Late Roman \'Gear\'

[Pretani]

Hello to all,
Am new here so I hope the following broad questions are allowed.
I am interested in ascertaining (as near as is possible) what the armour/gear would have been for the following troops/periods:

380's
Maximus and his British army.

390's
Stilicho and the expedition sent to Britain.

400's
Constantine III and his British army.

410's
The disputed Romanized (or Roman) cavalry/naval force from Gaul which Gildas mentions and is called 'the 2nd rescue' of Britain.

420-30's
St Germanus visit to Britain and the armed men he brought with him.
Also the remaining British Army which the biographer of Germanus mentions as being "an army of soldiers, disciplined enough to follow a plan but lacking a general".

460's
Assuming for argument's sake that Riothamus was a Briton; what might his "12,000 man British force" have been armed with?


I anticipate that there would not have been great changes in the gear over the short periods, but that there may have been accumulative changes from the first period to the last

All opinions welcome.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Pretani,

Welcome to the forum! As a Late Roman and post-Roman Britain enthusiast myself, I’m delighted to see yet another one interested in this period.

First though, could you please enter your real name in your signature? That’s a forum rule.

So, what arms and armament from the 380s to the 460s..
Any answers can only be indicative, to begin with. We have no direct descriptions of the forces that you describe, so we can only go from a general idea of the situation at the time.
Secondly, I see you are starting with the theory that hat Gildas wrote was indeed based on reality and not on hyperbole. I’ll run by each date briefly:

380s: Maximus most probably took several units of the field army to the continent. We find vexillations (or the main unit) of II Augusta in the field army of the East, and several British units in the Gallic field army or else (such as the Anderetani and the Seguntienses).

Arms&Armour: I would expect the field army (comitatenses) infantry and cavalry to wear armour: mail and scale armour, while the static troops (limitanei) may have been lesser equipped. The comitatenses had first pick in supplies, so.. Infantry carried a hasta (long spear), and/or several javelins and several plumbatae (throwing darts), a spatha (long sword) and a dished oval shield. Most will have had helmets. Cavalry had the longer contus, and a small round shield for protection. Some also carried bows.
I’ve added some pictures below.

390s: Stilicho’s action is only reported by the court poet Claudian, and we have no idea if this meant sdome large military expedition or just measure taken in Britain with the available forces of the British garrison.

A&A: same as above.

400s: Constantine III probably took several units of an existing British field army, or some units of the limitanei. Most of his forces may have come from Gaul though, and we know he recruited heavily along the Franks of the Rhine.

A&A: same as above for the comitatenses that he had, but the number of limitatnei units would have been higher. Federate troops were hired for a campaign and sometimes equipped by the Roman state, although they would have had a far higher amount of personal equipment. Foederati could be used in Roman formations, but ever more tended to be hired as whole groups.

410's: In deed this ‘rescue force’ is disputed. We have nothing but vague ideas how the Roman military power in Britain ended, or when. The report by Zosimus of the so-called ‘Honorian rescript’ is by far the most accepted date of that event, which most probably took place in 410. Yet by accepting that as the ‘end of Roman Britain’ and therefore the ‘fizzling out’ of the British troops, the Gildensian report of subsequent expeditions becomes a problem. In my personal opinion though, the report of these expeditions must be judged as we judge Gildas’ report of the building of the Antonine and Hadrian’s Wall after these military expeditions. Most probably, like the construction of the Walls, these expeditions at best reflect older military actions, not 5th-century events. At worst, they might be seen as Gildas’ reports of widespread destructions, famine, etc., which are completely unattested in the archaeological record. I have therefore no reason to interpret Gildas’ text as evidence for the so-called ‘Pictish Wars’ and subsequent Roman actions.

A&A:

420-30's: Germanus is a nice dilemma. His first visit is securely dated to 429, but the nature of the visit remains in doubt. Officially he was a cleric who made the journey to combat the Pelagian heresy, but who gave Germanus the means and mandate (!) to arrest the heretics and take them back to Gaul? It seems impossible that either the pope or the Gallic bishop had the power and the means to demand such actions and carry them out. It would also mean that as a cleric, he would have been negotiating with British authorities (in whatever form) to carry out his mission. Or did he hold some military command in the Gallic diocese that entitled him to undertake actions in Britain?
We can but speculate. Either we disbelieve the source and make him a general, but that would mean there were British authorities to negotiate with. Take your pick, but don’t expect any evidence to prove either one beyond any doubt.

If he was a cleric he’d have had a bodyguard at best, but if he was a military commander he might have brought more men with him.

A&A: anybody’s guess. A bodyguard would have carried swords and possibly shields, but many also bows.
How a British army would have looked after 20 years of independence is a good guess. Most probably like a limitanei unit, but that depends on the number of local men that would have been assembled just for this battle – they may have carried nothing but a good spear at worst.

460's: I’m assuming that Riothamus was indeed a Briton, the evidence seems best suited to that. The number (12.000) is extremely high if you compare that to contemporary Imperial Roman armies. If they were all British soldiers, I can’t really imagine the were all regular troops.

A&A: Speculating, of course. After 50 years of independence, all former Roman soldiers would be dead, and even their children at the moment of independence may have been too old to join in such an expedition. Training and equipment would have been fewer in number, inheritance pieces, more varied since no state supplied the bulk of it for decades. There would have been no standing army, since it can hardly be expected that the diocese was still governed by one central government. I suppose the individual civitates (city 'states') would be the next in line to try and retain defence forces, but since most Roman army units would have been stationed on the coast or Hadrian’s Wall, you’d expect most civitates would have had to start from scratch. Equipment would, then, have been of a much lower quality that anything the former Roman units would have had.

Hope this helps.

Images. Top to bottom;

A limitanei unit in battle (Britannia performing the Secunda Britones).
A Roman unit on the move: cavalry in front of infantry (image from Archeon 2006).
An infantry soldier of the comitatenses (Fectio - me in fact).
A comitatenses heavy infantry unit (Herculiani and Foederati performing II Herculia and Celtae seniors).
Late Roman limitanei infantry (Comitatus performing the Praesidienses).

[FAVENTIANVS]

[size=200:6cf8640o]It could have been said louder but not clearer.
Bravo Vorty!!!!!![/size]
Laudes 4 U.

[Mithras]

I was about to put up Comitatus' website link, until I saw that Robert had piut up a great selection of photos from several different groups. Excellent.

(The link is in my signature anyway, 'Pretani'!)

[Pretani]

Sincere apologies for not putting my name at the bottom of my first post.
It was an oversight.
Thank you to all who posted answers and links.

Valerius/Robert:
"I see you are starting with the theory that what Gildas wrote was indeed based on reality and not on hyperbole."

Everyone needs a starting point and Gildas is just one. There is quite a lot of hyperbole in history. I don't credit as 'fact' everything written by Julius Caesar. Neither do I take Gildas as a source of unbiased information.

"Stilicho's action is only reported by the court poet Claudian, and we have no idea if this meant some large military expedition or just measure taken in Britain with the available forces of the British garrison. "

To be fair are there really that many historical writings which have corroborative evidence. In any event there is evidence of some 'action' taken in Britain which is subsequently credited to Stilicho.

"Constantine III ... Most of his forces may have come from Gaul though, and we know he recruited heavily along the Franks of the Rhine.
...Federate troops were hired for a campaign and sometimes equipped by the Roman state, although they would have had a far higher amount of personal equipment. Foederati could be used in Roman formations, but ever more tended to be hired as whole groups."

This is most interesting. I have jumped to the assumption from the information in your sentence that the Franks were Foederati. I have also made the assumption that they would have been like a mercenary group having their own armaments and 'leader' - have I missed your meaning?

"410's: Indeed this 'rescue force' is disputed. "

I do believe I used the word 'disputed' myself . So to side step any further ‘disputations’ lets just talk about the romanized (or roman) cavalry/naval forces that were in Gaul in the 410's?
Where they native (Gaelic) forces or roman forces made from Franks or Samartians?

"but who gave Germanus the means and mandate (!) to arrest the heretics and take them back to Gaul?"

I am unaware of any inferences in the texts to arrests or forcible removals to Gaul. Is there speculation that such occurred?

"How a British army would have looked after 20 years of independence is a good guess. Most probably like a limitanei unit, but that depends on the number of local men that would have been assembled just for this battle - they may have carried nothing but a good spear at worst. "
&
"Speculating, of course. After 50 years of independence... Training and equipment would have been fewer in number, inheritance pieces, more varied since no state supplied the bulk of it for decades. ... since most Roman army units would have been stationed on the coast or Hadrian's Wall, you'd expect most civitates would have had to start from scratch..."

So these post Roman Empire forces would have looked less 'uniform' than the original roman version. Also it would be safe to assume that the roman insignia would have been replaced by provincial (native) versions which expressed their regional affiliations - no?

"equipment would, then, have been of a much lower quality that anything the former Roman units would have had."

By 'lower quality' do you mean that the quality of the arms made in Britain post 410 would have been 'less' than that of the roman period's manufacture? I had assumed that men of means in these later periods could have obtained arms from over the channel. From Gaul, or other such eastern realms where such things were made.

Also - is it not logical that Britons would have taken the arms of those that fell (Saxons etc.) and reworked or simply straight out reused them? So while the modern reenactment groups are most resplendent, the combatants during these later (darker) times might have looked a little shabbier and a lot more hodge-podge?

Appreciate the help
Ann

[Felix]

"So these post Roman Empire forces would have looked less 'uniform' than the original roman version. Also it would be safe to assume that the roman insignia would have been replaced by provincial (native) versions which expressed their regional affiliations - no?

"equipment would, then, have been of a much lower quality that anything the former Roman units would have had."

By 'lower quality' do you mean that the quality of the arms made in Britain post 410 would have been 'less' than that of the roman period's manufacture? I had assumed that men of means in these later periods could have obtained arms from over the channel. From Gaul, or other such eastern realms where such things were made.

Also - is it not logical that Britons would have taken the arms of those that fell (Saxons etc.) and reworked or simply straight out reused them? So while the modern reenactment groups are most resplendent, the combatants during these later (darker) times might have looked a little shabbier and a lot more hodge-podge? "

I think it is safe to say the post Roman forces would have been less standardized, for the reasons mentioned above. It is likely that maintenance would have suffered as well, and some gear would be worn and show more signs of improvised repair. Some trade with the Continent persisted, of course, but access to good quality arms and armour would have been more limited (not to mention some economic disruption).

I am not sure about the disappearance of Roman insignia, though. The Empire still carried enormous prestige, and any lingering associations with the ancien regime would likely have been preserved. Military units can be very conservative; even though the Indian subcontinent has not been British for a half-century, nationalism has not caused the armies to abandon Highland-style bagpipers.

http://www.scottish-weekend.be/paginasE ... .htm#India
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=1922398

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Ann,

Everyone needs a starting point and Gildas is just one. There is quite a lot of hyperbole in history. I don't credit as 'fact' everything written by Julius Caesar. Neither do I take Gildas as a source of unbiased information

I think that's a good starting point.

To be fair are there really that many historical writings which have corroborative evidence. In any event there is evidence of some 'action' taken in Britain which is subsequently credited to Stilicho.

I would be very interested if you could name but one besides Claudian. Stilichos wars and actions may be described in other sources, but his actions in Britain are not. Can you name these other actions in other sources that have been ascribed to Stilicho (besides Gildas of course)?

This is most interesting. I have jumped to the assumption from the information in your sentence that the Franks were Foederati. I have also made the assumption that they would have been like a mercenary group having their own armaments and 'leader' - have I missed your meaning?

The name ‘Franks’ suggest they were one group, but there were several different Frankish groups. It’s difficult to judge to what degree their arms &armour would have been Roman-provided.

The Franks of Toxandria were a group inside the Empire (most settled by the emperor Julian), not governed centrally by one king but in fact several smaller groups under their own kings. Nevertheless, they were all governed by Rome until the late 5th c. when we see their first independent kings emerge. Some were federates, others laeti or dedititii, a lower status. Yet they develop into the kingdom of France later. Their arms & armour would be largely state-provided.
Then there were the Franks of the Rhine, most outside the Empire or penetrating the west bank as the 5th c. progressed. These were federates, with temporary treaties only. These treaties had to be renewed by each new emperor or pretender. Many upstarts went recruiting here before they started an offensive into Italy. So did Constantine, or Constantine III. The Rhine Franks first defeat the Alamanni in the early 6th c., before they are in turn defeated by the Toxandrian Franks under Clovis.
A third group is less described, but in NE Gaul a territory developed during the 5th c. that was ruled by Frankish commanders, the last of them Arbogast who ‘turns over’ his territory to Clovis.
Fourth are the individual Frankish warriors who join the Roman forces as volunteers and fought as regular Roman soldiers. The would have used Roman arms & armour which was handed out when they took up service.

lets just talk about the romanized (or roman) cavalry/naval forces that were in Gaul in the 410's? Where they native (Gaelic) forces or roman forces made from Franks or Samartians?

I’m not sure what you mean by native Gaelic forces. The British were Roman citizens, when they fought in the army their equipment would have been Roman. Volunteers from outside the empire, such as Gaelic British from the north, Picts or Scots (and other Irish) would bring their own equipment if they were specialists or else receive their equipment from the Roman state.
Apart from the descendants of units settled in Britain, Gaul and northern Italy, we find no Sarmatians. And in Britain that’s just one unit in Ribchester. Despite some recent speculations, there won’t have been any Sarmatian unit that would be differently equipped. Their successors of the 4th and 5th c. were the Alans, who we find fighting for Romans, Germans and Huns alike.

I am unaware of any inferences in the texts to arrests or forcible removals to Gaul. Is there speculation that such occurred?

Prosper tells us that Pope Celestine freed the British provinces from the infection of heresy: Prosper, Contra Collatorum, 21: Since he shut out from that remote place in the Ocean some enemies of grace who had seized upon the soil of their birth-place. Apparently some Pelagians were exiled from Britain. Since Celestine died in 432, and Prosper wrote in 433/4, this reference can only point to the first visit of Germanus.

So these post Roman Empire forces would have looked less 'uniform' than the original roman version. Also it would be safe to assume that the roman insignia would have been replaced by provincial (native) versions which expressed their regional affiliations - no?

The original Roman forces would not have looked ‘uniform’ in the First place- that’s a Hollywood myth. No ‘uniforms’ are known to us (besides maybe some small elite guard units), clothing was a personal matter though similar colour schemes might have occurred. There is also no reason to assume that any ‘native’ insignia would have replaced the Roman ones. In fact Procopius reports of some units in the 6th c. that had descended from Roman units (probably limitanei) that they were recognisable by their battle standards. The draco for instance, a Late Roman battle standard, was still in use during the Middle Ages. As to shield colour designs, your guess is a s good as mine.

By 'lower quality' do you mean that the quality of the arms made in Britain post 410 would have been 'less' than that of the roman period's manufacture? I had assumed that men of means in these later periods could have obtained arms from over the channel. From Gaul, or other such eastern realms where such things were made.

No, I expressed myself wrongly. That’s not fair to British armourers. I would rather say that the quantity of high quality equipment would have been less than during Roman times. You se, the state provided as mauch equipment possible for the Roman forces, and that meant that shortages occurred even during Roman times. Whatever really happened around 410, that supply would have stopped, and Britain did not have a large-scale weapons production. Some equipment would surely have been commissioned locally (maybe in those metal shops we see in defunct basilicas), but I expect that this would not have been able to compensate for the loss of state-manufactured weapons. Speculating here of course, but with a prohibition to acquire, sell or own weapons during Roman times, I can’t see supply from foreign traders make up for that loss. Sure, during the following decades there will have been local programs to train armourers, and I hardly expect the civitates to have been able to keep up all military forces in the old style and manner. So at some point with dwindling numbers and growing local supply, the demand will have been met.
But in-between it would have meant ‘anything you get your hands on’. Upkeep and repair would not be as easy either.

Also - is it not logical that Britons would have taken the arms of those that fell (Saxons etc.) and reworked or simply straight out reused them? So while the modern reenactment groups are most resplendent, the combatants during these later (darker) times might have looked a little shabbier and a lot more hodge-podge?

Sure they would, but they would have lost weapons too – similar process.
Shabbier, sure. Hodge-podge, sure thing.

[Conal]

"Shabbier, sure. Hodge-podge, sure thing"

Hodge-podge I can accept but why shabbier ?

Did somebody pull a plug in AD410 .... all social and trade skills unable to function without Rome as the electricity ? Did they suddenly forget how to shoe horses, get in a crop or cobblers become less skilled? Did it become a sort of post apocalyptic wasteland where everyone went ferral ?

I have previously posted long on Secunda (as was ) on the possible level of sword ownership & production capabilities of the "dark ages" as i have watched the speed at which an acomplished metal worker can produce a workable blade using just a small forge, so apologise to those who have seen me drone on before.

Provided he can get raw materials I see no reason a smith could not knock out 30-40 swords in a year dependandt on quality of course and keeping in mind that he would not necessarily be the pollisher or furnisher. With just 10 of these guys floating around could have 2,000ish new servicable blades by AD415 and they dont all need to be pattern welded masterpieces.

By AD460 .... 20,000 blades is physically possible so even if they are produced at a more leasurely pace you could have say 5,000 from just 10 smiths ( one amonth each:wink: ). Add that to existing stock and things dont look so bad. and I'm sure pace would have picked up under pressure.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Conal,

Shabbier?

Yep, shabbier. Why? Because there would no longer be a standing army that would be in the barracks when not on campaign. Already during Late Roman times we are assuming that the limitanei, though possible not lacking in fighting skills, were not all day polishing their armour, cleaning their boots, re-painting their shields or sewing tears in their war-tunics. So if one accepts that, and add the loss of any state support, this would mean that (apart from personal guards for leaders) all soldiers were part-timers at best. :?
They practised (if possible) only when not tilling their fields or gathering their harvests, where we see equipment during Late Roman times that reflects military wealth and pride in showing it, this is lacking in former Roman areas where no newcomers are reported (hey, just quoting my books here, I’m not going into that discussion again who was really buried in what grave, even though it’s a very interesting one).
So besides having no standard equipment I also expect them to look far less good when it comes to upkeep. No neat rows of similar-painted shields, neat lines of smart-looking troopers standing at attention, their helmet shining brightly in the early rays of the morning sun.
Sorry. Shabbier.

So yes, more shabby. I never said they lived in caves, wore rags or skins, or that they used rocks and sticks only. :oops: Just that would’ve looked more shabby when compared to earlier Late Roman units.

Swords, then.

Conal, I agree with you on the theoretic level of sword production by the 460s in Britain. Given that the material would be available, I agree that indeed such high numbers would be possible. And next to swords, I think that shield bosses and spear points could also be in ample supply by then, if indeed armour smiths would be available in those numbers.

My problem with any conclusion that such high numbers were indeed produced, would be the argument of cost. During Late Roman times, the Roman state produced and distributed swords, which were produced by non-free or semi-free workers, at the cost of the taxpayers. This ensured (among other things) that costs could be kept low. But in post-Roman times, how can we expect that such costs could be kept in check? First of all, there would not have been a class of armoursmiths in Britain, they would have had to be imported or trained. I disagree that any accomplished metal worker can make a decent sword if they never did that before – I expect them to be skilled enough but not practised - they’d have to be trained. So no, I don’t expect 2000 blades by 415, but the numbers would grow faster in later years.
I’m very curious how the post-Roman British did manage that – did they distribute all smiths that once worked for Roman units? It would be interesting to think of a model about that problem…

Back to costs – even if sufficient swordsmiths existed by the 460s, the price of a sword would be high enough to prevent commoners from being able to just buy a sword. All during the heroic Period we see swords as valuable gifts bestowed on warriors by their lords and on Roman soldiers by the state – no mass-produced items there. So even if 20.000 blades could be produced by 460 in theory, who would have been wealthy enough to commission them? The civitates? Without the means to gather taxes on Late Roman scales they would also not have the means to equip their militias on that level. Individual rich men (like Vortigern maybe)? Sure, that would help, but I don’t expect their wealth to be large enough to sustain that for decades on end.

So all in all, even though possible in theory, I do not expect such a high sword production in post-Roman Britain.

[Conal]

Hi Robert


"Sorry. Shabbier"


Is better as te vanity of the warrior would negate a shabby look surely ? Who would volunteer, in reenactment for example, to portray say a slinger .... they mostly want to be elite :wink: I would suggest. Wealth display even by todays label concious standards would warrent "warriors" to turn out with smart gear , maybe not to Legion standards but better than shabby

I agree that a 5,000 figure after 50 years is more realistic which has them cracking out swords at one a month

Ref costs .... yes a problem, but not as big a problem of getting hold of a swordsmith:wink: If each "kingdom" for want of a better word for it had one smith, thats about 30 @ say AD460. This is enough to give each lord 10-12 swords a year to hand out as presents. If what I have read is correct and that armies numbered in the hundreds rather than thousands then after a few decades of accumulation you have enough long blades to arm 500-600 men. This is not counting traded & "aquired" goods.

As to the price ..who sets this .. smithy or lord ? What was the going price for a sword back then ?

[perrygray]

Greetings,

Suggesting that the soldiers were shabbier as time passed is an assumption that may be incorrect. Since the equipment was supplied by the state, then it is quite possible that it was recycled. Maintenance of kit would be important so that its lifespan remained long.

Much of the equipment would be generic in that it could be worn by anyone regardless of height and other factors. Armour, shields and other equipment may have been passed from father to son or veteran to recruit. This trend may be one of the reasons that Roman graves lacked military equipment. Given the scarcity of artefacts, it is possible that the metal items were re-used until they were no longer in adequate condition.

There are records of units surviving beyond the so-callled collapse of Roman governments. Gallo-Roman units were still part of the Frankish and Visigothic armies in the C6th AD. Units that had been in existence for centuries may have continued to function as long as there was some form of successor state.

In Britain the successor states may have owed their longevity to the continuation of the military units that could have formed a cadre to which militia or levies were added in wartime.

While it may be ill-advised to cite modern examples, there may be some similarities. During my time at military college, I wore uniforms that were older than I was and were faithfully replicated so that circa 1870 dress was preserved. I would not have been surprised if my sword was very old, although well maintained. Given that mail was the norm well into the Middle Ages, a well-maintained mail shirt might have been several hundred years old. As long as it was repaired there would be no need to have depend on new production from large smithies or other industries.

Perry

[Robert Vermaat]

Suggesting that the soldiers were shabbier as time passed is an assumption that may be incorrect. Since the equipment was supplied by the state, then it is quite possible that it was recycled. Maintenance of kit would be important so that its lifespan remained long. Much of the equipment would be generic in that it could be worn by anyone regardless of height and other factors. Armour, shields and other equipment may have been passed from father to son or veteran to recruit. This trend may be one of the reasons that Roman graves lacked military equipment. Given the scarcity of artefacts, it is possible that the metal items were re-used until they were no longer in adequate condition.

Well, that is the main point - it is very unlikely that equipment was supplied by the state in post-Roman Britain. The 'state' would become smaller and smaller anyway, because there's no evidence for a central British government after the early 5th c. If anything, we see government falling apart into sub-states (civitates), soon to change into kingdoms and sub-kingdoms.
If items were re-used over and over (which I fully agree with) it would be more reason to look at post-Roman units as looking shabbier when comparing them to 4th-c. Roman units.

There are records of units surviving beyond the so-callled collapse of Roman governments. Gallo-Roman units were still part of the Frankish and Visigothic armies in the C6th AD. Units that had been in existence for centuries may have continued to function as long as there was some form of successor state.
In Britain the successor states may have owed their longevity to the continuation of the military units that could have formed a cadre to which militia or levies were added in wartime.

