We know in the late Empire there were the fabrica, and some of them could have started earlier. But I was wondering about earlier and also whether the fabrica had a monopoly
I came across these quotes
"for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there. So long, indeed, as Hadrian was close by in Egypt and again in Syria, they remained quiet, save in so far as they purposely made of poor quality such weapons as they were called upon to furnish, in order that the Romans might reject them and they themselves might thus have the use of them; but when he went farther away, they openly revolted."
Cass. Dio, LXIX, 12.
Tac., Hist., II, 82, tells of how Vespasian ordered the cities to produce weapons in occasion of the war against Vitellius (69 AD): "The first business of the war was to hold levies and to recall the veterans to the colours. The strong towns were selected to manufacture arms; gold and silver were minted at Antioch; and all these preparations, each in its proper place, were quickly carried forward by expert agents. Vespasian visited each place in person, encouraged the workmen, spurring on the industrious by praise and the slow by his example, concealing his friends' faults rather than their virtues".
Now one thing that struck me was if these weapons are produced by 'private' manufacturers, obviously they could make other things when not fulfilling arms contracts.
But given that in theory the population was no allowed to bear arms, you would have thought that blacksmiths might be a bit lost when it came to specialist work like sword making. But you have Luke 22: 36 "He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
The disciples turned round and said "See, Lord, here are two swords" (Sword being machairan)
So when even wandering preachers could go round tooled up, it looks as if there wasn't a shortage of weaponry being made.
Veg. Mil., II, 11: "The legion had a train of joiners, masons, carpenters, smiths, painters, and workmen of every kind for the construction of barracks in the winter-camps and for making or repairing the wooden towers, arms, carriages and the various sorts of machines and engines for the attack or defense of places. They had also traveling workshops in which they made shields, cuirasses, helmets, bows, arrows, javelins and offensive and defensive arms of all kinds. The ancients made it their chief care to have everything for the service of the army within the camp. [...] All these were under the direction of the officer called praefectus fabrum".
Just wondering if anybody has any more interesting references?
That's an interesting one Jim. Gildas had something to say about it.
They urge the Britons, rather, to accustom themselves to arms, and fight bravely, so as to save with all their might their land, property, wives, children, and, what is greater than these, their liberty and life: they should not, they urge, in any way hold forth their hands armourless to be bound by nations in no way stronger than themselves, unless they became' effeminate through indolence and listlessness; but have them provided with bucklers, swords and spears, and ready for striking. Because they were also of opinion that it would bring a considerable advantage to the people they were leaving, they construct a wall, different from the other, by public and private contributions, joining the wretched inhabitants to themselves: they build the wall in their accustomed mode of structure, in a straight line, across from sea to sea, between cities, which perhaps had been located there through fear of enemies; they give bold counsel to the people in their fear, and leave behind them patterns for the manufacture of arms.
Gildas DEB 18
It seems the fabricae existed only from the time of Diocletian according to this study (https://www.academia.edu/572898/The_state_factories_fabricae_during_the_time_of_tetrarchy), and these references come from (or refer to) the principate period and earlier. Roman arms manufacture during the Republic and Principate was concentrated in the cities, the logical places for mass production of military equipment. The fabricae weren't always located in places where significant numbers of troops were stationed far away from the major cities, hence it wasn't a question of obviating long-distance transport of weaponry. It seems that their principal advantage was cheap production: since each fabrica specialised in a weapon type they could mass-produce it more easily, and since they used slaves the overheads weren't so great. Which makes sense since from the Tetrarchy onwards money was a growing problem for the Empire. Late-Roman equipment was simple and cheap compared to that of the Principate or mid-imperial period.
yup...just look at the helmets, body armour (if any) and shields for comparison
Quote from: Justin Swanton on June 18, 2020, 01:30:14 PM
It seems the fabricae existed only from the time of Diocletian according to this study (https://www.academia.edu/572898/The_state_factories_fabricae_during_the_time_of_tetrarchy), and these references come from (or refer to) the principate period and earlier. Roman arms manufacture during the Republic and Principate was concentrated in the cities, the logical places for mass production of military equipment. The fabricae weren't always located in places where significant numbers of troops were stationed far away from the major cities, hence it wasn't a question of obviating long-distance transport of weaponry. It seems that their principal advantage was cheap production: since each fabrica specialised in a weapon type they could mass-produce it more easily, and since they used slaves the overheads weren't so great. Which makes sense since from the Tetrarchy onwards money was a growing problem for the Empire. Late-Roman equipment was simple and cheap compared to that of the Principate or mid-imperial period.
Now there's an article to read with tomorrow's lunch 8)
I was always under the impression that during the early period of the empire there were factories run private individuals as state concessions. But of course like most of my other impressions this could be wrong.
