+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o (/showthread.php?tid=12650)
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - SigniferOne - 05-19-2008
Quote:I do not agree with this. There is no evidence at all to say the segmentata was more popular than the hamata.
Quote:I don't know what a horned gallic helmet is. But on what do you base yourself when you say that the gallic helmettype was the most popular in the 1st century AD?
To me, that basis is very simple -- it's what the Trajan's Column says. Regardless of the actual statistics of gallic helmet use, or segmentata use, whether it was used 50% of the time, 50.009%, or more, the Column represents what the Romans thought the prototypical 1st century soldier to be, the soldier as he was supposed to be. If the Romans had this notion, why are we going to think different?
Quote:To me there is a lot of difference between a small and slender silver inlaid pugio sheath and a larger, broader frame sheath with a leather scabbard. even the most ignorant watcher would notice a big difference.Well think of it this way -- practically every person who watched Gladiator thought the dueling helm might've been a replica of a real example.
And anyway, ff it's a pugio, it's a pugio, regardless of the differences. The concept's there. Minutae differences are conceptually meaningless. Otherwise, since every chair is a little higher and a little lower than every other chair, we could never say that such a thing as a chair exists at all.
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS - 05-19-2008
Quote: And anyway, ff it's a pugio, it's a pugio, regardless of the differences. The concept's there. Minutae differences are conceptually meaningless. Otherwise, since every chair is a little higher and a little lower than every other chair, we could never say that such a thing as a chair exists at all.
lol, philosophy + rome = best possible outcome (just see Marcus Aurelius, the true philosopher king lol)
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - jvrjenivs - 05-20-2008
Quote:To me, that basis is very simple -- it's what the Trajan's Column says. Regardless of the actual statistics of gallic helmet use, or segmentata use, whether it was used 50% of the time, 50.009%, or more, the Column represents what the Romans thought the prototypical 1st century soldier to be, the soldier as he was supposed to be. If the Romans had this notion, why are we going to think different?
.
Or is it just the notion that the artisits who made the column had, based on the small part of soldiers they had seen near Rome?
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - markusaurelius - 05-20-2008
I would look at Trajans column as a "snapshot" of that point in time. Perhaps during that time or the specific legion that was used by the artist to make his plan wore lots of segmentata. It would be the same if a hisortian 1000 years from now looked at the surviving photo album of a WWII American soldier. They would paint that brush across the whole century baring any other evidence. Trajans column is exactly that in my mind.
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - sonic - 05-20-2008
One of the main reasons for change was that the nature of warfare had changed. In the earlier centuries the Roman army was aggressive and intent on expansion. Once it had finished expanding, the emphasis changed to defence.
On the whole, however, it was not defending against major invasions by 'barbarians' intent on 'conquering' the Empire, but on smaller scale raids intent on capturing booty and prisoners. The structure of the old army was not especially suited to this and so it evolved over time into the 'Late Imperial' model. This was more suited to the demands of 'modern' warfare. Furthermore, changes in fashion and the cost of running the army resulted in many changes being made in equipment.
Although many writers - including Vegetius - claim that a reversion to the old military styles would have saved the Empire, it was not really practical. An army that refuses to change stagnates and becomes outdated shortly before being defeated. It is noticable that the history of the later army does not include many examples of major defeats. They seem to have got something right!
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - Tarbicus - 05-20-2008
We need to bear in mind that it seems equipment was far from 'uniform' across the Empire. Spanish finds dating to the 3rd to early 4th C. seem to show the segmentata was still in use there, as opposed to other parts of Europe and further East. Personally, I feel the ever increasing influx of Germanic troops had a great impact on the army as a whole which IIRC a source text also mentions, which included the mention of a tendency towards laziness. Does anyone know if the Spanish legions tended to stay more latin in composition compared to the rest of the Empire?
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - Marcus_Ulpius_Trajanus - 05-23-2008
Quote:We need to bear in mind that it seems equipment was far from 'uniform' across the Empire. Spanish finds dating to the 3rd to early 4th C. seem to show the segmentata was still in use there, as opposed to other parts of Europe and further East. Personally, I feel the ever increasing influx of Germanic troops had a great impact on the army as a whole which IIRC a source text also mentions, which included the mention of a tendency towards laziness. Does anyone know if the Spanish legions tended to stay more latin in composition compared to the rest of the Empire?
Good question, but IIRC, Spain was garrisoned by a single legion at modern Leon, and I don't think it went any where, basically. That may account for the continued use of segmentata, a quiet post in a what is almost a backwater, as opposed to the units on the Rhine, Danube, Britian or the east, who are actually fighting barbarians (and each other during the Civil wars). Toss in the expansion of the army by Diocletian, and the attending requirements for equipment (if nothing else than a shield and weapons) and you've got yourself a real procurement problem.
I think Bohec figures that the 1st-2nd century army only needed 15,000 new recruits a year across the entire Empire, which doesn't hold after the start of the 3rd century, with all the turbulence and losses and so on. And especially not after Diocletian starts adding all those field armies.
I'm not sure its 'laziness' so much as ignorance. There's a learning curve to soldiering, especially for the officers, and it should be no wonder that there were issues with the later Army.
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - Hodekin - 05-24-2008
What a fascinating debate…thank you all, it has been most enlightening!
It is true that the general public have a stereotypical image of what a ‘Roman’ soldier should look like! TV, Films, Asterix comics (LOL)…they are all to blame, and not only that, the general public probably regard this image as a constant feature which very neatly covered the entire length of ‘Roman’ history from start to finish!
To the general public, an ‘early’ Republican and a ‘Late’ Roman type would just seem very….well… Un Roman! Yet we know that is just not the case.
I recently attended a ‘Late Roman’ battle re enactment, and I overheard someone in the crowd say ‘They don’t look like Romans..do they’ Fortunately, the event was accompanied by an excellent commentary which went to great lengths to explain the why’s and wherefores of the whole early/middle/late Roman question and how and why they were seeing these Romans dressed this way at this time!
For me, there is nothing ‘sad’ about recreating this ‘Late’ period, in fact it is quite up lifting and dare I say Romantic, particularly in Britain where as Franklin earlier mentioned, the Question of Arthur (real or not) is always omnipresent!
Whether our period of preferences is for Early, Middle or Late, all are valid, all are worth their weight, and all can be approached in a professional or amateur way depending on our knowledge, time and effort.
I notice that Max (whose question kicked off this debate) is only 17, I also notice that he did not reply to any of the many contributions that were made. Perhaps he was overwhelmed by the depth of knowledge and the passion shown, perhaps he was frightened off and is no longer with us on this forum? I hope he is…because if so, he would have learned a great deal from you guys.
We all have to start somewhere!
Ken.
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - Urselius - 05-25-2008
Quote:SigniferOne:39j4k5ud Wrote:Polybian army is very familiar to us -- lorica hamata, monteforino helm, scutum and gladius.
Ha! Familiar to 'us' indeed James! But not to the general public, who expect 'Roman' soldier to have worn the lorica segmentata from the birth of Rome to the sack of Rome. Many would think that a Roman soldier in mail armour is a Celt. :x
But the Late Republican Roman soldier was a Celt in appearance: Celtic armour, Celtic helmet, and a 'not-entirely dissimilar' shield.
The difference in the appearance of the the Dominate Roman soldier was that he now looked like a Sarmatian or Persian: trousers, long-sleeved tunic, spangenhelm or ridge-helmet etc.
The Roman military were very open to external influences, it was a very positive aspect to their development They didn't become locked into certain types of kit or tactics, they responded to changes in external threat by adopting certain aspects of their enemies' martial culture.
