"Late Romans - changing ideas on uniforms?" Topic

I've recently decided to start a new period (after 30 years in the mid-18th century) – late Romans, a period in which I have a more general historical interest. I dipped into this a long time ago and have a copy of Phil Barker's Armies & Enemies of Imperial Rome, as well as more recent academic works on the late Roman army.

My first step was to buy some of Rob Young's SKT figures, which dating from the 1980's are direct copies of the illustrations in Barker. Nice little men but not up to today's sculpting standards, so I sent off for samples from several current manufacturers (and examined others on their websites)and here emerged my question.

The newer figures clearly don't correspond to the illustrations in Barker either in dress or description. One of the most obvious differences is that none of the legionary figures wear breeches; they all wear trousers. And figures are not, it seems, sold as particular troop types but more by dress and equipment – so no lanciari or promoti as such, for example, but 'armoured' or 'unarmoured' infantry, etc. Command packs also show more variety of dress than Barker indicates.

So my question is – have ideas on dress and equipment changed and is the Barker book no longer reliable? Is the idea now to pick and choose figures from different makers to suit the unit, as no one manufacturer seems to make all the possible troop types? If there is a more up to date book
I'd be interested to know, as I haven't found one myself.

Sorry for such a long question but I'm just feeling a bit lost and any info would be helpful.

Good questions; I await the answers with interest too.

For dress, your best bet for more recent ideas are the Osprey "Roman Military Clothing" vols. 2 (AD 200-400) and 3 (400-640) and/or Graham Sumner's "Roman Military Dress" (History Press 2009). In short, yes, the general idea these days is probably for more variety than the old Barker book would indicate.

As for equipment, hardly anyone apart from Phil Barker seems to believe in the "moulded rawhide muscle cuirass" that he gave to his legionary; and the whole idea of armoured legionaries vs. unarmoured auxilia, for instance, is not one that everyone would agree with. I'm not sure that there is one handy reference to point to for current thinking, though. There's Ian Stephenson's "Romano-Byzantine Infantry Equipment" (2006) but I'm not sure there's a real consensus behind that any more than the old Barker ideas.

I have long been of the opinion that the whole "leather cuirass" interpretation comes from a misunderstanding of what is being examined.

In short, virtually every state, frescoes, etc was painted. Bright, often gaudy or garish colors by today's standards. Sculptors, knowing that their work was to be painted, would often, apparently, save time by NOT sculpting mail, but only the base garment. The artist doing the painting, would then paint on the mail over the base area. Over time, exposure and weather would take their inevitable toll, and the paint wore away. What was left was a solid area, looking much like the metal cuirass, and so folks, not knowing of the painting would easily mistake that former mail for a cuirass.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

@ John Clements
I don't know what scale you fancey, but if you go for 15mm then check out Legio Heroica, not cheap but truly nice figures.

Have a look at Simon McDowall's 'Late Roman Infantryman' and others in the Osprey series.

Nobody knows. And art would be stylized both in uniform and color.

The truth is that most infantry probably looked quite ragged and dress differed massively within units. Very few if any would have those lovely white and purple garments wargamers like painting on late Romans.

I asked a similar question here on TMP and the response was similar – Barker's is out of date (at least regarding LIR) and nobody really knows. Strikes me as odd, as we seem to have quite a bit of detail on EIR equippage.

Some ancient sources (Vegetius?) seem to suggest that within one unit you would see a variety – chain armor on the front ranks, shields only in the middle ranks, an armored reserve, plus archers in the very back ranks. I'm puzzling over this myself – hard to represent in miniature!

I am doing a "Late Roman" c. 250-350 AD. I am using Crudader, A&A, Musketeer, Foundry, and Aventine figures. The A&A are the fattest, Musketeer the tallest, and the Foundry the smallest. If they all given the same shield and spear they seem reasonably compatible.

Phil Barker's book is probably out of date, but still useful. Equipment in the Roman army was never quite as uniform as sometimes portrayed. By the "Late Roman" period troops such as Lanciarii probably received this title as a symbol of status, rather than as an indication of function.

