+- 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)
Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - Max_ - 05-15-2008
Not to offend any late-roman reenactors, but I notice by about a.d. 300 it seems like the legions stoped wearing the armor and uniforms that people normally think of as "roman" and started dressing like medieval rabble. (pants, long sleeved tunics, norman-looking helmets, etc...)
They also adbandoned old roman weapons like the gladius and pilium and started using spears and longer swords.
It looks to me like they lost their orginazation and discipline, or were they still the same, and just with diffirent equiptment? It just confuses me, cause during the early empire everything was fairly standardized, but by the later empire they looked like medieval warriors that wore whatever they could get!
what happened?
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" lat - Robert Vermaat - 05-15-2008
Quote: Not to offend any late-roman reenactors, but I notice by about a.d. 300 it seems like the legions stoped wearing the armor and uniforms that people normally think of as "roman" and started dressing like medieval rabble. (pants, long sleeved tunics, norman-looking helmets, etc...)Well, you did not offend any Late Roman re-enactors, but actually posting without bothering to read any of the very lengthy discussions that we have had about this process over the years means you're still ingorant of the hows and whys. So calling Late Romans medieval rabble is derogatory but the egg is on your face, actually.
If Late Romans stopped wearing stuff that 'people think of as Roman', that means that 'people' actually have a poor idea of what Romans really looked like. We call that 'Hollywood'. Pants and long-sleeved tunics became fashion and may have been experienced as practical. And Norman-style helmets? Ã
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - Mitra - 05-15-2008
>what happened?
They went to know Robert's preferences for exotic-medieval fashion, and they adapt themself to meet his liking
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - Robert - 05-15-2008
It is interesting to look at the way warfare has "progressed" during the last 200 years or even the last 100 years. Trench warfare and forts was made obsolete, and so were all the equipment and strategies that went with it. Set plan battles, common 100 years ago, gradually gave way to urban warfare and all its horrors for the poor grunt having to fight then. APM's and roadside bombs were not something the WWI soldier had to worry about, nor were they strafed by Stuka's or Zero's. If you look at equipment and the way an army uses them, you must also look at the geo-political context in which that army operates. To ignore this is missing a lot of points in a big way! :?
As Robert pointed out, much of what the general public believes as being "correct" is largely influenced by what the media (like Hollywood movies) shows them. To let you in on a shocking secret: Early Homo Sapiens never did come across any dinosaurs or battled with flying reptiles, these had gone extinct millions of years before primitive man even walked the earth. Same goes for the Roman army. It evolved to meet a different situation, calling for adaptation of tactics and equipment. If you feel uncomfortable with that, stick to first century re-enactment and strive to get that right! Even there, there is a world to learn and to improve, there is so much we do not know as opposed to what we do know. If you do not wish to put in any effort, you will be a re-enactor re-enacting re-enactors.
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - Carlton Bach - 05-15-2008
I'm a gonna say it again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record (continuous-loop mp3?): The Roman Army's familiarity to us is an illusion. It was strange at all times.
Now, there were good reasonsa for every change that took place, some we understand, some we think we do, and some we don't. Our Late Roman members have put a lot of thought into the matter. But I would suggest you take a look at some of the better books on the Roman military (Le Bohec, Goldsworthy, Alston 'Soldier and Society', MacMullen 'Soldier and Civilian') and try to regain your sense of wonder. Assuming familiarity because of exposure to the image is dangerous to your understanding.
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - SigniferOne - 05-15-2008
What are you referring to as being strange at all times?
Polybian army is very familiar to us -- lorica hamata, monteforino helm, scutum and gladius.
Augustan/Trajan army is very familiar to us -- Trajan's Column.
Later Army is a lot less familiar to people, because it coincides with a change in the Greco-Roman world that most people find unappealing.
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - Libitina - 05-15-2008
Hi Max
Member of a "medieval rabble" group here
What you posted is probably what most members of the public would think. I know that when I was growing up I thought all Romans would have looked as they do in kids books and on TV/films. Lots of the guys here work really hard to reconstruct what the Romans were "really like" and it must be frustrating that public expect Romans to look a certain way.
I'm sure as you browse these forums more you'll realise what the reality would have been plus there's so many good book recommendations so get yourself stuck in!
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - A_Volpe - 05-15-2008
Funny you mention "medieval" looking applied to Late Romans...
I see it as a long development in fashion and style of clothing from the 'Late Empire' which eventually became the fashion and style of the medieval era - hosen/tights can easily be seen as a development from the tightly fitting pants seen on Romans in the 400's, which had their origins from various 'native' cultures from the 1st century....Yet, Medieval [armies?] were influenced by the works and legends of Caesar and Maurice and Alexander the Great - and into the Renaissance we see litterally this ressurgence of the "Roman" style (Romanesque), but it's not 'accurate' even back then, they were taking the history and melding it with their own interpretations of style and esthetics ~ much the same way "we" tend to do nowadays, sometimes accidentally, and we sometimes end up with the Hollywood trash.
