Late Roman \'Gear\'

[Robert Vermaat]

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.

Hi Ron,

First of all there’s no doubt that weapons were indeed needed. But as to what weapons, that’s the question. Some people were indeed buried with their weapons, but we don’t know if that signals an abundance of weapons or rather signalling that weapons burials were something extraordinary? Weapons burials are relatively scarce, and that, in turn, could signify a very low number of warriors, or, again, a scarcity of weapons that were only buried with someone on a very special occasion.

I’m not so sure that one arms oneself with anything, ‘whatever source or quality’. Source maybe, quality no – if your weapons are bad, you may die very soon. I’d rather not fight then fight with bad weapons. I think that would mean that men were armed with good spears then with bad swords. Spear heads are much easier to produce than swords.
But that’s how I think about it.

And about the unravelling of Roman society – indeed, the lack of sources does add to that suggestion. Roman towns had been deteriorating already during the 4th c., or rather losing their main function with which they had been created. We see this in the disappearance of the main public buildings, which only in some towns were replaced after disasters or falling apart. If they are retained they are changed in function – industry mainly instead of government. Add to that a loss in trade from the disappearance of Roman army and government, and growing insecurity on the roads, and I think the model that sees a loss of province-wide trade may well be correct. Produce became more local, towns were no longer needed as markets.

Britain more than Gaul – I heard that in Gaul most villas developed into villages. In Britain, most villas developed into rustic ruins.

[Ron Andrea]

Excellent points. In referring to weapons quality, I agree that a good lesser weapon is perferable to a bad primary weapon, especially if that secondary weapon is a tool of choice for non-military uses.

For example, somewhere in Vortigen Studies, I think I read that the Saxon name for the Britons was derived from or related to their being bow users. Considering the later utility and fame of English archery, Agincourt springs to mind, is it possible the earlier Britons used their hunting tool as an equalized on the battle field against the somewhat larger and better armed Saxons? Making spear and arrow heads with the limited metallurgy available (and the potential for reusing scrap metal) may have made better economic sense, too.

On the other hand, if attacked with little warning, I will grab whatever is at hand to defend myself and family. With no standing army in Sub-Roman Britain, the levies may have resorted to just that--whatever was at hand. The core of the Briton defense may have used Roman equipment and tactics, but the men responding to defend their homes may not have been so well-equipped nor well-trained, hence their tendency to lose to the German invaders/immigrants/agraian reformers/whatever. Whatever was at hand may have been the bow or sling they hunted with. Back to the necessity argument.