TKindred: +1 That is my take on the issue too; good analysis. Some clues can be found in the Notitia Dignitatum:

link

It is interesting that the current view has swung to the H. Russell Robinson viewpoint expressed by Tkindred above.

In his 4th edition of 'Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome,' Phil Barker cited Robinson's 'Armour of Imperial Rome' as a source, but also stated his disagreement with 'academics' who 'ignored' sculpture and believed that LIR infantry didn't wear leather armor.

At any rate those later legionaries that I have in 15mm sculpted with 'leather' will just be treated the way the ancients did it – painted as mail.

My bigger complaint is that everyone still seems to go with the unarmored light cavalry. The Osprey 'Late Roman Cavalryman AD 236–565,' by Simon MacDowall, takes the view that all cavalry had at least the option for armor. Although it is stated that, as with the infantry, armor may have been worn primarily in larger battles.

As to troop types and appropriate figures to use, as a DBX gamer I am awaiting the printing of DBA 3 prior to basing more than legionaries.

Time was when I used to wory about such things. Now I'm more inclined to think that it's a fashion thing rather than an accuracy thing. Choose a source, stick with it unless it's obviously totally wrong, in 10 years it will probably be back in fashion.

I'm reminded on how the later Greek and then Helenistic armies abandoned much of their armor over time as well, especially when compared with the amount of equipment the Greeks wore during the Persian Wars. They seemed value an ease of movement, rather than additional protection.

I believe Sumner wrote that each Roman miles possessed more than one uniform. That would certainly add to the variety of clothing one would expect to find.

Thank you, everybody, for some very interesting points. I've ordered the Osprey books for starters.

Jarrovian – they're very nice figures but I'm stuck on 28mm. Thanks for the tip though.

What occurred to me looking at all this, and also at some of my archaeologically based books, is that no-one has ever found any remains of the leather cuirass, and it isn't mentioned in any ancient source. That makes me think, Rob,that it isn't just fashion. There's plenty of mail about and most of the other weaponry is well attested, but we don't know so much about what was used when (goragrad's point).

And the Notitia (DAF); well, that's another whole book of issues about what it really means and how trustworthy it is as a twice copied manuscript, so I'll leave that for another day.

Thanks again. Very much appreciated.

John

The consensus seems to be that the cuirass of Roman leaders was leather, not metal. The leather was worn because it was light, but still presented a martial appearance.

I doubt seriously that a leather cuirass was lighter than a metal one. Ones made of thin sheet iron, or even of brass, plated with gold & silver, along with appliqued adornments would be fairly light, and easy to wear since the weight would be more distributed across the body, and with an arming tunic underneath.

The thing is, leather, even boiled leather, is reasonably heavy. You would need to have a minimum thickness in order to have be molded as well as maintaining it's shape over time. Once molded, it would need to be treated with some form of resin or lacquer to make the surface suitable for covering in gold and/or silver leaf. It would also be prone to injury from all sorts of pointed/rough objects that His Majesty might come into while mounting his horse/carriage/chariot/etc.

The inside would also need some sort of oil/resin/lacquer to preserve it and keep mold/mildew from forming. leather, even tanned, is still an organic item and requires maintenance to keep it from decaying over time, especially in the humid areas of the Mediterranean.

Could it have been done? Sure. In a slave society there's no real lack of labour. But there isn't a really cogent argument I've read as to WHY you would go to all that length just to save maybe 2lbs?

V/R

The subject of leather and linen armor has been debated endlessly on Roman Army Talk, and I am firmly on the fence on the subject.

link

I am firmly on the fence on the subject.

As to weight, I built a 'Robinson' Newstead lorica in the early '70s out of 16 gauge steel. Never weighed it, but 'fought' in it in the SCA for years, summer and winter. Wore just a tunic under it – no padding except for a scarf at the neck. Some days during tournaments or 'wars' it was on for 8 hours or more. Weight was never a problem.

