents?"

Because maybe there would be nothing to defend if the battle was lost? This was not a mere raid but an all-or-northing. But again, no way to prove that, and even though 'local contingents' could have been entering service as regular Roman soldiers, there not enough proof of telling either way. 

"When Jordanes even lists mysterious folk like the Olibrones, 'who were once Roman soldiers' (whatever that means!) in Aetius's army at Chalons, I think we can be fairly sure that there were no actual Roman regulars present."

Maybe, but Jordanes wrote from Italy a century later, and it would be extremely fortunate if we could glance such details like a military roster from his writings. And I fear we cannot - as we cannot trust Procopius on Britain or Gregory about the 5th century.  These 'Olibrones' sound as fanciful nough to be included purely for the sake of a captivated audience. 

"As for the original question - beyond a basic long-sleeved tunic, breeches, a round shield and a spear, perhaps a spatha, perhaps a helmet similar to the Leiden spangenhelm (something must have filled the gap between the Intercisa ridge helmets and the Baldenheim types, if we don't know exactly what), and perhaps a mail or scale shirt, I don't think we can be more exact about the appearance of infantry in this period, can we?"

Or no helmet at all, and no lorica or spatha either, for the regular infantry.

[Dan D'Silva]

Thank you.

I guess by "Western Imperial infantry" I mean "infantry in the service of the Western Empire," regardless of whether they were actually Roman (however you define Roman by this period) or just equipped that way.

If I'm reading Jordanes correctly, Aetius had archers guarding his camp?