Centralised Roman kit design?

[Anonymous]

Salve<br>
<br>
One thing that has been bugging me is how the Romans got such a degree of uniformity in their equipment types. I know that they had many different types of weapons and armour operating at the same time, but within that there is a remarkable degree of consistency - i.e. there are several types of Gallic helmet from different sites that can all be called 'G'. Also, if H.R.R. is right, then there appears to be convergent evolution in different families of helmets - just look at the neck-guards from the Gallic and Italic helmets - the Gallic 'I' and Italic 'E' have the same sloping design and appear to have been made at the same time. This would seem to imply that there was some kind of a central controlling authority that was dictating new innovations to the various makers, presumably by making pattern pieces and distributing them to the various makers around the empire. I know Diocletian centralised weapons production at the end of the 3rd century, but was he innovating, or merely restoring the status quo of 50 years before?<br>
<br>
Medeival and renaissance armour and weapons evolved from a variety of sources: spangly new kit being flashed around at tournaments (and artistic depictions of the event), the migration of workers to new armouries (i.e. Greenwich and Innsbruck), and battlefield experience including looting choice items from the defeated. To an large extent I believe that this dictated the early Roman equipment and their basic patterns (i.e. Greek and Celtic influence) but the later modification and improvements of equipment appear to have come from within the Roman army itself, and this is the area that interests me.<br>
<br>
What I am asking in all the above bluster, is what evidence is there for this weapons R&D in the early Roman empire? Or alternatively, did the evolution of equipment happen simply by market forces. One particularly innovative legion might approach their local contrators and order modified equipment, then as the soldiers and their kit get shunted around from unit to unit throughout their career, the idea would spread, which could explain why so many obsolete helmet types carried on in production, being contantly upgraded.<br>
<br>
Any help with this would be greatful appreciated.<br>
<br>
Vale<br>
<br>
Celer. <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

I am not an expert and I ask:<br>
Was roman equipment homogeneous? By how much? How many variations of helmet, and armour types could one find in a specific legion at a certain time?<br>
<br>
Evolving types would co-exist at some point so the legionaries must not have been perfectly uniform. Another question comes to mind: if the equipment belonged to a legionary (as long as he was such) then when he or a group of buddies were relocated to another legion elsewhere in the empire and they took their armour (is this true? or were they reissued new equipment) then the regional variations in helmets and armour would make groups look even more non-uniform.<br>
<br>
Maybe during the classic period of the imperial army there was a desire on the part of the legionary to be uniformily "roman"; i.e. regional variations were maybe small. In the civilian world one sees an attempt in the art of the provinces to emulate as much as possible Rome with it architecture, is dress and hairstyle fashions, everything possible. Everyone wanted to be "roman". This might have been a reason to strive for uniformity in looks even in the army.<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 6/12/02 9:46:15 am<br></i>

[Guest]

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>

[Anonymous]

Many thanks for that<br>
<br>
Just as a side note, do you think that the Italic 'D' & 'E' helmets were manufactured with the brass decoration, or whether it was added later by the owner. We know that soldiers upgraded their belts and pugios, but is there any evidence for them adding to other pieces of equipment (apart from the obvious cross-bracing on some Gallic lids)?<br>
<br>
The thing is I have just had a peek at my new Italic 'E' helmet and am completely stunned by just how amazing it looks (mostly Italic 'D' decorations, but with scary brass 'eyes' from a helmet recently found at Krefeld). I spent a bit more on having it done up to look nice, and was thinking whether there was any evidence for soldiers tarting up helmets in a similar way, or whether they just got a new one?<br>
<br>
Celer. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the reply, and good point about Romanisation.<br>
<br>
Regarding how many helmet types could be found in one (or two) legions, just look at how many different types have been found at Mainz, when there were only two legions based there ......<br>
<br>
Celer. <p></p><i></i>

[Daniel S Peterson]

