Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Caesarean Legionnaires without armor?
#1
This is my first post and this looks like a great forum and source of information on Roman military.

Here is my problem/question. . . I am looking to start collecting a Caesarean army of 28mm figures. I went to the Foundry website (linked below with pics to illustrate my problem) and came across models that are shown with the hamata armor I am familiar with, but there are also units of legionnaires shown wearing only a tunic, helm and shield. Could anyone enlighten me on this and point me to some source that would show Caesar's legions going to battle without armor?

http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/collecti ... /index.asp


I have read the Gallic Wars and Civil Wars (not recently mind you) and I have no recollection of this sort of attire.

I am aware of the idea of fighting expeditii (without heavy armor) but I was unaware that Caesar's troops ever did so.


Thanks in advance,


Severus
"Hige sceal pe heardra, heorte pe cenre, mod sceal pe mare pe ure maegen lytlao"

"Will shall be the sterner, heart the bolder, and spirit the greater as our strength lessens."

Matthew Webster
Reply
#2
Ave!

Welcome to RAT! There is at least some reason to suspect that not all legionaries were armored. Farther back in the Repubic, there are the poorer legionaries who only have a bronze pectoral for armor--only the wealthier men had mail. It's not much of a step from pectoral to no armor. And of course the velites were unarmored, and they do technically count as legionaries.

From Caesar's Civil Wars, there is a passage from the siege of Dyrrhachium in which his troops make themselves coats out of hides and such to protect themselves from Pompey's archers. To me, that implies that they did not have mail, which would have stopped the arrows.

I have also seen drawings of 2 little bronze figurines of Roman soldiers that were unarmored. At least one had an "Augustan" style scutum, straight ends with curved sides, which of course might date back to Marius and was used at least as late as Trajan. Both seemed to be soldiers in battle poses, not gladiators or something else.

While I do think that most legionaries from Caesar's time onward were armored, I also think it's dangerous to assume that they ALL were. Fighting without armor was the norm in the ancient world, right through the middle ages. As far as I know, there is nothing in ancient literature which firmly states that all legionaries had body armor.

That help? Vale,

Matthew
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Reply
#3
Hi

The Arch of Orange in Southern France, dated to the reign of Augustus, shows in some detail soldiers in mail shirts with shoulder doubling with recognizable helmet types, shields and shield blazons. However there are also some figures in fighting poses who appear to be wearing only a tunic. One of them clearly shows the knot on the tunic just below the back of the neck.

Graham.
"Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe.

"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.

"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
Reply
#4
Guys,

Thanks for the ideas. My next questions (complete with my opinions) are. . . .

1. Are these unarmored men interspersed within the legions? It would seem that soldiers in the same unit would be given matching equipment (after Marian reforms of course). Otherwise they would not fit in (bad news for unit cohesiveness) nor would they serve the same purpose militarily as others in their unit. Unarmored legionaries would be less effective as heavy infantry than their armored counterparts. . .


2. Are there entire cohorts/legions without armor? It would seem that Caesar would have mentioned such an important distinction.

3. Are these unarmored troops some different organization altogether (similar to lanciarii or velites). It seems that Caesar would have mentioned such organizations, but who knows.


4. The model company lists them as legionaries, but I am looking for facts to prove/disprove this.



Either way I enjoy the discourse.

Matt
"Hige sceal pe heardra, heorte pe cenre, mod sceal pe mare pe ure maegen lytlao"

"Will shall be the sterner, heart the bolder, and spirit the greater as our strength lessens."

Matthew Webster
Reply
#5
This may be a bit off-topic but it's a simple question:
I've seen in several pics that roman tunics have a knott in the back (just as shown at the second pic of Graham's post), why did they do that?
Francisco Machado aka M.ilionario

Atheist

"You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war" - Napoleon Bonaparte
Reply
#6
Quote:This may be a bit off-topic but it's a simple question:
I've seen in several pics that roman tunics have a knott in the back (just as shown at the second pic of Graham's post), why did they do that?
The neckhole was very wide so that, when doing manual labour or it was hot weather (?), the tunic could be pulled down below the right arm. When the neckhole needed to be tighter a knot was tied to keep the material gathered.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#7
Hello Francisco

Untied it would allow the tunic to drop off the right shoulder. Soldiers who are engaged in manual work such as felling trees or blacksmiths can be seen wearing the tunic that way. Try getting hold of a copy of my 'Roman Military Clothing 1' if you need any more pictures.

Graham.
"Is all that we see or seem but a dream within a dream" Edgar Allan Poe.

"Every brush-stroke is torn from my body" The Rebel, Tony Hancock.

"..I sweated in that damn dirty armor....TWENTY YEARS!', Charlton Heston, The Warlord.
Reply
#8
When wearing armour, what keeps the tunic from sliding down the shoulder..? I assume you can't have the knot with armour on. It would seem the large neck hole would allow metal from armour to rub the skin.
Thanks,
Johnny
Johnny Shumate
Reply
#9
Quote:I assume you can't have the knot with armour on.
The knot doesn't have to be down inside the armour, but can be pulled up outside of it. The knot rides high when tied anyway.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#10
Thanks for answering lads :wink:
Francisco Machado aka M.ilionario

Atheist

"You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war" - Napoleon Bonaparte
Reply
#11
Quote:1. Are these unarmored men interspersed within the legions? It would seem that soldiers in the same unit would be given matching equipment (after Marian reforms of course). Otherwise they would not fit in (bad news for unit cohesiveness) nor would they serve the same purpose militarily as others in their unit. Unarmored legionaries would be less effective as heavy infantry than their armored counterparts.

