Caesarean Legionnaires without armor?

[Tarbicus]

IIRC, the Arch of Orange does commemorate Actium, so the troopers in Graham's post could simply be marines who did not wear armour in case they fell into the sea?

[Praefectusclassis]

Well, Orange commemorates Actium only in a symbolic way. The naval elements on the arch are more a representation of Rome's power over earth & water than a direct reference to a historical event.

[Matthew Amt]

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.

Ah, but strictly speaking they were not issued equipment by the state until the 3rd century AD. In the first centuries BC and AD the men are still technically responsible for their own gear, even if it was being manufactured in army workshops and possibly handed out to them upon recruitment.

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.

But that's the problem, the literature of this period very rarely says ANYTHING concrete about armor. Using the armored legionary as the "default" isn't necessarily the best way to go about it, scientifically speaking.

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.

The vast majority of men lost by any army up to World War I was not through battle wounds but by disease and everyday accidents and infections. As long as Caesar kept winning and didn't launch too many expensive assaults, his battle casualties would be as low as could be expected. It's entirely possible that he and other officers did what they could to make sure their men were as fully equipped as possible, but we frankly don't know what the rules were or how much leeway the men were given. And as I said, the episode from Dyrrhachium strongly suggests that at least some men did not have body armor. It was up to them to protect themselves.

But seeing there is already an glut of people named Matt here. . .

Yes, we'll have to start numbering them! By *I* was the first one, so I don't have to add a number. You'll be IV or V. (I think Matt Lanteigne was the second and Matt Lukes the third--that was confusing enough with two "Matt L's"!) Or should we all just be "Bruce"?

Valete,

Matthew the First (aka "The Terrible", "The Great", "The Extremely Modest", etc.)

[Graham Sumner]

Matt Webster wrote:

Graham (Sumner you magnificent bastard! I read your book!)

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.

Don't smirk Matt I shan't kiss you! :wink:

Jim Bowers wrote:

IIRC, the Arch of Orange does commemorate Actium, so the troopers in Graham's post could simply be marines who did not wear armour in case they fell into the sea?

Hi Jim
I always thought the arch commemorated the suppression of a rebellion in Gaul during the reign of Augustus. The Romans, many of whom are mounted and including the illustrated unarmoured guys on foot are fighting barbarians.

The naval elements are on the side of the arch and perhaps as Jasper says are more symbolic.

Graham.

Graham.

[Tarbicus]

Hi Jim
I always thought the arch commemorated the suppression of a rebellion in Gaul during the reign of Augustus. The Romans, many of whom are mounted and including the illustrated unarmoured guys on foot are fighting barbarians.

The naval elements are on the side of the arch and perhaps as Jasper says are more symbolic.

Poorly worded by me Graham. I meant "also commemorated", unless the soldiers had water-wings :?

[Graham Sumner]

Jim wrote:

Poorly worded by me Graham. I meant "also commemorated", unless the soldiers had water-wings

Unless they pull that knot and the tunic inflates!

Graham.

[Tarbicus]

Jim wrote:

Poorly worded by me Graham. I meant "also commemorated", unless the soldiers had water-wings

Unless they pull that knot and the tunic inflates!

Graham.

:lol: :lol: I wouldn't put it past them.

[Severus]

I'll never give up! Never!

I keep reading up on the stuff and the newest lead i have is Russ Cowan's Osprey book Roman Legionary 58BC-AD69 that has an illustration of a legionary fighting expedite.

Cowan states that Caesar mentions his troops fighting without armor and cites Civil Wars Book III, 75 & 84.

Since I am living in a different state from my Loeb edition of the Civil Wars I found an online translation of both chapters and find both make reference to "advanced light troops" (chap 75) and "advanced guard" (chap 84) both references suggest that these troops are interspersed with his cavalry.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library ... mciv_3.htm

What is the Latin word that this translation is referring to when it speaks of "Advanced light troops/guard"?

The only other source Cowan provides is a carving from a legionary headquarters at Mainz that shows two roman soldiers(?) in close formation but one obviously is wearing only a tunic.

So, this is a new direction (for me at least) Can anyone help me further my search?

[drsrob]

I'll never give up! Never!

I keep reading up on the stuff and the newest lead i have is Russ Cowan's Osprey book Roman Legionary 58BC-AD69 that has an illustration of a legionary fighting expedite.

Cowan states that Caesar mentions his troops fighting without armor and cites Civil Wars Book III, 75 & 84.

Since I am living in a different state from my Loeb edition of the Civil Wars I found an online translation of both chapters and find both make reference to "advanced light troops" (chap 75) and "advanced guard" (chap 84) both references suggest that these troops are interspersed with his cavalry.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library ... mciv_3.htm

What is the Latin word that this translation is referring to when it speaks of "Advanced light troops/guard"?

The only other source Cowan provides is a carving from a legionary headquarters at Mainz that shows two roman soldiers(?) in close formation but one obviously is wearing only a tunic.

So, this is a new direction (for me at least) Can anyone help me further my search?

The latin text reads thus:

Huic suos Caesar equites opposuit expeditosque ]antesignanos admiscuit CCCC

"Caesar sent his own cavalry against them, together with 400 lightly equipped antesignani"

Superius tamen institutum in equitibus, quod demonstravimus, servabat, ut, quoniam numero multis partibus esset inferior, adulescentes atque expeditos ex antesignanis electis ad pernicitatem armis inter equites proeliari iuberet, qui cotidiana consuetudine usum quoque eius generis proeliorum perciperent.

"While the superiority in cavalry, which we have described, he maintained in that, because they were very much inferior in numbers, he ordered young and lightly equipped men, selected from the antesignani and equipped for speed, to fight among the cavalry, and by daily training acquire the technique of this kind of fighting also."

The "Advanced light troops/guard" are called antesignani

"Equipped for speed" would mean "with little/no armour". The fact that this was particularly added suggests that expeditus means something else. for instance 'without bagage'. In addition we may observe that antesignani were normally not "equipped for speed" and thus probably did use armour.

[Severus]

Drsrob


Thanks for the speedy reply and the Latin translation. Even if I had my Latin text I would still struggle with words.

A good theory that expediti modifies antesignani, which would imply that they usually were not expediti. . .

I think this bit of evidence might vindicate the models being sculpted without armor (see my original reason for post) but would not justify the belief that an entire legion or cohort being expediti (at least in Caesar's time)

I checked the site and didn't find anything conclusive on Antesignani. There is a reference to them in the HBO series Rome, but that means little. Anyone have any good theories or leads on this organization?

[drsrob]

The problem is that the word meant different things at different times. Ceasar clearly refers to a special corps of elite soldiers. Confirmation of this can be found in Cicero.

[...]V. Legem etiam iudiciariam tulit homo castus atque integer iudiciorum et iuris auctor. In quo nos fefellit. Antesignanos et manipulares et Alaudas iudices se constituisse dicebat; at ille legit aleatores, legit exules, legit Graecos (o consessum iudicum praeclarum, o dignitatem consilii admirandam!

"Moreover he [Antonius] passed a law to regulate judicial proceedings, this chaste and upright man, this upholder of the tribunals and the law. And in this he deceived us. He used to say that he appointed men from the antesignani, common soldiers, men of the Alaudae as judges but he has in reality selected gamesters, he has selected exiles, he has selected Greeks. Oh the fine bench of judges Oh the admirable dignity of that council!"

Vegetius cofirms that they wore armour:

[...] Legio autem propriis cohortibus plena cum grauem armaturam, hoc est principes hastatos triarios antesignanos, item leuem armaturam, hoc est ferrentarios sagittarios funditores ballistarios, [...]

"The legion's own cohorts at full size with the heavy armed, which include the principes, hastati, triarii and antesignani, also the light armed, which include skirmishers, bowmen, slingers and artillerymen, ..."

The fact that the infantrymen from the mixed force were selected from them implies that they were light infantry. Confirmation of this can be found in Vegetius, who mentions that they have lighter armour than ordinary legionaries.

[...] Omnes antesignani uel signiferi, quamuis pedites, loricas minores accipiebant et galeas ad terrorem hostium ursinis pellibus tectas. [...]

"All antesignani as well as signiferi wore smaller armour and helmets which they covered with bearskins to frighten the enemy."

That the antesignani survived into the empire is confirmed by this gravestone:

AE 1978, 471

Code:

L(ucius) VALERIUS CO
METIUS VETERA
NUS LEG(ionis) VIII AUG(ustae)
MILITAVIT ARMIS
ANTESIGNANIS
HER(edes) EX TEST(amento)

"Lucius Valerius Cometius, veteran of the legio VIII Augusta has served with the arms of the antesignani. His heirs according to the will."

In my opinion the gravestones of Flavoleius and of C. Valerius Crispus also show antesignani.


In late texts such as those of Ammianus Marcellus the word is used in a more colloquial meaning, that of "ringleader(s)", and usually in the singular.
Frontinus uses the word to denote the front line of Sulla's army in 86 BC, when the division into hastati, principes and triarii was no more.

[...] Triplicem deinde peditum aciem ordinavit relictis intervallis, per quae levem armaturam et equitem, quem in novissimo conlocaverat, cum res exegisset, emitteret. Tum postsignanis qui in secunda acie erant imperavit, ut densos numerososque palos firme in terram defigerent, intraque eos appropinquantibus quadrigis antesignanorum aciem recepit. Tum demum sublato universorum clamore velites et levem armaturam ingerere tela iussit. [...]

"[...] Next he arranged a triple line of infantry, leaving intervals through which to send, according to need, the light-armed troops and the cavalry, which he placed in the rear. He then commanded the postsignani, who were in the second line, to drive firmly into the ground large numbers stakes set close together, and as the chariots drew near, he withdrew the line of antesignani within these stakes. Then at length he ordered the velites and light-armed troops to raise a general battle-cry and discharge their spears. ..."
The exact phrase and the opposition to postsignani confirms that the front battle line is intended, rather than any special corps.

Livy also uses the word to denote the front ranks, not specifically of the Romans, but of non-Roman armies as well (AUC 38.33) which again implies that he was not thinking of a special corps.

The antesignani, first mentioned by Caesar in 49 BC were perhaps a reincarnation or more modern version of the velites who were last mentioned in 86 BC. A surviving fragment seams to suggest as much:

quem secuntur cum rotundis velites leves parmis, antesignani quadratis multisignibus tecti

"...because the light velites were cut in two(? while equipped) with round parmae, the antesignani (well) protected by multifigured square ones..."

From this we might conclude that the latter are a better equipped version of the first, although an interpration involving a simultanious existence of the two is admissable too. There is however another text:

Parmulis pugnare milites soliti sunt. Quarum usum sustulit C. Marius, datis in vicem earum Bruttianis

"Soldiers used to fight with small bucklers. The use of which C. Marius has abolished, with Bruttians given in their place"

Bruttianae parmae dicebantur scuta quibus Bruttiani sunt usi.

"Bruttian bucklers were the shields called that the Bruttians used to use."
Apparently Marius replaced at some point in time the small bucklers by Bruttian bucklers, which were probably larger. In the 2nd century BC bucklers (parmae) were used by cavalry and velites. Most likely this text refers to the shield of the velites as that of the cavalry was originally larger (ref. Livy, quoted from Polybius)) Though not necessarily connected with the change from velites to antesignani (if there ever was such a change) it does testify to an effort to give light troops better protection.

I have to add however that I have once discussed this matter extensively with Sander van Dorst (were has he gone?) who did not quite see eye to eye with me on this. He was of the opinion that the antesignani were always a special corps, part of the front line and existing first next to the velites

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

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

actually,Johnny, the armor itself would keep the tunic
from going very far at all. Put it on and you'll see.
The neck slit,also,when the "sleeves" are pulled through
at the elbows, wouldn't allow for much "play" there.
Hopefully,too,the subarmalis would stop it.
(not to start another subarmalis discussion but even with mine on
that seg was killing me after a while.).

[Crispvs]

"The only other source Cowan provides is a carving from a legionary headquarters at Mainz that shows two roman soldiers(?) in close formation but one obviously is wearing only a tunic."

This is far from obvious to me. In fact, the same sculpture has often been held up as a possible example of segmentata in 1st century AD sculpture.

"In my opinion the gravestones of Flavoleius and of C. Valerius Crispus also show antesignani"

In my opinion they are not, but we have been over this enough before I think and I feel we will have to agree to disagree for now.

Crispvs

[Robert Vermaat]

Vegetius cofirms that they wore armour:

[...] Legio autem propriis cohortibus plena cum grauem armaturam, hoc est principes hastatos triarios antesignanos, item leuem armaturam, hoc est ferrentarios sagittarios funditores ballistarios, [...]

"The legion's own cohorts at full size with the heavy armed, which include the principes, hastati, triarii and antesignani, also the light armed, which include skirmishers, bowmen, slingers and artillerymen, ..."

The fact that the infantrymen from the mixed force were selected from them implies that they were light infantry. Confirmation of this can be found in Vegetius, who mentions that they have lighter armour than ordinary legionaries.

[...] Omnes antesignani uel signiferi, quamuis pedites, loricas minores accipiebant et galeas ad terrorem hostium ursinis pellibus tectas. [...]

"All antesignani as well as signiferi wore smaller armour and helmets which they covered with bearskins to frighten the enemy."

Livy not only used the word antesignani to denote the front ranks, but also equated the antesignani with the hastati and the principes (XXII.5.9) and thus identified them as heavy infantry of the line.

I'm not convinced that the antesignani as used by Vegetius and Ammianus are anything else than archaizing uses.

Ammianus Marcellinusis very vague in his use of the word. All translations below are from the Loeb edition – not necessarily my choice of words.
On several occasions his use of antesignani is very imprecise and seems not to indicate more than ‘front ranks’.
Only when describing an action of 500 elite armati selected from the army against the Lentienses, does any comparison with Caesar’s antesignani come up, but even there the words seems to indicate ‘front ranks’ only [quote](XXXI.10.13: Qui ea re animorum aucta fiducia, quod versari inter antesignanos visebatur acriter princes – “Their confident spirit was all the greater because the emperor was seen actively engaged in the foremost ranksâ€

[Aryaman2]

I would like to make a suggestion, antesignani could be at the same time heavy and light infantry, they could be at the front ranks and in a pitched battle be in full armour, while in other cirsucnstances could be detached without armour to act as light infantry, that was a very common practice in all times for elite troops that fight in the front line.