Talk:Roman military personal equipment

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Roman & Byzantine / Classical C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Roman and Byzantine military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Deleted this portion "segmented armor." This is incorrect, since lorica segmenta was only commonly worn between the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE. After the Marian Reforms to the mid Imperial timeframe, the common armor of the Roman legionary was lorica hamata - chainmail. After the late 4rd century, the Romans reverted back to using a (less effective version) of the lorica hamata. Intranetusa 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an example of how an article should not be. Wandalstouring 15:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a compliment thank you. Rex 15:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sense getting insulting or insulted. The article needs a great deal of work of course. At the current time most of the work is in putting most of the write-ups in the main articles. Most of them now have main articles. However, the main article authors did not consult the write-ups in this article. Consequently the write-ups here are mostly outdated and wrong and mainly need to be removed. As I see it only a bare introduction to each item need be here, unless by chance there is no main article. The pictures seem OK. A good pictorial intro is nice. Ciao. Let's get on with it, shall we?Dave 20:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all articles being perfectly. Help out and improve it instead of standing around gaping, please. Wikipedia is a great site, where anyone can create and improve articles. Excercise your abilities (please; I agree that this article needs a ton of work...just cleaned up the ballista section, which was kinda frightening....)! --

The article concerns mainly Roman equipment. What more tactics are discussed besides the Testudo formation and the use of ballistae for sieges? Wandalstouring 19:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example the 10 men deep formations of swordfighters used at Cannae to break through the Carthaginian formation is nowhere mentioned. The tactic of flanking, like at the battle of the Metaurus does appear nowhere. Mentioning Alesia, it completly fails to explain the double defence works of the besieging Roman army and the critical cavalry maneuvers. There are far more examples to add... Wandalstouring 19:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK you mentioned the Tribulus, credit for that.Wandalstouring 19:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I screwed up moving the articel correctly. So the many early contributions of user, especially of Rex, who originally wrote it are no longer visible. I apologize for this error of mine and promise never to commit such a violation of wikipedia rules again. Wandalstouring 11:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For this one time I will assume good faith and see this as a very stupid mistake rather than calculated vandalism, eventhough I have reason to believe otherwise from this user.

Rex 12:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I AM one of the harshest critics of the stuff written here and I pointed it out earlier. I do absolutly not feel happy to have my name solely connected with this kind of article. Wandalstouring 12:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you ARE or think you ARE doesn't interest me. I said what I had to say. Rex 13:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RHaworth corrected my errors and restored the completene history of your contributions to this article. Wandalstouring 15:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an interest in the Late Roman army (say C4th-6th)and would like some further details on the later equipment to go up hereabouts (and organisation perhaps on another page again).

As a new contributer, I do not wish to charge in adding repetitive little chunks all over this page & think the best way to do this is via a new page, linked at the top & bottom of this page.

I would probably base it mostly on points from Bishop & Coulston 2006 (The Dominate chapter), plus Southern & Dixon 1996, perhaps Stephenson's books, with illustrations of reenactment equipment from Comitatus, my Late Roman reenactment group.

Any thoughts? Anyone wish to draft or help draft such a page?

Salvianus 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site certainly appears to require some work. Some initial decisions seem to be needed: 1) Is it to be a page on military unit types, military equipment, or both? 2) Organize equipment section by equipment type, or period, or both? 3) What sort of images - these computer generated, try to find useable line drawings, more photos of actual equipment? 4) Does a distinction need to be drawn more clearly between re-enactment equipment and period finds? 5) It certainly requires a good bibliography/reading list.

I offer my humble opinions though I have not invested anything in this page yet (though I have added the wikipedia page on "fibulae and ancient brooches"). 1) I would say move military unit type details to another page dedicated solely to them. (I think one exists already?) Focus this page on the equipment. Under each item of equipment note any specifics of use by any unit type. 2) What is more interesting and useful to the general reader? I would guess a break down by equipment type. For example one sword entry with details on swords through all periods of the Roman military. 3) I don't see the total war images as adding anything to the discussion of Roman military equipment, maybe to unit types but that is another matter. However, I don't know how you find good images of equipment. Not likely to get permission to use images from the new edition of Bishop and Coulston. Maybe from various museums' web sites?? 4) Though much valuable information about Roman weapons has come from re-enactors and from "experimental archeology" I think the site needs to be worded to make the distinction between the modern and the ancient a bit clearer. 5) I am willing to take a start by adding a few book titles and details. --Otlichnik 23:54, 6 September 2006

Since this page already contains non-weapons (eg armour) and I will be adding more, I am going to move this page to Roman military personal equipment. I will also restructuring contents since they are chaotic, make no distinction between weaponry of army at different periods, or weaponry of eg legions vs cavalry, is no mention of javelins, bows, etc. - its a mess at the moment basically PocklingtonDan 13:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a cite on the clour of roman military tunics. My brain tells me it is highly unlikely that roman soldiers wore brightly died tunics and that this is a later fancy, that they were far more likely to have worn undied or cheaply died wool of brown or grey. Anyone got a cite on the truth???? - PocklingtonDan 16:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this has come up a lot on the Roman Army Talk Forum. Bishop, M.C. and Coulston, J.C.N. 2006 Roman Military Equipment: From The Punic Wars To The Fall Of Rome, Second ed. Oxford: Oxbow cite the Dura Tribune Terentius fresco & Dar-al-Madinah mummy painting for white tunics with purple bands at hem and cuffs, painted C4th shield leather from Egypt. They state that white tunics are also depicted on the Late Roman Luxor and Via Latina frescoes and Piazza Armerina mosaics, while there is a red tunic on the Syracuse catacomb fresco. Both red & white tunics are mentioned in the C4th Historia Augusta.