There are indeed, but the evidence is slight. We know that Clovic incorporated the Roman units of Syagrius into his own army. We also know that local (town) militias (such as the Arverni) fought with distinction in early Francish armies. And we hear of regiments that can be distinguished by dress, customs and battle standards (Procopius).
We just do not know how long such units could retain that 'Roman-ness' before they vanished into the Frankish melting-pot or not.
We also don't know if a) Roman units survived at all as units, or b) if they did, for how long. British successor states seem not based on former Roman military installations or cities, with some exceptions. Also, the longest surviving states are situated in Wales, far away from the regions where Late Roman units were stationed (the Wall and the Shore).

As long as it was repaired there would be no need to have depend on new production from large smithies or other industries.

Well, and why not? My point is that a) there might not have been many around to begin with and b) that is would be far more costly to make new ones, given the economic situation in Britain after the early 5th c. Individuals could be well-off after no more taxes were raised, but with a near-impossibility to raise taxes, central government would be unsustainable without funds, armies would no longer be maintainable, even local magnates/kings could find it very hard to maintain even a small army. Without the Roman level of defence, trade would become difficult, with more dire results for the economy. Curiously enough, this may explain the supremacy of Welsh kingdoms later - Wales would have felt the impact of all this as hard as the lowlands would have.

In my opinion, even if post-Constantine III Britain had all or even half of the forces listed in the Notitia Dignitatum, these units would have been maintainable for long. They were bound to melt way or downgrade into local militia.

[Felix]

One footnote on swords: the technology shifted in the Migration Era from what might be called composite swords (i.e. sandwiched layers of metal) or primarily monosteel swords, to pattern welded swords. The latter require significantly more labor and skill to produce, and were, I think, not likely to be within the talents of the average blacksmith. This seems to be a shift from mass produced swords for an army to higher-quality swords produced for an elite warband; but it would likely affect the ability to maintain a standing army.

[Conal]

"One footnote on swords: the technology shifted in the Migration Era from what might be called composite swords (i.e. sandwiched layers of metal) or primarily monosteel swords, to pattern welded swords. The latter require significantly more labor and skill to produce, and were, I think, not likely to be within the talents of the average blacksmith. This seems to be a shift from mass produced swords for an army to higher-quality swords produced for an elite warband; but it would likely affect the ability to maintain a standing army"

A pattern welded sword takes longer to make than a mono steel one yes, but a sword smith ( I dont include workaday black smith ) who has previously prepared billets can produce a mono sword in say a week including hammering, tempering grinding & polishing , .. a patern welded one in say two weeks.

The smelting process is what drags it on , getting a decent iron or steel billet. If you have to dig out ore, separate it etc then the job becomes masive. If you have a smith able to get hold of billets a sword can be made quite quickly by a skilled artisan.

I went on a knife making course and made a basic damascas knife blade in two days from old farriers files & scrap iron bits. This included sandwiching steel & iron layers, heating hammering to weld together, hammering to lengthen, folding, drilling for a pattern, folding again and again . Final heating & hammering to shape & etching to bring out the pattern.

I took 2 days to make a duff blade but the teacher could have knocked one up in a morning. A skilled man like that with a couple of apprentices and decent tools & forge ....

hock:

[Ron Andrea]

We're trying to use logic to make up for the lack of evidence, either records or artifacts. But doesn't the very dearth of records indicate things unraveled pretty fast and pretty far in western Europe, especially Britain?

The "economic" argument against the production of large numbers of swords might be balanced by a "necessity" argument. If the Britons were being pressed hard, wouldn't they have sought weapons of whatever source or quality to arm themselves? Smiths who were only marginally trained may have tried to make swords, spear tips, etc., because they were so desperately needed.

The fact that some Saxons were buried in martial splendor while the locals were not suggests a hording of scarce resources, though some identify a religious motive.

The need, of course, may have varied (see that discussion elsewhere), but given the need the combatants must have armed themselves somehow--ragged or not.