(take a look at [Altarpieces] from the early Renaissance, let's take the Resurrection by M. Grunewald from the Isenheim altarpiece, c. 1500's - Christ surrounded by "Roman Soldiers", the "Roman" soldier in the bottom-front, is clearly in armor from the 1300-1400's! Or Duccio's 'Betrayl' from the early 1300's, those "Romans" are clearly not true 1st century Romans from what we've found archaeologically)
There is evidence, unfortunately I don't have the source infront of me, of Roman soldiers of the 1st or 2nd century "coming home" from campaign in the 'outskirts' of the Empire, who had adopted and worn the 'native fashions' they came across (for instance, bracchae trousers, or, sporting beards), and how much the citizens were shocked and ashamed of how "barbaric" and "unfashionably un-Roman" their dress, and in some instance I'm sure, their behavior, was so 'alien' to otherwise sheltered and distant [urban] citizens.
I find it interesting to see some US soldiers sporting the...I want to call it "wolf's teeth" pattern?...Scarves and headwraps seen in the Middle East - not just so they can look that much less "western" or "foriegn" among the local population, but probably also because the soldier likes the fashion, finds it comfortable, et cetera.
Or, take a look at the "French"/Napoleonic influence on US troops just before and during the American Civil War - take a look at the Zouave style of dress (and that style remained in use up until the start of WW1, that's about 60 years or so?) - not only was that a great way to distinguish yourself on the field, but was clearly a "foriegn" fashion....And then after the war, you see a Germanic influence on uniforms and style. I think the Romans were very similar in that way...it is their legacy to adopt and be influenced by the rest of the world, for better or for worse (or for style ;D)
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - Timotheus - 05-15-2008
Quote:Hi Max
Member of a "medieval rabble" group here
What you posted is probably what most members of the public would think. I know that when I was growing up I thought all Romans would have looked as they do in kids books and on TV/films. Lots of the guys here work really hard to reconstruct what the Romans were "really like" and it must be frustrating that public expect Romans to look a certain way.
I'm sure as you browse these forums more you'll realise what the reality would have been plus there's so many good book recommendations so get yourself stuck in!
The first thought I had when I read the initial post was that the appearance was fashion or function of the time but the description when applied to effectiveness has at least some standing.
The border troops or Limitanei are often called peasant troops with little of the skill or tactics like the mobile legions. This is challenged in Goldworthy's "Roman Warfare" where he states that they were just as effective as the mobile legions kept in reserve.
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - Chilperic - 05-16-2008
Quote:I'm a gonna say it again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record (continuous-loop mp3?): The Roman Army's familiarity to us is an illusion. It was strange at all times.
Now, there were good reasonsa for every change that took place, some we understand, some we think we do, and some we don't. Our Late Roman members have put a lot of thought into the matter. But I would suggest you take a look at some of the better books on the Roman military (Le Bohec, Goldsworthy, Alston 'Soldier and Society', MacMullen 'Soldier and Civilian') and try to regain your sense of wonder. Assuming familiarity because of exposure to the image is dangerous to your understanding.
I really could not agree more! Nicely put.
Guy
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 05-16-2008
And dont forget Louis Vuitton!
M.VIB.M.
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - Robert Vermaat - 05-16-2008
Quote: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
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - SigniferOne - 05-16-2008
Yes, but positing the two 'famous' equippages of the Roman soldier, the Polybian and the Augustan, is different from saying that he never had a standardized look, or that his look changed too fast to allow any definition at all. The definition, for me at least, is very simple:
the Republican soldier: Polybian.
Pax Romana soldier: Augustan.
There's no complexity there, for me. Late soldiers fall in neither of the two categories, and are associated with a period most people would find depressing. So it's no wonder that the Late soldier is unfamiliar to them.. I wouldn't blame them.
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - Marcus Mummius - 05-16-2008
Quote:Yes, but positing the two 'famous' equippages of the Roman soldier, the Polybian and the Augustan, is different from saying that he never had a standardized look, or that his look changed too fast to allow any definition at all. The definition, for me at least, is very simple:
the Republican soldier: Polybian.
Pax Romana soldier: Augustan.
What do you mean with 'famous' equippage and standardized look? This wasn't true for 1st or 2nd century either. There was a mix of armour types (scale, mail, segmentata), pugio types (A,B,C,...), gladius types (Mainz, Pompei,...). Pila existed in all shapes and sizes, different shield types, no helmet was the same,...
Like Rovert said, the state fabricae with their mass production led to more standardisation of the military equipment in the Late Roman period than before IMO...
Re: Why did the roman army become so "strange" later o - SigniferOne - 05-17-2008
Quote:What do you mean with 'famous' equippage and standardized look? This wasn't true for 1st or 2nd century either. There was a mix of armour types (scale, mail, segmentata), pugio types (A,B,C,...), gladius types (Mainz, Pompei,...). Pila existed in all shapes and sizes, different shield types, no helmet was the same,...
The infantry of the line were largely segmentata. Pugios had different types, but they were basically a pugio. Does an average person care for a difference of 0.5 inches? Same goes for the gladius -- the type of it is really for the historical junkies, and the differentiation really does not matter, since it's a gladius in essence, and all is said by that name. So you have a man with a pugio, with a gladius, with a segmentata, with a horned Gallic helmet (again, a general style prevails). The difference isn't as nearly as large as would seem, and a common person seems to think so too.