So as we all know Vegetius complains about soldiers not wearing armor. Does anyone have Milner's translation of this? I read the Clarke translation and have an idea, but Milner's is more accurate and I want to check him first.
Also I'm interested in his passage on "Legionary Troops of Horse" as well... possible evidence for lance-and-bow warfare being in place in the West.
This is a quick scan of the sections I can find about the things I think you want from Milner's translation but I am not sure if they are the actual sections you want.
BOOK I: RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING
20. What kind of arms and armour the ancients used.
The place (in our narrative) demands that we attempt to state the kind of arms with which recruits should be equipped and protected. But on this subject ancient practice has been utterly destroyed. For despite progress in cavalry arms thanks to the example of the Goths, and the Alans and Huns, the infantry as is well-known go unprotected. From the founding of the City down to the time of the deified Gratian, the infantry army was equipped with both cataphracts and helmets. But upon the intervention of neglect and idleness field exercises ceased, and arms which soldiers rarely donned began to be thought heavy. So they petitioned the Emperor that they should hand in first the cataphracts, then helmets.
Thus with their chests and heads unprotected our soldiers have often been destroyed in engagements against the Goths through the multitude of their archers. Even after so many defeats, which led to the sacking of so many cities,1 no one has troubled to restore either cataphracts or helmets to the infantry.
The result is that those who in battle are exposed unprotected to wounds, think not about fighting but fleeing. For what is a foot-archer to do, without a cataphract or a helmet, when he cannot hold a shield along with a bow? What are the dragon-bearers themselves and the standard-bearers to do in battle, who control the poles with the left hand, and whose heads and chests are obviously unprotected? But a "cuirass" or helmet seems heavy to an infantryman who perhaps rarely exercises, perhaps rarely handles arms; yet daily use makes light work even if heavy equipment is worn. But these men, not being able to endure the labour of wearing the old protective armour, because their bodies are uncovered are forced to risk wounds and deaths, and worse still, to be captured or betray the State by taking flight. So while they refuse training and hard work, they are butchered in the greatest disgrace, like cattle.
Why else was the infantry army called a "wall" among the ancients, if not because the serried ranks of legions shone in their shields, cataphracts and helmets? So much so, indeed, that archers were equipped on the left arm with an arm-guard, and the shield-bearing infantry were made to wear iron greaves on the right leg, as well as cataphracts and helmets.
BOOK II: THE ANCIENT LEGION
14. The troops' of legionary cavalry.
As the term "century" or "maniple" is used among infantry, so the corresponding expression among cavalry is the turma. One troop contains 32 cavalrymen. The officer-in-charge is called a "decurion". As 110 infantrymen are controlled by one centurion under one ensign, so 32 cavalrymen are governed by one decurion under one ensign.
Moreover, in the same way as a centurion is chosen for great strength and tall stature, as a man who hurls spears and javelins skilfully and strongly, has expert knowledge how to tight with the sword and rotate his shield and has learned the whole art of armatura, is alert, sober and agile, and more ready to do the things ordered of him than speak, keeps his soldiers in training, makes them practise their arms, and sees that they are well clothed and shod, and that the arms of all are burnished and bright,-in the same way the man who is to be chosen as decurion to be put in charge of a troop of cavalry, should above all be physically able to mount a horse while cuirassed and girded with all his arms in highly impressive style, to ride heroically, wield the lance with skill and shoot arrows expertly, instruct his turmales, that is, cavalrymen placed under his charge, in all things needed for cavalry warfare, and make them frequently clean and look after their cuirasses and cataphracts, lances and helmets. The glitter of arms strikes very great fear in the enemy.1 Who can believe a soldier warlike, when his inattention has fouled his arms with mould and rust? It is advantageous to school not just the men, but the horses too through constant training. So responsibility for the fitness and training of both men and horses devolves upon the decurion.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
"iron greaves upon the right leg"? Could this be a mistranslation? In other accounts and iconography going back to Polybius the single greave was always worn on the shield-side leg by soldiers and gladiators (except for the occasional left-handed gladiator).
Quote:wield the lance with skill and shoot arrows expertly
You see, this was the passage I was getting at. More evidence, be it sparse, that lance-and-bow warfare was already in practice in the late Roman west.
Quote:The result is that those who in battle are exposed unprotected to wounds, think not about fighting but fleeing. For what is a foot-archer to do, without a cataphract or a helmet, when he cannot hold a shield along with a bow?
This was the other one. It seems Vegetius is generalizing about the army as a whole, but is specifically complaining about archers/skirmishers being unarmored. A sliver of truth in a broad generalization?
(05-04-2016, 03:30 PM)john m roberts Wrote: "iron greaves upon the right leg"? Could this be a mistranslation?
Vegetius claims that in an infantry fight, the swordsman leads with his right foot:
"But when... the fighting is hand to hand with swords, soldiers should have the right foot forward, so as to draw the flank away from the enemy lest they be wounded, and to have the right closer so it can land a blow." (I.20, Milner trans)
This resembles a modern 'fencing' stance, and is completely opposed to the older 'shield forward' style of the Roman infantry.
Unless the torso was turned in a 'contraposto', with the shield arm stretched across the body and both shield and sword used together over the right leg, it doesn't seem to make much sense.
It doesn't seem to be a mistranslation, but I do suspect that Vegetius himself might be mistaken here. Perhaps it just sounded sensible to him?