I don't see any reason why they couldn't be in the same unit as armored men. Roman soldiers didn't want to blend in, they wanted to be distinctive so that their personal bravery could be recognized. It was very common in other armies for men in the front ranks to be more heavily armored than men farther back, in fact even the early Republican army had some of that, so it's entirely possible that could happen in the Imperial army, too. And they wouldn't be less effective, just a little more likely to get wounded. And less likely to tire quickly, which in some situations might have been an advantage.

Quote:2. Are there entire cohorts/legions without armor?


Probably not, but we really don't know.

Quote:It would seem that Caesar would have mentioned such an important distinction.

Nah, he never gets into such technical details that deeply.

Quote:3. Are these unarmored troops some different organization altogether (similar to lanciarii or velites).

They could be antesignani, which I believe Caesar does mention once, but it's all speculation. I don't think they are a completely different troop type, since we have no other evidence for such a unit.

Quote:4. The model company lists them as legionaries, but I am looking for facts to prove/disprove this.

Well, since they look a lot like what seem to be legionaries on the Arch of Orange, that's good enough for me! Thanks for posting that drawing, by the way, Graham, I'd forgotten about those guys.

Valete,

Matthew
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Reply
#12
Hmmn. Perhaps they could even be a some sort of continuation in the tradition of the Velites, unarmoured junior members (new recruits?) of the Legion, perhaps waiting on the opportunity to acquire armour or else an artistic convention in portraying that type... purely speculative, of course.

Matthew James Stanham
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one\'s own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350), Tsurezure-Gusa (1340)
Reply
#13
Quote:1. Are these unarmored men interspersed within the legions? It would seem that soldiers in the same unit would be given matching equipment (after Marian reforms of course). Otherwise they would not fit in (bad news for unit cohesiveness) nor would they serve the same purpose militarily as others in their unit. Unarmored legionaries would be less effective as heavy infantry than their armored counterparts.

Quote: I don't see any reason why they couldn't be in the same unit as armored men. Roman soldiers didn't want to blend in, they wanted to be distinctive so that their personal bravery could be recognized.
I disagree here. If a soldier was issued gear I would assume Roman discipline would not allow for the soldier to cast off random pieces of equipment at their own discretion.

Quote: It was very common in other armies for men in the front ranks to be more heavily armored than men farther back, in fact even the early Republican army had some of that, so it's entirely possible that could happen in the Imperial army, too.

Common in other armies but no written document (that I am aware of) makes reference to unarmored men mixed in with regular legionaries of the Late Republican time period. Earlier Republican legions did mix soldiers with varying levels of protection/equipment , but this was when the soldier himself was responsible for his own armaments, and the different types of equipment are well documented by historians. . .

Quote: And they wouldn't be less effective, just a little more likely to get wounded.
From my viewpoint a soldier more likely to be wounded makes them much less effective. The health of legionaries was important to the legion (especially in Caesar's campaign in Gaul where he faced many times the size of his own) a man who could not fight because of a wound that could have been avoided by wearing his armor seems to be a waste that Caesar would not have allowed.



Graham (Sumner you magnificent bastard! I read your book!) thanks for the pictures they do not answer my question but they lend strength to the fact that these miniatures were not created haphazardly but with some reason in mind. I wish there was more of an explanation for unarmored soldiers than what we have now. I still am not convinced they are legionaries and I guess that is where I am stuck.

Still I know more now about the subject than I did a few days ago.


Thanks,


Matt Webster
P.S. no disrespect about the book comment intended (Osprey:Roman Military Clothing). Just I did read it and realizing that the author responded to my question made me think of the movie Patton. If you've seen it, you understand. If not, see the movie :wink:

P.P.S- I've also noted that I need to post my real name. SO I've done so at the end of the post. But seeing there is already an glut of people named Matt here. . .
"Hige sceal pe heardra, heorte pe cenre, mod sceal pe mare pe ure maegen lytlao"

"Will shall be the sterner, heart the bolder, and spirit the greater as our strength lessens."

Matthew Webster
Reply
#14
Wargames Foundry figure thoughts.

Something to realize about Wargames Foundry miniatures, they are made for war gaming, and were specifically made to fit into some army lists from Wargames Research Group rules. In edition 4,5,6 and 7 they allow Romans to use flaming pigs, (also in DBM army lists), but this was not a common Roman tactic. :roll: They also allow you to buy unarmored troops with less 'points' than armored troops. They referenced the time when Julius Caesar's camp of one of the legions was being overrun, and some of the soldiers got up from their sickbeds and fought with just shields and helmets as an excuse for that one. Romans can also choose to tie branches to the horns of oxen and set them on fire, to create a diversion, in some war games rules, BUT did this happen on a regular basis?

The Wargames Foundry figures look nice, including their work party of Roman engineers, (and their Roman and Egyptian civilians) but finding a regular use for some of their figures in the historical record may be a bit difficult. They make special figures to fit 'one off' situations, and to allow you to fit your 'army' into a specific numbers of 'points' but giving up armor, or shields, or something. I suspect that Julius Caesar and others did not have those restrictions! In fact, most battles were not 'equal' from the start!
Caius Fabius Maior
Charles Foxtrot
moderator, Roman Army Talk
link to the rules for posting
[url:2zv11pbx]http://romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=22853[/url]
Reply
#15
Hi,
we have simply to little evidence to know more about this subject. But just a thought here - I can quite easily imagine, that in the heat of civil wars at the end of Roman republic, when many new legions were raised on both sides, it could happen, that some men or units lacked armour for some time, because the armouries didn't manage to produce enough arms in time.
Greetings
Alexandr
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Roman Legionnaires in first century Judea? MarcusNorwood 3 2,114 12-05-2012, 02:54 PM
Last Post: Albertomv
  Legionnaires in one-on-one combat Anonymous 86 21,409 04-01-2004, 09:39 PM
Last Post: Anonymous

Forum Jump: