Late Roman Armour

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I came across this post at RAT and wondered if anyone here had come across similar evidence? It's an evocative image - limitanei on patrol along the limes in intercisa helmets and old segmentata armour!

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...p?f=17&t=26427

[Valentinian Victor]

I came across this post at RAT and wondered if anyone here had come across similar evidence? It's an evocative image - limitanei on patrol along the limes in intercisa helmets and old segmentata armour!

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...p?f=17&t=26427

Interesting.

My own research into Late Roman army has led me to become convinced that a variety of armour was being used. I have seen photographic evidence and 16th/17th century line drawings of now lost monuments that show infantry wearing mail, muscle cuirasses, unarmoured, scale armour etc. The pictoral evidence for this cannot simply be dismissed as 'classizing' by the sculptors and painters.

[Gäiten]

Due muscle cuirasses I doubt that besides some palace guards units used for more ceremonial matters that kind of armor was used by the frontline units.
Its proper maintenance is far too time-consuming for these high mobile forces.

Due the Lorica Segmenta, why not using it in later eras? Especially the more static Limitanei (who were mostly formed from the old classical Legions) could rely on armory and workshops where they are stationed than the mobile "Gypsy" mobile forces.
A proper maintained Segmenta can be used for a long time.

[Valentinian Victor]

Due muscle cuirasses I doubt that besides some palace guards units used for more ceremonial matters that kind of armor was used by the frontline units.
Its proper maintenance is far too time-consuming for these high mobile forces.

Due the Lorica Segmenta, why not using it in later eras? Especially the more static Limitanei (who were mostly formed from the old classical Legions) could rely on armory and workshops where they are stationed than the mobile "Gypsy" mobile forces.
A proper maintained Segmenta can be used for a long time.

Gaiten, I think you need to have a look at photographs of the remains of the now mostly destroyed Column of Theodosius plus the 16th Century pen and ink drawings of the same column when it still existed. You would also find the 16th Century pen and ink drawings of the now totally lost Column of Arcadius very interesting for the same reasons. My feelings are where a monument shows troops wearing muscle cuirasses, mail hauberks and also unarmored, all at the same time, then one has to question if this is 'classizing' or not. Interestingly, both the Column of Theodosius and the Column of Arcadius show infantry with both large oval and round shields.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I suppose the real question is to what extent was lorica segmentata maintained or was Carnutum an exception. We can envisage no doubt a Late Roman regiment equipped in a variety of what we might call contemporary battle armour - chain, scale, leather, etc. - as these have been in continuous use for most of the Empire's duration. Lorica segmentata however remains traditionally located in a very specific period and is commonly believed to have been phased out in terms of both archaeological remains and epigraphic depictions around the late 3rd Century. I wonder if anyone has researched the changing evolution not of Roman armour trends in the field but of the depiction of Roman armour trends on monuments and in surviving documents? Perhaps our beloved armour of Hollywood remained around for much longer than is assumed gradually falling apart and being replaced by other forms but no longer being depicted due to a failure of artistic convention or taste? I hypothesise obviously!

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Here's an image of the Column of Arcadius -

[Valentinian Victor]

Here's an image of the Column of Arcadius -

Excellent, if you have a link to the above can you post it please.

Anyway, this panel is not only extremely interesting, but also perplexing and controversal.
Let us look at the seqence of events, from top to bottom-

This is the base or plinth of the column itself.

The top of the main panel shows a representation of winged 'Victory' holding a laurel wreath, with the christian cross in its center, over the head of the Emperor Arcadius below (both of the figures in the pane below in muscle cuirasses are Arcadius). Victory is flanked by 'Triumphal Chariots'. This obviously denotes that Arcadius has secured a great victory over his foe.

The next pane shows the Emperor Arcadius flanks by his advisors and probably guard infantry, note the large round shields with the 'Chi-Rho' designs. The infantry are shown unarmored, not unusal for Late Roman depictions of Guard Infantry. Arcadius is watching trophies being placed symbolically at his feet, the next two panes below.

The pane below the Arcadius one shows in the center a trophy stand with 'Victory' either side with attending shield-bearers. 'Victory' is supervising the piling of the trophies. Note that on the left we have a group of mailed warriors coming towards the trophy stand, and on the right a group of unarmored warriors also coming towards the trophy stand. These are the defeated foe coming to place trophies at the feet of the Emperor. In the background are infantry who appear to be guarding the captives, note the helmets and oval shields.

The last pane shows more captives piling up the trophies. This is the most controversal scene of all. In this scene we see representations of Vexillum standards, oval shields, round shields, very odd looking shields, tubular arm and leg armor, muscle cuirasses with attached petruges, bows, quivers, spears and helmets.