As Robinson noted in his book (the aforementioned 'Armour of Imperial Rome') leather to provide comparable protection to metal needs to be both reasonably thick and hardened. Once hardened you loose flexibility making the armors depicted in sculpture problematic. For example there is a grave effigy of a centurion (legio XX as I recall) where if the armor was hardened leather rather than mail Robinson noted that the centurion wouldn't have been able to raise his arms. Even then it is not as effective against thrusts.

Additionally, from my reading over the years most leather armor appears to have been constructed as lamellar not breastplates.

That link to RAT seems to focus on higher level parade armor rather than legionary field armor. And even there the leather fans seem to be the minority.

P.S. While Mr. Barker has done a lot of historical research, Robinson specialized in armor.

"The consensus seems to be that the cuirass of Roman leaders was leather, not metal."

This is perhaps a bit of a red herring because just about everyone accepts that "leaders", senior officers, wore muscled cuirasses, whatever they were made of. (And my own suspicion is that cuirasses made of several different materials probably existed.)

But the Barker Theory was that not just the officers, but the rank-and-file of the legions from the later 3rd century to the 5th or 6th wore cuirasses of rawhide moulded to the shape of a muscled torso. It has affected the design of a lot of wargames figures. Most recent writers, I think, would argue that any muscled cuirasses in art worn by apparent rankers are a product of artistic convention.

i think the debate about leather versus mail was run in the Society of Ancients years ago and the consensus was that the normal cuirass for Late Romans was mail. IIRC Phil Barker himself was of this opinion.
You can make flexible leather armour, I would cite ECW buff coats as an example, but generally I would go with the argument that the men are wearing mail and that the mail coat has been classicised to render it as like. hellenistic muscle cuirass in shape. There are examples in a Roman catacomb and in a sculpture in the Vatican sculpture garden which show long sleeved mail coats with longish ( to the knee) skirts.I think that in so far as there is a standard armour form that is it and that the difference between reality, which was brutal and efficient, and imperial sculpture was quite marked. My jury is out on soldiers with what looks like a short mail or scale coat that is fitted to the body ,perhaps padded to look like muscles and worn over an arming jacket with pteruges (leather strips) at shoulder and waist. It is a practical armour form, but was it really worn?
Scale armour coats almost certainly worn…we find the scales. They would look like the coats on the arch of Galerius and the figures on the Piazza Armerina mosaics. These have sleeves to the elbow and hang to mid thigh. Again it is really practical kit.

@Delbruck

What's with the Roman Army Talk forum?
Can't login, can't send a password reminder and can't create a new account.
Everything you click on just ends in an empty loop?

How do you paint a muscle cuirass to look like mail?
Seriously they are two nearly incompatible ideas. If the muscle cuirass was just artistic license 1) where did it come from? and 2) how would painting it make it look like mail?

I have serious issues with Barker cough celt-sowrd-bending, but his theory on rawhide armor for infantry troops in the later roman period actually makes some degree of sense. Not for every one, not for elite units, veterans, or just lucky ducks but for most heavy infantryman maybe.

1) Rawhide is both tough and light.
2) It's inflexible leading to a need for re armament such as a longer sword and a spear more useful for stabbing.
3) Its cheaper and easier to replace than either mail or lorica segmentata. As the romans fractured and lost ground to the germans and huns and such they would lose access to mines and smithies they had earlier. Weapons are a must for soldiers, and the cavalry was now the prestige arm of the army, so they would get better arms and armor. So supplemental materials may have been necessary for the armor for footmen and something you only need a cow a mold and time for sounds good enough to me.

Just my thoughts on the raw hide armor theory.

