Late Roman Infantry Formation

[julianus heraclius]

In Patch 5 I will be including some revamped roman units. These revolve around trying to replicate actual formations.

For example, the first few ranks may have been more heavily armed and other ranks. I have tried to represent this by showing a limitanei armatus formation armed with lancea and spatha.

Next are a few ranks who are lesser armed, only shield and helmet. These ranks have throwing weapons and a thrusting lancea. In this case they are thrusting overhead.




This picture clearly shows the rear ranks thrusting their lanceas over the heads of the more heavily armed front ranks. At the back can be seen troops about to throw javelins being supported by sagitarii.




The next two pictures show the front rank troops engaging frankish troops with drawn spathas while the rear ranks continue to thrust at the enemy over the shoulders of the front rankers.





What I am interested in is when roman troops, especially legionaries went from being swordsmen to spearmen and why. It seems that the late roman legionary had multiple weapons at his disposal including throwing weapons, veruta, plumbaratii, spiculum, thrusting spears such as lancea and hasta and his sword.

By the 4th century there was a shift to the legionary being purely a swordsman as a way of fighting to a spearman, who used throwing weapons prior to melee, then used his thrusting spear and his main weapon, only using his spatha as a back up weapon if his thrusting spear broke.

No doubt being in closer formations like the shieldwall precipitated the need to keep formation and using a thrusting spear certainly enabled troops to keep formation, plus the spear had a longer reach. But I am interested in what others think.

I would welcome discussion on this as to the whys and wherefores.

Cheers

[Valentinian Victor]

I think we discussed this somewhere else but I'll give it another go.

I believe that Roman infantry equipment and tactics began to change as a result of their experiences of fighting the Parthians. The Parthian Cataphracts and supporting light horse archers had a big psychological impact on the Romans as the Romans had no real counter to them when they were first encountered. This led to the Legiones under Severus Alexander having a proportion of legionary archers attached who would fire over the heads of their legionary comrades who were trying to defend themselves from incoming fire. It also led to their becoming more cavalry and these cavalry now becoming separate from the Legiones.

Experience against the Goth's who started to also become a menace in the 3rd Century AD led to other changes, namely a change in legionary armour and shield, from Lorica Segmenta, to Lorica Hamata and other mail type armours, and a return to the oval shaped shield.

Diocletian started the major reform's we associate with the Late Roman period, with Constantine I finalising them. This led to a greater number of legiones as Diocletian separated each legion into two, one half remaining in the western half of the Empire, the other half being posted in the East. These were the Seniores and Iuniores. Diocletian appears to have greatly increased the Auxilia and may well have equiped and trained them so that they were on par with their Legionary counterparts. Certainly by the time that Ammianus wrote his books Auxilia were able to form the first line with the Legiones forming the second, reserve line. Vegetius talks of two legiones, the Herculanii and the Iovanii who were adept at throwing the martibarbuli (darts), and it may well be that it was Diocletian who armed them in this way. It appears that at about this time the Legionarii's began to change their equipment. They were now armed with a 6 foot spear that could penetrate shields and armour like the pilum could, but also could be used to thrust at the enemy, which the pilum could not. This was called the 'Spiculum'. It was not always thrown before combat, the description of the Battle of Adrianopolis in Ammianus states that the legionarii's of the Lanciarii and Mattarii only resorted to their swords 'when their spears became broken through repeated blows'. According to Vegetius the Legionarii equipment was a Spiculum, Spatha (a long sword ideal for slashing and thrusting), Semi-Spatha (a smaller sword or dagger), Veruta (a 3.5 foot javelin) and Martibarbuli (darts, five of which were clipped behind the shield. They cannot have been more than a foot long or all five would not have been able to have been used this way). Although Vegetius states that the Legionarii when he wrote (395AD?) did not wear body armour or helmets, this is disputed by a number of historians. It is hard to reconcile what Vegetius wrote with what we see in Late Roman art where all the infantry wear helmets, have either a muscle cuirasse or wear a knee length mail hauberk.

Vegetius description of the legione having a proportion of archers and light troops armed with various missile weapons is felt to be a reference to how the legiones may have been formed in his day, and I have found several references to exactly this type of formation within the works of Julian that backs this up.

The reason for the changes in infantry equipment from the time of Diocletion onwards was due to the very real threat posed by the Sasanids who were much more aggresive towards the Romans than the Parthians they replaced. The legionarii's needed more fire power to keep the Sasanids at bay.

From Vegetius, Julian, Libanus, Zosimos and Ammianus we learn that right upto the time of Justinian the main strenth of the army was still the legiones, with a greatly increased cavalry arm. Cavalry began to adopt the arms and equipment, and probably the tactics, of the Goth's, Alans, Hun's and even the Sasanids. The legiones were still forming into lines, and even into the old style 'testudo' formations of old, as attested to by the above authors.

The model's you are showing I presume are based on the ones in the Osprey books, particularly the scene showing the Battle of Strasburg? I would use some caution in this as the Osprey's are of variable quality in this respect. I personally would place my trust in Late Roman art and show all Legionarii of this period in either muscle cuirasse or mail hauberks, with perhaps only the auxilia having the two front ranks wearing armour. But even then, I would tend to model the auxilia in the west as completely armoured like the legionarii, and those in the east possibly as unarmoured.

PS I forgot to add that Valentinian was quoted by Ammianus as being an 'inventor of arms', he may well have influenced the author of 'The Rebus Bellicis' and it's possible he reintroduced the use of the pilum at least for a short while.

[julianus heraclius]

That's great Valentinian. But what about the armament of limitanei troops, of which the pictures above represent? No doubt field armies would have the main body of legionaires heavily armed, except for skirmishing troops. Your thoughts on the auxila with the first two ranks with armour and the rest unarmoured is interesting.

[juvenus]

Yeah.......most of the things you said are already well known to us. Indeed, the Sassanids, Goths, Alans, especially Sarmatians and probably some others did influenced the way Romans fought. Also, the story about Diocletian and Constanitine is well known. I completely agree there with you.
However....

I would use some caution in this as the Osprey's are of variable quality in this respect.

I'm not sure you are right about this. Check the authors of any Osprey's book. They (authors) are usually highly respected experts in Roman history and general history as well. Some of them also have the first hand military experience. You shouldn't doubt that every book is written especially consulting various historical sources. And since those author usually have the PhD in History science we can assume they certainly studied Vegetius, Julian, Libanus, Zosimos and Ammianus more thoroughly than you and me did.
Furthermore....

I personally would place my trust in Late Roman art and show all Legionarii of this period in either muscle cuirasse or mail hauberks, with perhaps only the auxilia having the two front ranks wearing armour

Well, I would use many caution about this. For many historians specifically state that those artworks in many instances depict a conventional classical perception of a Roman soldier-not the reality of the Late Empire. Especially muscle cuirasse can hardly be accepted as a common sight in the late army.
Also....

But even then, I would tend to model the auxilia in the west as completely armoured like the legionarii, and those in the east possibly as unarmoured.

Why??????? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, at least according to my knowledge. I believe it's generally accepted that units stationed in the east utilized armor much more regularly than units in the west. I cannot agree with this at all, unless there's a strong proof for this idea, which I doubt.
Besides, the auxilia, by the time of this mod according to many sources, was match for the legions in all aspects. They made up the first line alongside the legions plus they provided the largest part of the armed forces. In all likeliness they were as equally armed and armored as the legions. After all, all auxilia units were exclusively graded as the elite palatini.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Excellent posts here which open up an interesting area of debate - this taps into some of the work I was doing in the 'Late Roman Army Tactics' thread I set up a while back.

If we read through Ammianus et al into Mauricius then there is a clear tactical use of heavy-armed front line legionaries supported by lightly-armed skirmishing troops who both engaged prior to contact and pursued routed and retiring troops. These were not separate units or legions but troops from within one unit designated as light or heavy based on the actual tactical needs of the forecast battle and therefore would vary - some fights having more light troops than heavy and vice versa.

We should imagine the late Roman legionary as being trained on a daily basis in both light harassing and scouting duties and armoured battle-line drill. This flexibility makes the Roman legionary a professional soldier as opposed to the barbarian warrior.

Distinctions between front-rank armoured troops with 'darts of Mars', the spiculum and the spatha and rear ranked light-armed troops being supplied (from carts and slaves no doubt) with the verutum with the archers behind in the rear would vary with the depth of the battle-line and the tactical needs of the day in opposition to the enemy. Ammianus is clear that shield-wall tactics prevailed in his western descriptions with the long spears clashing over shield-rim as overhead waves of missiles darken the sky - barbarians still favouring column tactics against the multiple lines of the legionaries and the auxilia. In the east, the Roman troops are described in much more flexible terms as engaging and advancing at speed to negate the Sassanid horse advantage or capture important ground ahead of the enmy - and so points to a flexible Roman military structure and command organsiation.

Even allowing for Ammianus painting with some rhetoric as it were, his description of the Roman army is on a par with anything in the period of Tactitus in terms of discipline and arms. Both writers on occasion deplore military standards as lax and also praise Roman arms to the extent that these are more literary tropes than accurate reportage.

[Valentinian Victor]

Yeah.......most of the things you said are already well known to us. Indeed, the Sassanids, Goths, Alans, especially Sarmatians and probably some others did influenced the way Romans fought. Also, the story about Diocletian and Constanitine is well known. I completely agree there with you.
However....
I'm not sure you are right about this. Check the authors of any Osprey's book. They (authors) are usually highly respected experts in Roman history and general history as well. Some of them also have the first hand military experience. You shouldn't doubt that every book is written especially consulting various historical sources. And since those author usually have the PhD in History science we can assume they certainly studied Vegetius, Julian, Libanus, Zosimos and Ammianus more thoroughly than you and me did.
Furthermore....
Well, I would use many caution about this. For many historians specifically state that those artworks in many instances depict a conventional classical perception of a Roman soldier-not the reality of the Late Empire. Especially muscle cuirasse can hardly be accepted as a common sight in the late army.
Also....
Why??????? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, at least according to my knowledge. I believe it's generally accepted that units stationed in the east utilized armor much more regularly than units in the west. I cannot agree with this at all, unless there's a strong proof for this idea, which I doubt.
Besides, the auxilia, by the time of this mod according to many sources, was match for the legions in all aspects. They made up the first line alongside the legions plus they provided the largest part of the armed forces. In all likeliness they were as equally armed and armored as the legions. After all, all auxilia units were exclusively graded as the elite palatini.

Unfortunately, because you do not know my background you have made some assumptions about my knowledge on this topic that are at variance with the truth. Let my just say that I have been studying the Late Roman Army for about 30 years now. I have made a number of discoveries concerning the Currus Drepanus, which no other historian has made, and also about the Arms and Equipment of Late Roman Clibanarii (a thread that exists on this site by myself) that again no other historian or author has made (or if they have they have for some reason decided against publishing this evidence). Just because someone has letters after their name (as I do) does not make them infallible. Read the Osprey book on the Battle of Adrianopolis, especially the section that describes the battle. The author of this book makes some erronous assumptions about the Gothic Wagon Laager that just are not plausible for instance.

Due to the fact that very little Late Roman armour survives, none of which as of yet is of the muscle cuirasse variety, does not mean that this was not worn by Late Roman infantry. All it means is that the evidence is not there for it at present. I am reminded of the phrase 'Absence of proof is not proof of absence'. There are too many wall paintings, mosaics', fresco's, monumental works that show infantry in both muscle cuirasse and mail armour, sometimes on the same monuments, to disown the fact that it existed. This is still a matter of debate umongst historians even now.

There is a view that the auxilia may have not worn armour based on depictions of known auxilia units which shows them only wearing helmets and having a shield. Earlier monumental works that show auxilia show them in mail hauberks, but some Late Roman monuments dont. This cannot be down to 'classising' as the later works do not follow the pattern of the earlier styles. And this same point goes for legionarii in muscle cuirasses, this is not a pattern repeated from earlier styles or periods where only officers are shown in muscle cuirasses.

[Valentinian Victor]

That's great Valentinian. But what about the armament of limitanei troops, of which the pictures above represent? No doubt field armies would have the main body of legionaires heavily armed, except for skirmishing troops. Your thoughts on the auxila with the first two ranks with armour and the rest unarmoured is interesting.

There is unfortunately very little academic work on the limitanei. However, art work that shows border legiones in Egypt has them wearing very similar styles to their comitatensis counterparts. But, probably they did not have so much of the equipment or even having to rely on much older equipment so its highly debatable how they looked.