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - Robert Vermaat - 05-25-2008
Quote:I recently attended a ‘Late Roman’ battle re enactment, and I overheard someone in the crowd say ‘They don’t look like Romans..do they’ Fortunately, the event was accompanied by an excellent commentary which went to great lengths to explain the why’s and wherefores of the whole early/middle/late Roman question and how and why they were seeing these Romans dressed this way at this time!I bet I know which group that was... :wink:
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - Hodekin - 05-25-2008
LOL!
Yes Robert..I told you at the time
The comment was made at a battle re enactment by Britannia, they were superb and the comentary was excellent.
I also (over the same week-end) had the chance to see Comitatus. They depict a slightly earlier phase of Roman/Sub Roman Britain, and they also were extremely good.
An excellent week-end for me I think!
Ken.
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - Theodosius the Great - 05-29-2008
Quote:An army that refuses to change stagnates and becomes outdated shortly before being defeated.Excellent point ! A good example of this is the Spanish Tercio (aka Spanish Square) which enabled Spain to dominate Europe for almost 200 years. But it didn't adapt to new tactics and technology which heralded its obsolescence by the mid-17th century. Even then it took decades before it was finally abandoned altogether. Consequently, this contributed to Spain becoming a second-tier power.
Quote:I've gotten strange looks from 1st C. reenactors on more than one occasion, and some that have come right out and asked why anyone would want to recreate an impression of Rome "in it's decline". 4th-5th century is just more exciting to me.I prefer to characterize it as Rome catching her second wind
Virilis is right, being part of a flabby peace time army isn't all it's cracked up to be, IMO.
Quote:Personaly I like all periods . I don't have a favourite.My attitude exactly ! Any other smacks of being a dilettante to my way of thinking. Having a favorite period is fine but I can't excuse willful ignorance of the other periods.
Quote:Spain may have been relatively 'quiet' but it too suffered from barbarian raids coming from across the Straits of Gibraltar. The Moors were a perpetual menace to the peninsula in ancient times. They were becoming more aggressive during the reign of M. Aurelius when they raided Baetica which had no garrison. MA sent Balkin troops to strengthen the legion 'VII Gemina' based in Legio (León) so they could repel the invaders.Tarbicus:bjc1sqwo Wrote:Does anyone know if the Spanish legions tended to stay more latin in composition compared to the rest of the Empire?Good question, but IIRC, Spain was garrisoned by a single legion at modern Leon, and I don't think it went any where, basically. That may account for the continued use of segmentata, a quiet post in a what is almost a backwater
Quote:Toss in the expansion of the army by Diocletian, and the attending requirements for equipment (if nothing else than a shield and weapons) and you've got yourself a real procurement problem.The traditional view of Diocletian's expansion of the army seems to have been challenged by many (most?) scholars in last 30 years or so. Some think that the army didn't expand all that much compared to the second century army. AHM Jones apparently didn't take into account the official paper strength of the legions (which rarely matched 'real' strength) when he made his calculations.
~Theo
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - SigniferOne - 05-29-2008
Quote:Virilis is right, being part of a flabby peace time army isn't all it's cracked up to be, IMO.
~Theo
I think it was a peace time because the army wasn't flabby.
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - Mythos_Ruler - 05-29-2008
Great thread guys. *back to lurking*
Romans in the Roman army - Urselius - 05-29-2008
Hugh Elton did a masterful study of sources comparing the Roman to barbarian names in the late army, for both rank and file and officers.
This showed that soldiers with Roman (well Greco-Latin to be precise) names always outnumbered those with barbarian names, often by two or three to one. He also argued that any soldiers with barbarian ancestry who had been given Roman names would be sufficiently Romanised to count as citizens.
For example Flavius Stilicho is often called a Vandal, but he was a Roman citizen born in the Empire to a Vandal father (who was a Roman officer) and a Roman mother. His upbringing and outlook would have been wholly Roman. He was at least as Roman as Barack Obama is American.
Elton's conclusion was that the "barbarisation" of the Late Roman army is often exaggerated in historical accounts.