Now, this monument has been claimed as being erected to commemorate Arcadius' victory over Gainas, the Magister Utriusque Militiae of the East, after his abortive bid to assume the purple.
However, most of the captive troops look very similar to other Roman depictions of the 'Sasanids', and the fact that their are Sasanid looking helmets and tubular arm/leg armour would appear to lend weight to this argument. It could be argued that the tubular arm/leg armour and muscle cuirasses were from Roman Clibanarii, but what of the odd shaped shields, bows and Sasanid looking helmets? Also, some of the captives are shown wearing Sasanid looking head gear.

A conundrum indeed!

[julianus heraclius]

Is there an english translation at all? It was still not unusual to lorica segmenta to be used in the late 3rd C. Again as has been stated above some "suits" could have survived into the very late 3rd C if they had been well looked after. I suppose Hispania Limitanei make good sense in that they probably would've had to rely on exisitng armour to wear out before getting any new equipment.

I'm not an expert on the lorica segmenta but it don't know how robust it would have been, especially if a soldier wearing it had seen a bit of action, but in a province like Hispania which didn't see much action at all till the early 5th C, then equipment like this may have lasted longer. Hmm, I wonder of I could get away with my mid 4th C Hispanic legios armed with lorica segmenta. Now that would be interesting.

Nice one SBH!

[Valentinian Victor]

Is there an english translation at all? It was still not unusual to lorica segmenta to be used in the late 3rd C. Again as has been stated above some "suits" could have survived into the very late 3rd C if they had been well looked after. I suppose Hispania Limitanei make good sense in that they probably would've had to rely on exisitng armour to wear out before getting any new equipment.

I'm not an expert on the lorica segmenta but it don't know how robust it would have been, especially if a soldier wearing it had seen a bit of action, but in a province like Hispania which didn't see much action at all till the early 5th C, then equipment like this may have lasted longer. Hmm, I wonder of I could get away with my mid 4th C Hispanic legios armed with lorica segmenta. Now that would be interesting.

Nice one SBH!

You could probably get away with border limitanae or even Pseudocomitatensis troops, but I doubt very much if the field army comitatensis legiones would be wearing it, they are more likely to be wearing muscle cuirasses or mail at this stage.
The old border forts in Egypt had cohorts from the old style 2nd/3rd Century legiones stationed in them and they were still calling themselve after their parent legiones upto the 7th Century AD, so no surprise that they may well have been wearing out-moded armour.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Here's the original link complete with an interesting discussion about manicae -

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...p?f=17&t=26284

And to complement Valentinian Victor's discussion, I've broken the column drawing down into its constituent parts:










The last as pointed out raises some interesting issues - you can clearly see the eastern-style phyrgian (sp?) caps together with cataphract armour and muscled cuirasses. On the pane above stands a lone Roman war dog apparently guarding the captives!

Wiki has the following -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column_of_Arcadius

with the reconstruction as follows -



The original location of the RAT drawing is here -

http://www.livius.org/cn-cs/constant..._arcadius.html

In the original etching, you can clearly see elements of naval warfare or amphibious operations which is interesting!

[Valentinian Victor]

It is one of the greatest tragedies for those of us interested in Late Roman arms and armor that both the Column of Theodosius and the Column of Arcadius have not survived for had they done so many, many things of interest to us would have been resolved.

[julianus heraclius]

I've done a reconstruction of what a late 3rd century roman legionary with lorica segmenta would look like. He has a Spangehelm helmet and large oval shield.

[Douchebag]

I've done a reconstruction of what a late 3rd century roman legionary with lorica segmenta would look like. He has a Spangehelm helmet and large oval shield.

damn that looks gorgeous!!!! is this unit included in the 3.0 BETA?

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

damn that looks gorgeous!!!! is this unit included in the 3.0 BETA?

let me quote JH's entry:

I've done a reconstruction of what a late 3rd century roman legionary with lorica segmenta would look like. He has a Spangehelm helmet and large oval shield.

so no, not in IJ3.

[-Traiano-]

just wow, they're magnificent!!! Please Julianus introduce some limitanei/Pseudocomitatenses legions with lorica segmentata in the first patch you'll do for IJ3, i suppose you've seen documents that tell about 3/4 century's lorica segmentata found in iberian peninsula!!

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Very nice! Great work there, JH!

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

That unit is purely beautiful! Looks vaguely reminiscent of a Frank, due to that spangenhelm.

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

I came across this post at RAT and wondered if anyone here had come across similar evidence? It's an evocative image - limitanei on patrol along the limes in intercisa helmets and old segmentata armour!

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/vie...p?f=17&t=26427

Very apealling thread, SBH. Thank you for the link. I've just started to read it and I'm finding it very interesting so far

[Gromovnik]

Great thread SBH, +1 rep to you. Ant also to Julianus Heraclius, that unit is beautiful. Great job guys!

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Thanks, Pannonius!