As limitanei could be promoted to 'pseudo-comitatensis' status, or even to 'comitatensis' then that might also indicate there was very little difference in equipment.

Its more probable that they were not of the same fighting quality as the standing army, so perhaps a lower morale would represent them better?

[Gäiten]

I think the Limitanei might have been better equipped with armour than the Comitatenses because they could stay and so rely on local industries (which could adapt to their needs) while the Comitatenses were up to move around to the next hotspot and were often just capable to equip themselves with captured armours and weapons.

The muscle cuirass was still in use, but not in high quantities. I believe, officers (COs and NCOs) and guards units will have used them.
However, IMHO, given the high amount of needed maintenance (difficult to repair compairing with mail or scale armour) limits its usage.

[juvenus]

Unfortunately, because you do not know my background you have made some assumptions about my knowledge on this topic that are at variance with the truth. Let my just say that I have been studying the Late Roman Army for about 30 years now. I have made a number of discoveries concerning the Currus Drepanus, which no other historian has made, and also about the Arms and Equipment of Late Roman Clibanarii (a thread that exists on this site by myself) that again no other historian or author has made (or if they have they have for some reason decided against publishing this evidence).

Sorry man, I just assumed you're an ordinary player just like me
If this is true

Let my just say that I have been studying the Late Roman Army for about 30 years now

then you've been studying it for more years than I've been living I'll be glad to hear your thoughts and findings, and give me the link to that thread of yours about clibanarii, if possible. I'm always more than willing to listen to an experienced man.

Read the Osprey book on the Battle of Adrianopolis, especially the section that describes the battle. The author of this book makes some erronous assumptions about the Gothic Wagon Laager that just are not plausible for instance.

I read it quite some time ago and I still have it.........and I have to say it's one of the best I've read so far, depicting in great details every stage of the Gothic war. What exactly do you find wrong there?

Due to the fact that very little Late Roman armour survives, none of which as of yet is of the muscle cuirasse variety, does not mean that this was not worn by Late Roman infantry. All it means is that the evidence is not there for it at present. I am reminded of the phrase 'Absence of proof is not proof of absence'. There are too many wall paintings, mosaics', fresco's, monumental works that show infantry in both muscle cuirasse and mail armour, sometimes on the same monuments, to disown the fact that it existed. This is still a matter of debate umongst historians even now.

Yes indeed. I like this one

'Absence of proof is not proof of absence'.

But, if we accept that "strong" proportion of infantry were "light" and usually only the front ranks used armour, then I would go for mail armour rather than muscle cuirasse. Simply, cause it's cheaper and easier to maintain would definitely be more easily accessible.

There is a view that the auxilia may have not worn armour based on depictions of known auxilia units which shows them only wearing helmets and having a shield. Earlier monumental works that show auxilia show them in mail hauberks, but some Late Roman monuments dont.

Perhaps, there's a quite simple answer to this.....the auxilia units are frequently recorded as being deployed on a kind of special operations (probably ambushes and small scale raids) for they were more suitable for this than the legions. So, it might be possible they didn't actually wear armour in some situations which may be described as the combat ones. However, when it came to a pitched battle, I strongly believe they were armoured in a similar if not an exact fashion as the legions.

There is unfortunately very little academic work on the limitanei. However, art work that shows border legiones in Egypt has them wearing very similar styles to their comitatensis counterparts. But, probably they did not have so much of the equipment or even having to rely on much older equipment so its highly debatable how they looked.

As limitanei could be promoted to 'pseudo-comitatensis' status, or even to 'comitatensis' then that might also indicate there was very little difference in equipment.

I've seen those art from Egypt. It's almost certain those limitanei belonged to an old style legions (like most of them did), but I wouldn't accept that all limitanei forces were that armoured. I would still tend to have the most of them as "lighter" than the comitatensis.

Its more probable that they were not of the same fighting quality as the standing army, so perhaps a lower morale would represent them better?

Totally agree, I think it's already done in the mod.

I think the Limitanei might have been better equipped with armour than the Comitatenses because they could stay and so rely on local industries (which could adapt to their needs) while the Comitatenses were up to move around to the next hotspot and were often just capable to equip themselves with captured armours and weapons.

Well, my friend, what you've said is in all possible contradiction to almost every historical source known to me.
I'm not saying you're wrong, indeed, everything's possible but still......do you have anything to support such a claim?
The fact that comitantensis moved around the place doesn't mean anything. They were still much better paid and supported that limitanei.
Furthermore, many limitanei troops (and I mean MANY, like almost all of them!) are recorded to have had additional occupations besides the military duty. In fact, many were clearly regarding their duty as a secondary job.



Off topic, it's late afternoon in my country so I'm leaving now.....there's more important job to do tonight

See you guys in 2010.......Happy new year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Valentinian Victor]

I think the Limitanei might have been better equipped with armour than the Comitatenses because they could stay and so rely on local industries (which could adapt to their needs) while the Comitatenses were up to move around to the next hotspot and were often just capable to equip themselves with captured armours and weapons.

The muscle cuirass was still in use, but not in high quantities. I believe, officers (COs and NCOs) and guards units will have used them.
However, IMHO, given the high amount of needed maintenance (difficult to repair compairing with mail or scale armour) limits its usage.

It's possibly an interesting thought you have there Gaiten but not a view held by historians. It's likely the border limitanei (who were still calling themselves by their old legionary names) were using outmoded equipment and weapons with the standing armies getting upto date and better equipment.

I'm glad you share my view about the muscle cuirasses, its not one widely held but I have seen no credible evidence to dismiss them out of hand. At least two historians considered the idea that the cuirasses could have been made out of rawhide, so easily mass produced. I brought this up on an historical discussion website frequented by some well known historians and postulated that perhaps the 'Thoracomachus' mentioned by the author of the 'De Rebus Bellicis' and several other ancient authors could be worn as a form of armour if it were made out of leather and this could have been represented in art as a cuirass, this was considered as a possibility by a number of those who replied to my post.

[Valentinian Victor]

'If this is true then you've been studying it for more years than I've been living I'll be glad to hear your thoughts and findings, and give me the link to that thread of yours about clibanarii, if possible. I'm always more than willing to listen to an experienced man.'

Have a look at this- http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=313018

'I read it quite some time ago and I still have it.........and I have to say it's one of the best I've read so far, depicting in great details every stage of the Gothic war. What exactly do you find wrong there?'

The author does not believe that the wagons were deployed as described by the ancient authors and has proposed that the Goth's set up barricades using their wagons. This is complete and utter nonsense to be honest, wagons are not mentioned being used this way, the Gothic infantry appear to be behind the wagon circle and then come out when their cavalry arrive. In my research, which I hope to publish one day in book form, I propose the way the Goths set up their wagon laager would be for them to either form it in the shape of a spiral around the leading wagon, or form concentric circles which would have been very difficult to breach.


Yes indeed. I like this one But, if we accept that "strong" proportion of infantry were "light" and usually only the front ranks used armour, then I would go for mail armour rather than muscle cuirasse. Simply, cause it's cheaper and easier to maintain would definitely be more easily accessible.


Perhaps, there's a quite simple answer to this.....the auxilia units are frequently recorded as being deployed on a kind of special operations (probably ambushes and small scale raids) for they were more suitable for this than the legions. So, it might be possible they didn't actually wear armour in some situations which may be described as the combat ones. However, when it came to a pitched battle, I strongly believe they were armoured in a similar if not an exact fashion as the legions.

I take it your referring to the references within Ammianus of 'Auxillorum Expediti'? There are similar references to 'Velitum expediti' and 'legionarii expediti' and 'equites expediti', all usually translated as 'light-armed'. Quite possibly they were infantry or cavalry detached on special duties or for river assaults etc. You would not expect to see such types on the monumental works however, and if you look at the figures on the Arch of Constantine that have been identified as the Auxilia Palatina 'Cornuti' you will see that they are not wearing armour, just their distinctive 'horned' helmets. But, you may well be right in that they probably wore armour like the legionarii as they formed the first line at Strasburg, and comprised the majority of the infantry of Theodosius's fathers 'army' that reconquered Britian and also the army commanded by Richomeres at Ad Salices.


I've seen those art from Egypt. It's almost certain those limitanei belonged to an old style legions (like most of them did), but I wouldn't accept that all limitanei forces were that armoured. I would still tend to have the most of them as "lighter" than the comitatensis.


Totally agree, I think it's already done in the mod.



Well, my friend, what you've said is in all possible contradiction to almost every historical source known to me.
I'm not saying you're wrong, indeed, everything's possible but still......do you have anything to support such a claim?
The fact that comitantensis moved around the place doesn't mean anything. They were still much better paid and supported that limitanei.
Furthermore, many limitanei troops (and I mean MANY, like almost all of them!) are recorded to have had additional occupations besides the military duty. In fact, many were clearly regarding their duty as a secondary job.



Off topic, it's late afternoon in my country so I'm leaving now.....there's more important job to do tonight

See you guys in 2010.......Happy new year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]

I'd also like to wish everyone a Happy New Year and look forward to much debating on our favorite topic in 2010

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Likewise - here's to a Happy New Year and much more Late Roman discussion and gaming in 2010!!!!

[juvenus]

Have a look at this- http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=313018

Thanks for that. I've just gone trough it, it looks very thorough.

The author does not believe that the wagons were deployed as described by the ancient authors and has proposed that the Goth's set up barricades using their wagons. This is complete and utter nonsense to be honest, wagons are not mentioned being used this way, the Gothic infantry appear to be behind the wagon circle and then come out when their cavalry arrive. In my research, which I hope to publish one day in book form, I propose the way the Goths set up their wagon laager would be for them to either form it in the shape of a spiral around the leading wagon, or form concentric circles which would have been very difficult to breach.

Well, I suppose you really have some arguments for that.

I take it your referring to the references within Ammianus of 'Auxillorum Expediti'? There are similar references to 'Velitum expediti' and 'legionarii expediti' and 'equites expediti', all usually translated as 'light-armed'. Quite possibly they were infantry or cavalry detached on special duties or for river assaults etc. You would not expect to see such types on the monumental works however, and if you look at the figures on the Arch of Constantine that have been identified as the Auxilia Palatina 'Cornuti' you will see that they are not wearing armour, just their distinctive 'horned' helmets. But, you may well be right in that they probably wore armour like the legionarii as they formed the first line at Strasburg, and comprised the majority of the infantry of Theodosius's fathers 'army' that reconquered Britian and also the army commanded by Richomeres at Ad Salices.

Yes, the battle of Strasbourg being one of the primary arguments.
But, there's something else I'd like to hear from you, especially regarding your high proficiency in the Roman matters: does it make any sense that the Romans allowed themselves such a luxury, yet in such a desperate and dangerous times, to have had THE MAJOR and perhaps THE MOST POTENT part of their armed forces go around unarmoured?
I think that if we can comprehend the reality of those threats presented to the Rome's state and a desperate shortage of quality troops, then perhaps, we may have the more clear point of view on this issue.
After all, I'd always assume their generals wanted to keep their causalities as low as possible, naturally. Now, if we can agree about a combat performance and quality of those Auxiliae (which I consider as reasonably high and important in all means) then it doesn't seem likely to me that any normal general would have had them fight unarmoured, at least not in the front ranks.
My approach to this question may be wrong, however, I believe the key is to understand the real importance of those troops and the difference they made or didn't make on the battlefield.

[Valentinian Victor]

Thanks for that. I've just gone trough it, it looks very thorough.


Well, I suppose you really have some arguments for that.


Yes, the battle of Strasbourg being one of the primary arguments.
But, there's something else I'd like to hear from you, especially regarding your high proficiency in the Roman matters: does it make any sense that the Romans allowed themselves such a luxury, yet in such a desperate and dangerous times, to have had THE MAJOR and perhaps THE MOST POTENT part of their armed forces go around unarmoured?
I think that if we can comprehend the reality of those threats presented to the Rome's state and a desperate shortage of quality troops, then perhaps, we may have the more clear point of view on this issue.
After all, I'd always assume their generals wanted to keep their causalities as low as possible, naturally. Now, if we can agree about a combat performance and quality of those Auxiliae (which I consider as reasonably high and important in all means) then it doesn't seem likely to me that any normal general would have had them fight unarmoured, at least not in the front ranks.
My approach to this question may be wrong, however, I believe the key is to understand the real importance of those troops and the difference they made or didn't make on the battlefield.