I checked through my reference books and could not find useful direct reference to arms factories apart from one which mentioned there existence near the German Limes. There were lots of references to weapons production facilities - including the smelting of metal - within legionary fortresses. Given the commonality and consistency of Roman armour, one guesses that there was an element of overall state control that maintained quality until the hard times set in.
privately run operations with the usual sweeteners for getting imperial contracts from central government is my take on it
I'd tend to the same view.
no reason to suppose that weapon manufacture and supply would be any different to other commodities such as grain or luxuries.
I've just been reading "The supply and standardization of Roman military equipment in the first and second
centuries AD" Written for a Masters Degree
The point made is that there isn't much evidence of standardisation.
As an example he looks at the picture of Helmet evolution from Connolly (picture attached)
His comment is "Here, the author presents a diagram of Roman helmets that, at first glance, seems rather convincing. Helmets that have a similar look are placed in something resembling a family tree, with the oldest helmets at the top. This arrangement, along with the connecting lines, gives the appearance of order and direct lineage, even though the entire diagram is a guess based upon the way helmets look. A close examination of the tree shows various visual inconsistencies. Numbers 9 and 10 in the evolutionary chart, for example, are from the same time period, the mid-first century AD, but have totally different features. How can a helmet be the descendant of another helmet from the same time period? The peaked cap of number 9 appears to be close to what is called the 'Montefortino' style, while number 10, which appears to be its descendent, lacks this prominent feature. The only real similarity between these two helmets is the fact that both are made of bronze. There also appears to be no rhyme or reason in choosing which helmets are placed at the top of the tree. Number 8, which was found in Holland and is supposed to date to the early first century AD, is placed at the top of the tree while number 5, which was also found in Holland but dates to the late first century BC, is placed in the second level.
Given their close resemblance, it is hard to understand why number 10 is not considered to be a descendant of number 5; the first inclination may be to say that number 5 is from Holland while number 10 is from Italy, but number 9 is said to have descended from number 8 and they were found in Holland and Italy respectively."
I think one problem is that people have assumed standardisation and therefore have assumed that swords, helmets etc have 'evolved' as the pattern was changed, centrally. This can lead to archaeological finds being dated by their presumed place in the evolutionary chart
But actually the various types could have existed in parallel in different areas
After all a local smith would know what a sword looked like, but if the legionary said to him, 'I want mine a bit longer' because I'm bigger,' or 'the optio has a nice one, I like the way it's narrower in the middle, make it like that' then he'll do it
absolutely Jim. There would not be a standardisation across the entire Roman world even in Italy. Variations on a theme plus the inevitable 'whilst on campaign' leading to differences will happen.
We might also consider the working life of equipment, how it might have been repaired or been subject to "mid-life" upgrades. Did the Roman army junk all the helmets in a legion when a new pattern was mandated , or did stocks evolve over time as the new replacement batches arrived allowing the least adequate current equipment to be retired?
Quote from: Erpingham on June 30, 2020, 02:56:01 PM
We might also consider the working life of equipment, how it might have been repaired or been subject to "mid-life" upgrades. Did the Roman army junk all the helmets in a legion when a new pattern was mandated , or did stocks evolve over time as the new replacement batches arrived allowing the least adequate current equipment to be retired?
Apparently they have found kit with several names on it, so a helmet could be passed down through several legionaries. So it's probable that the kit was only replaced when worn out.
Also as the soldier had 'purchased' his kit through stoppages in his pay, taking it off him without replacing it with something at least as good wasn't going to go down well.
When we get to the later empire we know they had the centralised production of a lot of things, so we can talk about replacement batches arriving.
But earlier the unit might have a bit of stuff in stock. A lot would be refurbished kit handed back by men leaving, which would sort of cover kitting out of new recruits. Then there may have been orders given locally to cover some production if you had more men coming than you had kit in stock for.
But a unit would probably run at a relatively steady state
It would only be if it had to be brought up to strength prior to being sent on a major campaign, or if it had taken serious losses that you would have to step in and buy in a big way.
I suspect that in a civil war there would be a lot of frantically getting everybody properly equipped and hastily bringing new recruits into the unit to get numbers up to strength
I suspect that richer individuals might purchase 'enhanced' kit and the lesser ones might have to just do with what they were given
Quote from: Holly on June 30, 2020, 04:45:35 PM
I suspect that richer individuals might purchase 'enhanced' kit and the lesser ones might have to just do with what they were given
Indeed some kit was 'enhanced' in that it's easy enough to get a craftsman to apply silver plaques to a belt or scabbard. Same with helmets, there's mention of silver 'helmet covers' being found separate to the helmet as 'hack silver'. Scrunched up and tucked into holes in walls
or even a different design intrinsically for a helmet etc. One wonders how much enforcement of standards was applied to teh rank and file...?
