"Getting into LIR - questions about Old Glory 15s etc." Topic

I'm starting (yet another!) new project – Late Imperial Rome. Specifically the 3rd century collapse/crisis and into the 4th century. But entering a new era, I can sometimes be overwhelmed by what I don't know!

Specifically, here are a few starter questions:

1) A lot of folks gaming this era seem to use the Old Glory 15mm range. They look fine, but I squint at their legionary picture and the armor seems off. Didn't the heavy infantry wear chain/scale mail in this era? I swear these guys are wearing 'muscled' leather.

2) Probably old hat, but do you differentiate between cataphracts and clibanarii? From my limited readings, it seems that historians consider the terms synonymous. Miniature makers, otoh, tend to cover the cataphract horses with more armor.

3)OG and others offer the Auxilia Palantina, which I gather were an elite, high quality force. But what about non-elite auxiliaries – did they exist? The Sword & Spear LIR army list has several types/grades of auxilia – what minis are appropriate for them?

Any help appreciated – I know some of my questions may not have definitive answers as the records of the LIR army are fragmentary!

1) WRG book "Armies and enemies or Rome" claims that there is no pictorial evidence of Romans wearing mail and wearing leather cuirass instead. Some others point out that it's a matter of interpretation of pictorial evidence and since other armies had mail, so Romans would have. I think that OG, in this case, went straight with WRG interpretation.

2) Originally, it's a Greek or Latin form of basicaly same thing. But terms evolve during centuries and possibly "clibanarii" became to mean lighter form of "Cataphract". We don't know if ancients really distinguished those words, but many names of weapons and armor came from 19th century historians that liked to categorize everything. Manufacturers and wargame designers just found it convenient.

3) LIR forces varied from each other in many different ways. Just because some palace unit counted as elite it didn't always mean it was elite on the battlefield. I am not familiar with "Sword and Spear" rules, you'll need to do some more research on that. I would highly recommend Warhammer WAB "Late Roman" supplement for very detailed description of LIR forces and organisation. WRG "Armies and Enemies of Rome" is a book written by wargamers for wargamers and must have for anyone who wargames Romans.

I doubt there would necessarily be a differenceon the battlefield other than the shield patterns but the bareheaded types in the Auxilia Palatina packs would be a way of showing the non-elite types.
If you look at the OG15s Imperial Roman range they have a late 2nd, 3rd and 4th century Auxilia pack who are unarmoured and wearing a Phrygian cap. They should be also okay for the run of the mill auxilia.

When I was thinking of getting some of these, I toyed with using the Arthurian or Belisarian heavy infantry figures (which I think are the same moulds) for the legionaries. There are those who think the moulded armour is still appropriate though.

There are various theories about cataphract and clibanarii. Go with whatever your rule set says :) Or which looks coolest. I've always liked the look of half-armoured horses.

I finally went with the Hollywood look myself after sorting through so many similar issues. That was a few years ago so there may be more available for literature and figs. Just my 2 cents with sympathy.

1) There is not any eveidence either way to say that the "leather cuirass" was not worn. They look like nice figures.

2) I make the Clibanarii half armored horse and the Catafract a fully armored horse. I'd also make the rider more of a mail wearing figure for the Clibanarii while the catafract can be wearing more rigid armor. It will make them easy to spot on the game table.

3) Simple Auxilia were raised from the local population usually. They would often have military equipment similar to the locals. This could be changed out gradually as they became more experienced and better equipment became available.

Thanks all for feedback. . .though it sounds like I most definitely jumped down the rabbit hole! There is evidence (or lack thereof) to support multiple conclusions. I probably do fall into the 'over-categorization' category, but I think that's natural as we need to tell one unit type from another on the table!

Igwarg, I think I actually have an old edition of the WGR book somewhere, found it in the clearance section of a local hobby shop. I will dig it up/possibly upgrade to a newer edition.

If you would like to see a painted version of the OG figures, here is a link pictures of a DBA army made from them.

link

The Armies & Enemies of Imperial Rome was last updated in the early 80s. Still a good book.

Buy the early Byzantine infantry BB03. They are in chainmail with ridge helmets… except the one pose in an attic helmet. Better poses than the Late Romans. In fact troll through the list for figures usable in a Late Roman army.

You can find a 'copy' of the 4th edition Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome on scribd should you care to use them. I have been using it as my copy of the 1st edition is 250 miles away.

As to the armor, while Barker acknowledges the claim by 'academics' (including H. Russell Robinson – Armour of Imperial Rome) that legionaries would have worn mail, he was still convinced that it was leather based on sculpture and paintings. Contrarily the Osprey Warrior 'Late Roman Infantryman 236-565AD' also expresses the view that metal armor was the default when armor was worn and that sculptors showing otherwise were merely employing classical conventions.

I have just painted up some OG auxilia, cavalry, and archers to go with some Tabletop (nice figs, I am planning on more) legionaries and cavalry that I picked up a few years ago on Ebay (also sculpted as leather). When I paint up the OG legionaries I do plan on following Robinson's view – paint the armor as mail as he felt the original sculpture was done. I personally am more inclined to go with the opinion of the fellow who made a life's work of studying armor (my Newstead is a Robinson). Unfortunately the auxilia have the decoration molded in the figure making it impractical to paint them as 'armored.'

Interestingly the Osprey History volume on 'Late Roman Cavalryman 236-565AD' by the (same author) notes that all of the cavalry were also equipped with mail for battles. Again not depicted on the available miniatures.

A couple of caveats with the OG minis – they are decently animated with a variety of poses which I found a bit of a drawback in basing them. The WRG convention was to base regulars in a uniform line with irregulars staggered. This can only be done with select poses using the OG figures (a minor caveat). They are also 'large' 15s – putting 4 cataphracts on a base was interesting – although it does convey the 'wall of men and horses' effect nicely.

All in all though the figures are good – not too much flash or mold slippage.

P.S. It is interesting to see how much influence the WRG Army books had – figures introduced at the time and for years after they were published all follow the illustrations and descriptions. Although Essex at least has changed the armor on its late legionaries from leather to mail.

P.P.S. Another resource on equipage that I have been using is visit the sites of the various re-enactment groups. A number of them have nice articles on uniform/clothing and equipment. And they seem to stay up on the latest archeology.

That's interesting that I touched on an actual academic dispute. I located my Barker book and it is the revised 3rd edition dated 1975. It does repeatedly mention that rawhide replaced metal in the later years, as it was easier to make (not sure about that, I always thought the muscled cuirass was labor intensive, and a symbol of prestige for officers).

Of course, chain is very labor intensive too, which is why I think leather with overlapping metal scales was probably used as a penny-pinching compromise (individual scales have been found throughout Roman Europe).

Now, for inspiration I'm going to watch 'Fall of the Roman Empire' with Sophia Loren. After that, booking a flight to Adrianople, where I will start digging and put this debate to rest once and for all :)