It may well be that wearing armour in the East would have made the troops exhausted too quickly due to the weight in the heat. That and the fact that metallic armour is unbearable to wear in the heat, it can cause severe burns.

[juvenus]

It reminds me of the Vegetius' claim that :"soldiers began to consider their armour too heavy and seldom put it on".
However, this is widely rejected as true. Or, at least, Vegetius didn't express himself well. The same I'd say accounts for the factor of the heat.
Even Strategicon advices the soldiers to sit down and rest, if the weather is hot they may remove their helmets and armour and that:
"Only when the enemy get close, should the men be called to attention, and they will be fresh and in good condition".
The point is to make clear distinction between the combat activity and the everyday duty of a soldier. When the moment of actual battle comes, no soldier would be stupid enough to reject his armour (if he had one at all) just because it was too heavy or because it was a hot day. After all, the armour was meant to save his life and they were perfectly aware of it.

Not to mention how stupid one must be to give up his armour protection, especially in the east, when facing the Sassanids and Arabs who both employed the archers in great numbers.

But, what about the infantry formations? Did they still use "cuneus" or some other offensive formations, or they always held their ground in the "shield wall".

[Giuliano Taverna]

I think one of the main reasons for spears replacing swords was economic, as swords and armor required reasources that were becoming scarce in the shrinking and bankrupt empire. Since they couldn't always afford heavy armor it would make sense to revert to spear and shield tactics which while inferior to legionary tactics were more cost effective. The spear adds distance, and the oval shield allows for use of the phalanx or shield wall formation.

The increased prominence of heavy cavalry also adds to the primacy of the spear, but I think it was mainly an issue of cost. The other issue is that many of the troops were barbarians who would have been used to fighting with spears and might have even brought their own equipment which became the norm towards the very end of the empire.

[Valentinian Victor]

It reminds me of the Vegetius' claim that :"soldiers began to consider their armour too heavy and seldom put it on".
However, this is widely rejected as true. Or, at least, Vegetius didn't express himself well. The same I'd say accounts for the factor of the heat.
Even Strategicon advices the soldiers to sit down and rest, if the weather is hot they may remove their helmets and armour and that:
"Only when the enemy get close, should the men be called to attention, and they will be fresh and in good condition".
The point is to make clear distinction between the combat activity and the everyday duty of a soldier. When the moment of actual battle comes, no soldier would be stupid enough to reject his armour (if he had one at all) just because it was too heavy or because it was a hot day. After all, the armour was meant to save his life and they were perfectly aware of it.

Not to mention how stupid one must be to give up his armour protection, especially in the east, when facing the Sassanids and Arabs who both employed the archers in great numbers.

But, what about the infantry formations? Did they still use "cuneus" or some other offensive formations, or they always held their ground in the "shield wall".

We should not so easily dismiss Vegetius, it may well be that the garrison troops he saw did abandon armour, we cannot be sure if he ever saw standing army infantry. Also, I am of the opinion that he was probably writing after 420AD and the army at that time had significantly declined in both morale and numbers. A large number of armies that faced armies containing large numbers of bowmen were unarmoured, especially in the middle and far east. Generally, armour is only protection against spent missiles, shields offer much more protection. And, it appears far more citizens and non-citizens were interested in joining the auxilia units than the legiones, as the pay was higher and they were not expected to build roads, bridges, encampments etc, so why bother giving them the best equipment and armour?

As to the other question about infantry formations. certainly all kinds of formations are mentioned by Ammianus- Cuneus (both Roman and 'barbarians' used this formation), testudo, triplex aces etc. Oddly, Julian only appears to mention armies formed up in the more traditional infantry center with cavalry on the wings.

[Valentinian Victor]

I think one of the main reasons for spears replacing swords was economic, as swords and armor required reasources that were becoming scarce in the shrinking and bankrupt empire. Since they couldn't always afford heavy armor it would make sense to revert to spear and shield tactics which while inferior to legionary tactics were more cost effective. The spear adds distance, and the oval shield allows for use of the phalanx or shield wall formation.