Some have suggested a system, such as red tunics for officers, or for 'battle dress', while white is worn as 'dress uniform', but this is contested.

A great summary of the evidence is presented in Sumner, G. 2003 Roman Military Clothing A.D.200-400,Oxford: Osprey & much is further summarised at http://www.larp.com/legioxx/tcolor.html Salvianus 16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it seems their conclusions is as mine - either undyed or a motley colelction of numerous colours would be more plausible than red - why do all the re-enactment photos and illustraitons here and elswhere always show red? I know the issue doesn't seem to be decided either way but it seems the red tunic image is fixed in the images as fact. Ah well - PocklingtonDan 20:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right - the evidence is just too spread out over time and geography to draw firm conclusions & some of the representational evidence is very open to interpretation; many of the figures identified as soldiers are unarmed, others have shields & spears, but are actually hunting and so on. Some of my group's impressions can be seen at http://www.comitatus.net/trooptypes.htm (all fromt the Late period) Cheers Salvianus 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• We need more material on Late Roman equipment. I was inclined to create a seperate combined page on the Late Roman Army but can see the virtues of expanding this page.
• We need some description of the existing evidence and its limitations. This page probably shouldn't discuss individual finds, but the basic types of evidence (representational, physical, literary, etc.) and their limitations (inaccurate representations, for whatever reason; biased deposition, especially with weapon burials; and all sorts of problems with literary references) are all relevant.
• I suggest grouping all sword types together, all spear types together, etc. Jacob Haller 05:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the differences between different spathae are as great as the differences between most spathae and most gladii - perhaps greater than the differences between some simple Spathae without fullers and the early long gladii like Delos. And the spathae are not speciallized slashing swords (scimitars are specialized slashing swords!); the double-edged straight blade indicates that the swords could stab as well as cut. These are all dual-puspose swords though some emphasize stabbing more and others emphasize cutting more. Bishop & Coulston 2006 pp. 78-79 refer to the dual use of the older swords; p. 268 they note that the wider Lauriacum-type blades were better for cutting (they are also very narrow flat to flat and have fullers) while the narrower Straubing/Nydam types were not so specialized. Jacob Haller 05:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they are dual purpose swords with a longer reach than the gladius. A slash is near impossible with a straight sword, straight swords cut by hacking - like an axe - there is nothing wrong with the hack it is effective, but it isn't a slash.

Urselius 13:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, I suggest (1) moving the article from Roman military personal equipment to Roman military equipment and (2) consolidating the artillery, etc. in a new Crewed weapons section. Also correcting all the old links, of course. Jacob Haller 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll? Jacob Haller 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too was thinking that there should be another page on Roman Artillery or at least a section to itself. (BrutusCirrus 17:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Presumably this article is attempting to cover the whole life of the Roman army with reference to its equipment. At present it is dominated, ironically not by the Dominate, but by the Principate.

Any section on armour should include pectorals from the Early Republic and the muscle cuirass used by senior officers throughout the history of Rome.

What about thumb-rings for late period archers? the Mongolian draw is attested in use through Hunnic influence.

No limb armour - used by infantry shown on the Metopes of Adamklissi, cataphracts used the same armour type in the late period. Solid greaves were also used from time to time.

Horse armour? Chanfrons have been dug up as have scale trappers. Other horse furniture - Roman cavalry did exist throughout the whole history of Rome.

Urselius 14:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added that recent finds and examinations of segmentata parts found in Carlisle, UK, and Leon, Spain, indicate the it was in use up until the early 4th-Century AD. Also that finds at auxiliary forts suggest it may have been used by the auxilia.

tarbicus 14:01, 28 November 2007

Please add citations. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A legionary workshop of the 3rd century AD specialising in loraicae segmentatae from the fortress in Leon (Spain) by Joaquin Aurrecoechea & Fernando Munoz Villarejo; Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies, Vol. 12/13 tarbicus

• Added this section:

"The earliest evidence of the lorica segmenta being worn is around 9 BCE, but the armor did not become common until the 2nd century CE.Even during the 2nd century CE, the segmenta never replaced the lorica hamata chainmail for both heavy infantry and auxiliaries like."

• Also edited to include the fact that both auxiliaries and legionaries wore the hamata chainmail, and segmenta only supplemented, not replaced, the hamata chainmail.
• Edited the hamata information - it was used from the Republic onwards to the Empire, and it was used by both heavy legionaries and auxiliaries.

Intranetusa (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Higher quality chainmail in use by the heavy infantry legionaries, elements such as multiple layers of mail near the vital organs, etc Added more segmentata info. Intranetusa (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This smells rather like graffiti, though I am not sure (?):

Second paragraph:

According to Justus BoboRoman equipment (especially armor) gave them "a distinct advantage over their barbarian enemies."

--

I think this should be renamed to 'Roman infantry equipment' to match with Roman infantry tactics and also since not all of the weapons covered are personal. Anyone? Green547 (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article originally referred to the infantry carrying "missiles" until this was removed here. Is there some sense in which this was correct? bd2412 T 14:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pila, plumbata, other javelins, plus the slings that Vegetius recommends - all missiles. This needs checking against the original translation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, if I forget the word "sudis" but I want to look up its name, I would think that it would be categorized alongside things with a similar function in making fortifications. But it's currently listed as part of a Roman legionnaire's pack. This also makes sense given the text here. But I think perhaps it's worth splitting off items in the sarcina and listing them as appropriate in other sections for ease of finding them, while still preserving the description and contents of a sarcina. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]