I think that the Italic D and E helmets may have originally been intended for the Praetorian Guard. I seem to recall a line in Tacitus where he mentions legionaries grabbing Praetorian equipment off wagons by mistake. The Italian characteristics of these helmets suggest Italian manufacture and the eagle and temple motiffs suggest some possible "elite" status. This is often the helmet of choice of many reenactor centurions because of its decoration, though it is not particularly well made, in fact, rather average. Another thing that suggest this is a particular "class" rather than variation of the Imperial type helmet series, is how the same distinct style survives into the 3d century with the Gutmann and Grimidi helmets, possibly also intended for Praetorians. The same "mouse and loaf" motiff on the Gutmann helmet is repeated on a Praetorian tombstone, though cannot say this has any significance.<br>
<br>
From inscriptions, manufacturing techniques and find spots, I believe that the brass Imperial Gallic I series helmets (Mainz, Aquincum and Gutmann) were Italian copies of contemporary iron Gallic helmets, but made in italy (where there was a huge cupric pot making industry), specifically for the two new Adiutrix legions raised in that region.<br>
<br>
One of the best examples of all for Roman military equipment "homogneity" would the the deep, 3d century Niederbieber type helmet now at Florenzce, that was purposely converted into the classic "light" Roman ridge helmet, apparently to be "uniform" with this later, and cheaper type of head defense.<br>
<br>
Dan <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
Tacitus, <i> Historiae</i> 1.38 (text and translation<br>
<br>
<i> ... aperire deinde armamentarium iussit. Rapta statim arma, sine more et ordine militiae, ut praetorianus aut legionarius insignibus suis distingueretur: miscentur auxiliaribus galeis scutisque, nullo tribunorum centurionumve adhortante, sibi quisque dux et instigator...</i><br>
<br>
'... afterwards he gave the order to open the armoury. Immediately arms were seized, without consideration of established custom and branch of service, by which praetorian and legionary are distinguished by their insignia: these were mixed with helmets and shields of auxiliaries, with none of the tribunes or centurions encouraging them, but each one for himself leader and instigator ...'<br>
<br>
This passage refers to an incident in Rome where weapons were stored away due to the customary divide between peace and war along the <i> pomerium</i>. The <i> insignia</i> may refer just to shield designs, as according to Tacitus some soldiers, likely to have been praetorians since these are referred to just before this part, were able to infiltrate opposing legionary lines.<br>
<br>
<i> Historiae</i> 3.23<br>
<br>
<i> ...Namque Vitelliani tormenta in aggerem viae contulerant ut tela vacuo atque aperto excuterentur, dispersa primo et arbustis sine hostium noxa inlisa. Magnitudine eximia quintae decimae legionis ballista ingentibus saxis hostilem aciem proruebat. Lateque cladem intulisset ni duo milites praeclarum facinus ausi, arreptis e strage scutis ignorati, vincla ac libramenta tormentorum abscidissent. Statim confossi sunt eoque intercidere nomina: de facto haud ambigitur. ...</i><br>
<br>
'... The Vitellians had brought the artillery together on the causeway so that the missiles could be fired from a clear and open spot, (missiles) that at first were dispersed and had hit trees without injury to the enemies. A catapult of enormous size of the fifteenth legion was shattering the enemy line with enormous stones. And it would have inflicted defeat on a wide scale had not two soldiers executed a daring feat, not recognised after they had taken shields from the (site of the) slaughter, they cut the ropes and springs of the torsion guns. They were immediately cut down and their names have for this reason been lost: about the action itself however there is no doubt ...'<br>
<br>
This suggest that the rest of the equipment must have looked virtually indistinguishable from legionary kit.<br>
Another option is that ownership inscriptions are meant, since as their private property such items were regularly marked by their owners. Ownership issues also marked a divide between the various branches of the armed forces. Until now not a single <i> armorum custos</i> or <i> armicustos</i> has been attested for the praetorian cohorts, otherwise an epigraphically well attested unit, whereas an unique functionary called the <i> fisci curator</i> is. The reason for this was that praetorians, unlike the vast majority of the troops in the Roman army, were issued with kit that was to be returned on discharge. This imperial property was therefore registered by a caretaker of the <i> fiscus</i>. The privilege did not extend to the horse guards drawn from the auxiliaries, as the <i> equites singulares Augusti</i> did have <i> armorum custodes</i>.<br>
<br>
Speidel, MP, 'The weapons keeper (armorum custos) and the ownership of weapons in the Roman army' in: <i> Roman army studies</i> II, 131-136.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>