Quote from: Holly on June 30, 2020, 07:24:50 PM
or even a different design intrinsically for a helmet etc. One wonders how much enforcement of standards was applied to teh rank and file...?
I suspect it was a case of "We sold you a good helmet we want a good helmet back"
I suspect that if you got a fancy one as loot, it could be cashed in or if it looks Roman you could swap it for your own
one wonders as time went on, the requirement for equipment might have become generic ie make sure you turn up with a helmet, spear and shield in the cohorts colours or expect the Centurions vine staff to be inserted somewhere where the sun doesnt shine.....
if fact, a thought just occured to me. Maybe an allowance was given for the said prerequisite equipment and that you could 'purchase' from the quartermaster or buy a fancy set of stuff from a local vendor...?
I suspect spears etc were 'generic' and they'd have plenty in store. One of basic jobs was probably going through the store, reshafting those that needed it.
Shields would be standard and yours probably had your name on it and the front would have the unit colours
Swords were probably acceptable 'within reason' but decoration on belts, scabbards and similar was what you wanted. Remember culturally dressing up for war was the done thing. The unit would probably have approved of it
probably more so as the Roman Army became more Germanic in outlook and dress.....
Quote from: Jim Webster on June 30, 2020, 08:35:01 PMShields would be standard and yours probably had your name on it and the front would have the unit colours
"Lest the soldiers in the confusion of battle should be separated from their comrades, every cohort had its shields painted in a manner peculiar to itself. The name of each soldier was also written on his shield, together with the number of the cohort and century to which he belonged" - Vegetius.
Duncan, does the Vegetius quote imply that this was no longer the case if it ever was?
The shield patterns on Trajan's column look as if they're by legion and that the sculptors included the shields so that the units on the expedition could be identified?
Roy
Famously, during the wars of the triumvirate, new arrivals were picked out by their shields, so the assumption has been made that a legion was identifiable by their shields. If cohorts were different, then that makes it a tricky assumption to maintain. Unless there was an overall legion colour or similar and cohort distinctions?
I'm currently about to start painting a bunch of late republican Romans so it's important!
timely question Doug! If I were painting an early Roman army I would stick to the tried and tested same design per legion BUT thats just me and for convenience!
Just for variety, I am going with vexillations from two separate legions - one experienced, the other trained but inexperienced. I am justifying it on the basis that the inexperienced vexillation is ordered to accompany the old grunts on various minor expeditions to build up their confidence and skills.
Now all I need to do is arrange a swap shop for unused LBMS transfers, I am going to have a ton of type Y left over while needing or 2 of type Y.
Quote from: aligern on June 30, 2020, 09:03:52 PM
Duncan, does the Vegetius quote imply that this was no longer the case if it ever was?
It's in his description of the old legions, so he's not saying it's current practice, but that needn't mean it isn't.
QuoteThe shield patterns on Trajan's column look as if they're by legion and that the sculptors included the shields so that the units on the expedition could be identified?
I'm not sure how we can tell whether the shields on the Column are meant to be per-legion or per-cohort. However note that Rossi reckoned that the legionary shields with wreath blazons were XXX Ulpia (I forget why) - but there are two distinct legionary wreath-patterns. Two cohorts of the same legion?
Alternatively, the Connolly "legion panorama" with each cohort having the same blazon but on a differently-coloured shield would still fit Vegetius' statement.
Quote from: DougM on July 01, 2020, 07:54:41 AM
Famously, during the wars of the triumvirate, new arrivals were picked out by their shields, so the assumption has been made that a legion was identifiable by their shields. If cohorts were different, then that makes it a tricky assumption to maintain. Unless there was an overall legion colour or similar and cohort distinctions?
I'm currently about to start painting a bunch of late republican Romans so it's important!
Tansey's article (https://pdfslide.net/documents/m-titius-menas-and-the-insignia-scutorum.html) discusses the evidence for Late Republican soldiers putting their commander's name on their shields.
'Alternatively, the Connolly "legion panorama" with each cohort having the same blazon but on a differently-coloured shield would still fit Vegetius' statement.'
Which would fit the cohort distinction but be impossible to see at a distance, so identification of a new legion would be virtually impossible. Thanks for the Tansey link. Will try and get to that at lunch-time.
I'm tending to think that it may be a common shield colour, with cohort distinctions. But what would be the purpose? Unit pride? I can't imagine it would serve any tactical purpose, as you couldn;t distinguish at any distance and as a commander you want to be seeing the backs of men's shields, not the front! (Which would be a tactical hint you might be in the wrong place.)