The increased prominence of heavy cavalry also adds to the primacy of the spear, but I think it was mainly an issue of cost. The other issue is that many of the troops were barbarians who would have been used to fighting with spears and might have even brought their own equipment which became the norm towards the very end of the empire.

Unfortunately, practically all Late Roman art, right the way upto the Early 'Byzantine' period shows infantry with both spear and sword, and shields are either oval or round (I suspect that the round shields were used by 'guard' units such as the Domesticii Pedites)

[juvenus]

We should not so easily dismiss Vegetius, it may well be that the garrison troops he saw did abandon armour, we cannot be sure if he ever saw standing army infantry. Also, I am of the opinion that he was probably writing after 420AD and the army at that time had significantly declined in both morale and numbers.

Yes you're right. I find it quite plausible that Vegetius perhaps never saw a field army in action. As for the various garrison troops, we can surely agree that they largely abandoned body armour.

And, it appears far more citizens and non-citizens were interested in joining the auxilia units than the legiones, as the pay was higher and they were not expected to build roads, bridges, encampments etc, so why bother giving them the best equipment and armour?

Well, I don't see any connection...
If they weren't expected to build roads, bridges, encampments etc, it doesn't imply they didn't need armour in battle. After all, they were expected to bear the heavy brunt of battle and as we know they did form up the first line of battle.
A battle is of importance if we discuss armour and it seems that both of these were deployed in the similar fashion.

As to the other question about infantry formations. certainly all kinds of formations are mentioned by Ammianus- Cuneus (both Roman and 'barbarians' used this formation), testudo, triplex aces etc. Oddly, Julian only appears to mention armies formed up in the more traditional infantry center with cavalry on the wings.

When you say "triplex acies", do you mean on the old republican form of three consistent lines or the Caesarian style of three lines of cohorts?
An auxilia unit of c.500 men is roughly the size of a cohort. Is there a chance they were deployed like the cohorts or they always formed a lengthened line with 4,8 or 16 ranks deep?

[Valentinian Victor]

Yes you're right. I find it quite plausible that Vegetius perhaps never saw a field army in action. As for the various garrison troops, we can surely agree that they largely abandoned body armour.


Well, I don't see any connection...
If they weren't expected to build roads, bridges, encampments etc, it doesn't imply they didn't need armour in battle. After all, they were expected to bear the heavy brunt of battle and as we know they did form up the first line of battle.
A battle is of importance if we discuss armour and it seems that both of these were deployed in the similar fashion.

ACH- well look at it this way, there were ample willing recruits to replace any casualties within the auxila units so that one could be tempted not to arm them in the same manner to the Legiones, as you can always replace the losses any how! But, as I said myself, evidence from Ammianus and others does appear to indicate that the auxilia did on occasion form the first line, and therefore we must expect them to be almost indentical to the legionarii soldiers.


When you say "triplex acies", do you mean on the old republican form of three consistent lines or the Caesarian style of three lines of cohorts?
An auxilia unit of c.500 men is roughly the size of a cohorts. Is there a chance they were deployed like the cohorts or they always formed a lengthened line with 4,8 or 16 ranks deep?

ACH- It's very hard to tell from Ammianus how the 'triplex acies' were formed, other than we know from both Ammianus and Julian that the infantry were formed up in at least two distinct 'lines', a main battle line and then a line comprised of reserves. The reserves were generally perceived as being of a higher 'class' than the front line troops, probably serving much the same role as the old style Triarii. The description in Vegetius about how the legione was to form up in battle has each Legione forming up in three lines, so its possible that you have a main battle line that is itself split into three lines, with the reserve line mirroring this.

As to unit sizes themselves, I am of the opinion that the optimum, on paper, size of a Late Roman legion would be from 2000 to 3000 strong. This is based on Vegetius stating that the Legiones upto the time of Diocletian being 6000 men strong, and we know it was Diocletian who divided each legione into two parts. Paper strength units are of course not the true size of a unit, it does not take into account illness, leave, desertions etc, hence my lower figure of 2000. Auxilia units I put nearer to 1000 than the 500 nearly always stated. This is based on the assumption that as they were originally recruited from barbarian tribes, and they appear to have mustered in either 500 or 1000 man units, then this may have remained the historical number in the auxilia. But, as we all know, unit sizes are a hotly contested subject!