"Romano British shields " Topic

Ok we've all seen them, they have a mix of late roman shield designs, I even did the same thing with my 15mm army.

link

So my question for everyone here is this. Didn't the units when they retired/disbanded all tend to settle in the same area, and were also in the reserves (at first when the Romans were still nominally in charge, so maybes the system carried over for a while once they left) to be called up if needed for a certain length of time once they left.

Now if they settled in the same area wouldn't the shields all match to a certain degree, with the odd different one maybes. So you would have, essentially multiple small units within the army with the same designs, all being from the same village, hamlet, town or general area.

As time went on and as, I imagine, shields and gear was handed down father to son etc. it would get more spread out across the country side granted but how much ?

So should Arthurian armies be represented with say three or four stands with matching shield designs rather than everyone having something different form his neighbour? Yes I know a stand generally represents a large body of men, in DBx terms I think a heavy infantry stand represents 250 men roughly, so should the whole stand be matching, think 2,3 or 4 stands would be good as well for a large city.

Anyway thought to ask people's opinions.

I have yet to do Romano British and some figures I picked up second hand do have common shield blazons, but I take the approach that 'uniformity in pre-modern times was rare.

As you note the individual figures represent several hundred men so having multiple figures with common devices would be rare.

Of course my Roman Auxillia have the same shield pattern for the entire element.

For my Low Country militias I went with no more than two of the same device to an element although I did multiple elements with the same city colors for surcoats.

You're assuming that the shields (helmets, swords etc) were the personal property of the soldiers instead of being held in a central armoury which is more likely.
Medieval town militias for example were equipped from the town armoury. Local levies were supplied by their lord or else they showed up with farming implements. This was still an aspect of fighting during the Jacobite rising of 1745 where the local clansmen showed up with rusted locks or farming tools precisely because the average person didn't have weapons.

The Arthurian period is anything goes territory as not enough is known. You can expect the more Romanised centres clung onto Roman traditions longer so may not have looked much different to the legions of the late Empire. Others though with leadership invested in the rural elite may look more native – whatever that means at this time.
The Gododdin poem mentions warriors with torcs suggesting that they were still being worn, at least by the less Romanised population beyond Hadrian's Wall.

I suspect shield designs were less personalised and more uniform. If your fighting style is as a group then it makes sense that your group would attempt to have the same devices on their shields to show they share the same beliefs if nothing else. Likewise for nobles and their household cavalry, it makes sense for a lord to want his retainers to represent him or the cause he's fighting for so commonality is more likely I think.

Even with minor nobles showing up alone to form a cavalry block you could have 50 shades of the same design as they've done their designs individually but based on a common theme. Pure speculation of course.

"Medieval town militias for example were equipped from the town armoury. Local levies were supplied by their lord or else they showed up with farming implements."

This may be true in some areas, but for instance in England there were ordinances requiring certain arms to be kept according to level of wealth. The lowest level was indeed expected to turn up with 'rustic arms' though this could include long handled axes. Those who could be considered equivalent to a militia were expected to have their own gear. The thing which isn't mentioned at any level is a shield – whether this means that they were provided centrally, or that they were so obvious that they didn't need to be mentioned, or that they weren't required at this date (rather unlikely) can't be told from this assize.

All this is from long after Romano-British times, but does show that even when society has regained more centralised organisation, home-kept weapons are expected.

In areas where there was much fighting, I don't suppose Roman shield devices would have lasted long. The shields would be the most likely thing to be damaged and needing replacing. While skill and resources may have existed to replace the originals, the inclination may not have.

When the collapse came the general population would of had those nice garrison or town armouries to open up, as well as any units that didn't leave.

So the shields , I think , would of been the same in a general area, hence my thought. And granted roman devices wouldn't last long, but initially you've got all that roman gear and to a certain extent there must of been some trained armorers to make and repair the stuff.

When the soldiers retired or disbanded ( were given land at times, I assume it was all in the same area ) did they really hand all their gear in or keep it for when or if they were called up in an emergency ? And if they did hand the gear in what happens once the collapse happens, all the bureaucrats have gone who do you give it to ? Would of taken a little time to reorganise things a bit back to a level of central armouries etc.

These are just my thoughts, I have no way to know one way or the other, but it seems logical to me which doesn't always work in the real world.

Military units will collapse quite quickly when the system of feeding them collapses. If the soldiers are already provided with land to provide food then they may well still stay around . This is what is thought to have happened to the Franks and other units of foederati in Nirthern Gaul. Men still turned up at the muster and turned out when called up by representatives of the Roman power. Its quite simpke, if your legal title to your land depends upon providing military service then you are very lijely to keep providing that service.
Roman ‘regular' units such as the garrison of Passau appear to have disbanded when the pay ran out. Probably some might get hired by the local town or landowners for security duties, but that is lijely to be 25-50 men out of the original 3-500 nominal strength in a fort. There have been suggestions tgat the commander of a fort might have used his men to gain an estate and become a local landowner. Even if that were possible he would eventually only retain a few men as a comitptatus, nowhere near a whole unit.
If you are a soldier being disbanded then you might get a small gratuity on demob, but the mist valuable resource you have is your armour and weapons because you can sell those and this is most likely what happened because iron was a valuable resource. When that money runs out you have to get a job, soldiering for the new rulers perhaps, but more lijely labouring or pouring pints. Cavalry units are much more expensive to maintain than footmen . again once the food ran out the men would have to find employment. Horses might ge sold or even eaten. In 452 when Aetius gathers a Roman army to fight Attila the bodies of men that turn up are foederati and Roman limitanei ( frontier troops) that are settled upon land and are thus not dependent upon imperial taxes. It is likely that the paid troops had already dissolved.

Didn't they all just get them as a set of 16 different transfers from Little Big Man Shields just like how we all do today?