Which still has its respectable adherents.
Ivanov go have a look at the auxiliaries on the columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius. They have mailshirts on, but mail that is svulpted to go with the contours of a muscled body. Now we are certain that these chaps are wearing mail and sometimes it is actually carved to represent mail, but still with the muscle shapes showing. So what is happening here? Mail does not fit the curves of the body, it hangs from the shoulders or belt and shoulders. The sculptors are classicising Roman armour which is functional and and brutal by showing it in the style of a hellenistic muscle cuirass.
Those who do not believe in Late Roman leather cuirasses cite the fact that some are shown bending as evidence that they are really mail shaped a bit like a muscle cuirass rather than metal or stiff leather.
I'd go further, in real life the Romans may have smartened real mailshirts by curving the bottom and putting scalloped leather edging on them, but basically they wore simple mailshirts with, where possible long mail sleeves and skirts to the knee , that is to say practical gear, and that the alleged muscle cuirasses on sculpture are just fantasy….until someone finds one.
There is Roman period leather armour , a thigh piece comprised of leather strips and cricodile skin armour from Sudanese tribes. there is a lot of Roman gear found so, if they had leather cuirasses someobe should have found one?

Alright, I've just "'add a gawkk at Trajan's Column," and looked at the auxiliaries. At first it did appear that they were wearing muscle cuirasses in a few scenes. Then I compared them to what officers were wearing, such as Trajan, to see how the sculptors actually represented muscled cuirasses.
When sculpting a muscle cuirass the sculptors show straight lines of rigid body armor.

but when they do mail they adopt these folds in a shockingly un-solid manner. Such as on these standard bearers.

And these Syrians

And these Auxiliaries

And I don't really see "muscle cuirass" from these guy. But that probably wasn't what the sculptor had in mind because of this fellows.

link

Looks strangely like a scuplted mail shirt doesn't it? But what about these?

link

These are all from the column, and show that in fact the mail was sculpted. What is like is that on the guys with the smooth shirts the surface detail eroded over the centuries.

Now this isn't evidence for Rawhide armour, but it is evidence to suggest that when the Romans wanted armour to look a certain way they had their sculptors sculpt it rather than hit it with some paint.

Well the chaps on the Adamklissi monument which I think is your last link Ivanov, are made by legionary stonemasons and show mailcoats in a crude but realistic manner which we should contrast with the shaped mail of the Trajan column. It would be very difficult to make a real maishirt to fit that tightly and to follow the crease between the arm and the body. To fall in folds as the shirts of the standard bearers do the shirts would have to be incredibly fine.

What about the armour of the Asiatic archers ? that does not look as though mail is sculpted on its surface.?

Oddly "the Asiatics" seem to have some sort of thin upper layer in places that is mostly crumbled away. This could have been a sort of gritty layer that might have then been painted to give it the mail effect, if Trajan's column was painted, and this grit layer chipping away after 1800 years would explain the lack of any layers of paint.

Additionally how would painting something "like mail" work? How would it look? Has anyone here tried it on their models and feel up to posting the results? I promise not to throw you to the lions like an angry Roman emperor.

I built my Late Romans about 10 years ago, lots of conflicting evidence was around but I decided that:

(i) There would be a huge variety of undergarments from breeches to trews as the army by this period has many different races, fighting in a wide variety of areas, over the entire climate range from deep winter to high summer. Also, on campaign clothing would wear, supply was what would come to hand etc.

(ii) Mail was bloody expensive, and by the late Empire the army is expanding while the economy is contracting, so in my army mail is something only the front rankers get, in the better units (Legio, Aux. Palatina). Reconstruction of leather cuirasses at the time had showed they were surprisingly flexible and tough, esp if backed with layers of cloth behind. They are especially good against arrows and slashing weapons, spears are a bigger problem but that's what the big shield is for. (I've since also read about reconstruction of linen hoplite cuirasses proving the same) and the benefit of these is they are easy to make on campaign

(iii) As to unarmoured light cavalry, I decided there was a case for very fast moving unarmoured spear armed light horse, for scouting, raiding, pursuit etc. Mine carry the very large shield, I don't buy the idea that unarmoured horse would use small bucklers (and post DBM weth everyone mounted on the same base frontage it adds variety and helps differentiate them)

My army is "late" Late Roman, so I wanted it to be fairly un-uniform so I used Late Roman and various Germanic figures too. Mine is 28mm, I found that Old Glory's Arthurian range (Sub Romans & Saxons) had some great figures (design, moulding, uniforms etc) for the non elite Roman units and they are quite big so fit well with the bigger more recent figures (and what I didn't use for the Romans went into the Gothic warband).