"iron greaves upon the right leg"? Could this be a mistranslation? In other accounts and iconography going back to Polybius the single greave was always worn on the shield-side leg by soldiers and gladiators (except for the occasional left-handed gladiator)
I have 2 versions of Clarke as well as the Milner translation and they all say the greave on the right leg.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
(05-04-2016, 03:34 PM)Flavivs Aetivs Wrote: More evidence, be it sparse, that lance-and-bow warfare was already in practice in the late Roman west.
I think there's little doubt that it was. The various 'catafract' units probably also used the bow (the tombstone - 3rd century? - of a trooper of the nova ala firma catafractaria seems to show him using a bow, as does that of Durio, circitor of the numerus catafractariorum, from Amiens. We must assume that both these units also used the cavalry lance.)
The difference might have been that in the later army (post 3rd century?) the majority of cavalry were trained to use both lance and bow. Then again, Vegetius claims that infantrymen were also trained as archers...
(05-04-2016, 04:33 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: the tombstone - 3rd century? - of a trooper of the nova ala firma catafractaria seems to show him using a bow, as does that of Durio, circitor of the numerus catafractariorum, from Amiens.
It is interesting that you should see the rider on the tombstone of the two brothers in nova ala firma catafractaria as holding a bow. The object in his left hand is usually said to be shield but I have long wondered whether it might be a bow. The grip seems to be wrong for a shield and there is what appears to be a (damaged) quiver hanging behind his saddle. I am not so sure about Durio, however. The object he is holding is in his right hand and I have tended to see it as a curved sword.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
(05-04-2016, 05:13 PM)Renatus Wrote: I am not so sure about Durio, however. The object he is holding is in his right hand and I have tended to see it as a curved sword.
A curved sword would be a far more radical weapon than a bow for a Roman cavalryman, I think! Unless it's some sort of Dacian falx he's brandishing...
It is hard to make out, but the grip is odd for a sword - I see it as a bow, either held in the right hand, or in the left hand with the right hand also close to the stave (perhaps prepared to draw back the string?). Have you come across any other studies of Durio, or of similar stones?
(05-04-2016, 05:45 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Have you come across any other studies of Durio, or of similar stones?
Various descriptions of Durio's tombstone describe him as having a curved sword or sabre or, in a French book about Roman Amiens, as holding a curved object, perhaps a sabre or the insignia of his office. The best tombstone of a Roman horse archer that I know is this:
(05-04-2016, 10:00 PM)Renatus Wrote: The best tombstone of a Roman horse archer that I know is this:
Thanks - I hadn't seen that one before!
Durio's 'object' remains mysterious, then - if it's a sword or 'insignia' then he's holding it in a very odd way on a galloping horse. I still think a bow is most likely - the curve rises in exactly the place that the upper horn of a bow would appear if held on the other side of the horse's neck. The only confusing thing is what he's doing with his right arm...
However, Proclus above is a trooper of the Equites Singulares Augusti, and also clearly a keen horse archer.
(05-04-2016, 03:30 PM)john m roberts Wrote: "iron greaves upon the right leg"? Could this be a mistranslation?
This resembles a modern 'fencing' stance, and is completely opposed to the older 'shield forward' style of the Roman infantry.
Unless the torso was turned in a 'contraposto', with the shield arm stretched across the body and both shield and sword used together over the right leg, it doesn't seem to make much sense.
It doesn't seem to be a mistranslation, but I do suspect that Vegetius himself might be mistaken here. Perhaps it just sounded sensible to him?
Two parts of the same thing. The defensive posture (shown on gladiatorial depictions and on a Mainz column base) is left foot forward, knee bracing the shield, sword at the ready by the side; offensive with the right foot forward to enable the sword to be used to thrust (the point at which armguards became rather important). There must presumably be a step forward (rather than back) from defensive to offensive, akin to that necessary to cast the pilum. So long as everyone remembers to go the same way ('keep up, Jonesy!'), there'd be no problems.
All of which is considered further in my forthcoming gladius book.
Never forget when discussing Vegetius that he is only as good as his sources, which he uses like a school kid cribbing from Wikipedia (and which explains his various contradictions and confusions, particularly the cut/thrust dichotomy). To this end, Dankfrid Schenk's monograph is essential reading for the study of Vegetius.
Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles
In considering whether the personnel serving in nova ala firma catafractaria might have been bow-armed, it is worth bearing in mind the career of Barsemis Abbei (CIL III, 10307). He was a decurio in ala firma katafractaria (presumably the same unit) and had previously served in a numerus Hosroenorum and as magister in cohors milliaria Hemesenorum. He was a native of Carrhae in Osroene. Osroene was a province well-known for producing archers and cohors milliaria Hemesenorum, in which he was apparently an instructor, was presumably a unit of Syrian archers. It would seem possible, therefore, that he was transferred into ala firma catafractaria as decurion on account of his archery skills.
Michael King Macdona
And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
05-05-2016, 03:35 PM (This post was last modified: 05-05-2016, 03:57 PM by ValentinianVictrix.)
I did create a thread some years ago on this very topic, The Arms and Armour of Late Roman Clibanarii I believe the title was. My view is that when Constantius II greatly increased the numbers of the catafractarii/clibanarii their arms also changed to include the bow. There is also this intriguing section in book one of Vegetius-
'THE ARMS OF THE ANCIENTS
The manner of arming the troops comes next under consideration. But the method of the ancients no longer is followed. For though after the example of the Goths, the Alans and the Huns, we have made some improvements in the arms of the cavalry, yet it is plain the infantry are entirely defenseless.'
Now, we are fairly certain the Alans and Huns were dual armed with spear and bow, but the Goths? My thoughts are that the Greuthungi Goths may well have been armed in the Sarmatian style ie with lance and bow. They lived near to the Sarmatians and may well have been armed similarly.
