06-11-2002, 11:24 AM
Salve,<br>
<br>
Transfer of soldiers, both on an individual basis or <i> en bloc</i>, would have ensured influx of differing equipment. As the arms and armour were the soldier's private property he would not be reequipped. Weaponry and equipment came from a variety of sources. Part of it was manufactured by the army itself, part of it came from outside civilian sources, either in the form of levies (eg the spearshafts or practice spears mentioned in papyrus) or from commercial sources (such as the veteran <i> negotiator gladiarius</i> (sword dealer) from <i> CIL</i> 13, 6677). Some of the equipment was brought along by auxiliaries accounting for native, non-standard Roman weaponry, such as for instance the single edged slashing blade from Windisch. Government issue of these items was limited at most times and only extended in later times as an economy measure with issues in kind commuted back to cash grants when finances allowed. Most soldiers had to pay for their own equipment and that ensured that individual choice and preference would have exerted considerable influence. Both variety and uniformity of equipment would have been influenced by both demand - and supply side factors. Local manufacturing traditions and the personal acquisition of kit would have ensured variety, while serial production within the same workshop and considerations of fashion would have benefitted some measure of uniformity. Ideas of equipment being obsolete or outdated are probably more influenced by modern practices than ancient ones. There was only slow development in military technology and negligible differences in the level of such technology between the Romans and their opponents. Since military technology was of considerably less importance for battlefield performance than nowadays the drive to develop more sophisticated equipment would be less pronounced.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
<br>
Transfer of soldiers, both on an individual basis or <i> en bloc</i>, would have ensured influx of differing equipment. As the arms and armour were the soldier's private property he would not be reequipped. Weaponry and equipment came from a variety of sources. Part of it was manufactured by the army itself, part of it came from outside civilian sources, either in the form of levies (eg the spearshafts or practice spears mentioned in papyrus) or from commercial sources (such as the veteran <i> negotiator gladiarius</i> (sword dealer) from <i> CIL</i> 13, 6677). Some of the equipment was brought along by auxiliaries accounting for native, non-standard Roman weaponry, such as for instance the single edged slashing blade from Windisch. Government issue of these items was limited at most times and only extended in later times as an economy measure with issues in kind commuted back to cash grants when finances allowed. Most soldiers had to pay for their own equipment and that ensured that individual choice and preference would have exerted considerable influence. Both variety and uniformity of equipment would have been influenced by both demand - and supply side factors. Local manufacturing traditions and the personal acquisition of kit would have ensured variety, while serial production within the same workshop and considerations of fashion would have benefitted some measure of uniformity. Ideas of equipment being obsolete or outdated are probably more influenced by modern practices than ancient ones. There was only slow development in military technology and negligible differences in the level of such technology between the Romans and their opponents. Since military technology was of considerably less importance for battlefield performance than nowadays the drive to develop more sophisticated equipment would be less pronounced.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>