Quote from: DougM on July 01, 2020, 08:57:09 AM
I'm tending to think that it may be a common shield colour, with cohort distinctions. But what would be the purpose? Unit pride? I can't imagine it would serve any tactical purpose, as you couldn;t distinguish at any distance and as a commander you want to be seeing the backs of men's shields, not the front! (Which would be a tactical hint you might be in the wrong place.)
If you find yourself alone, riding in green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled. For you are in Elysium and you are already dead! ;D
Don't forget that being an effective killing machine was only one part of the legionary role. They all seemed to be expected to have another craft or skill including construction and different sorts of engineering and were often put to work as a state construction company when not physically defending the empire (or supporting the latest usurper). Archaeologists have found remains of iron smelting in various fortresses, so it is likely that some equipment manufacture / repair was carried out locally. Whether this made them self-sufficient or just resilient if the supply chain - in whatever form that took - failed, I don't know.
Quote from: dwkay57 on July 01, 2020, 04:47:16 PM
Don't forget that being an effective killing machine was only one part of the legionary role. They all seemed to be expected to have another craft or skill including construction and different sorts of engineering and were often put to work as a state construction company when not physically defending the empire (or supporting the latest usurper). Archaeologists have found remains of iron smelting in various fortresses, so it is likely that some equipment manufacture / repair was carried out locally. Whether this made them self-sufficient or just resilient if the supply chain - in whatever form that took - failed, I don't know.
I think it's generally accepted that what you might call running repairs were probably done in the unit. Mind you, given that in 'peace time' units could be spread over half a province in various places doing various jobs, if you break something, it might be months before you get back to the Legionary barracks so it'll be a visit to the local smith/leather worker.
I suspect that if the legion was gathered into one place for pay parade or similar you'd probably find that even if they had roughly the same helmet, you'd see a lot of different thicknesses and lengths of chin straps, and probably with fittings re-riveted by local smiths because it broke when he was out on detached duty somewhere
running repairs will out of necessity have to happen on campaign and as stated a lot of legionaries had a non fighting skill to compliment their training. I just wonder how much adherence to standards would be enforced by NCOs and officers especially on campaign
Quote from: Holly on July 01, 2020, 06:03:51 PM
running repairs will out of necessity have to happen on campaign and as stated a lot of legionaries had a non fighting skill to compliment their training. I just wonder how much adherence to standards would be enforced by NCOs and officers especially on campaign
I would ask how much adherence to standards there would be at any time?
Why should there be?
We have a cultural construct that soldiers are uniformly equipped 'automatons' which arrived with the wars of the Age of Reason
Had we been having this discussion in 1520 or 1620 we would not have turned a hair if we had pikemen in our unit with six different models of breast plate, or our horse had three or four totally different helmet types.
I suspect there would have to be a minimum standard, but I suspect it could be entirely possible that a recruit went into action wearing the padded under armour because his mail or whatever still hadn't been made ready yet.
Also because you fight the same way i cannot imagine they would allow somebody to come in with a sword with a blade a foot longer than his mates (unless he was an officer) but we know that individuals could have individual levels of decoration they paid for themselves. Also I cannot imagine there being a problem if in a cohort you had five somewhat different patterns of Gladius. How will that effect military efficiency?
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 01, 2020, 06:41:38 PM
Quote from: Holly on July 01, 2020, 06:03:51 PM
running repairs will out of necessity have to happen on campaign and as stated a lot of legionaries had a non fighting skill to compliment their training. I just wonder how much adherence to standards would be enforced by NCOs and officers especially on campaign
I would ask how much adherence to standards there would be at any time?
Why should there be?
We have a cultural construct that soldiers are uniformly equipped 'automatons' which arrived with the wars of the Age of Reason
Had we been having this discussion in 1520 or 1620 we would not have turned a hair if we had pikemen in our unit with six different models of breast plate, or our horse had three or four totally different helmet types.
I suspect there would have to be a minimum standard, but I suspect it could be entirely possible that a recruit went into action wearing the padded under armour because his mail or whatever still hadn't been made ready yet.
Also because you fight the same way i cannot imagine they would allow somebody to come in with a sword with a blade a foot longer than his mates (unless he was an officer) but we know that individuals could have individual levels of decoration they paid for themselves. Also I cannot imagine there being a problem if in a cohort you had five somewhat different patterns of Gladius. How will that effect military efficiency?
I agree Jim. We must try to avoid viewing the past through the spectacles of our own modern standards. Even in modern times, how often have you seen olive body armour over choc chip camo fatigues in Iraq/Afganistan?
I remember a photo of the first post-Saddam military police unit passing out, all equipped by the American army. A mix of black and brown belts, blue and green blouses and trousers, with berets of varying colours with and without unit badges. The only uniform feature was the black moustache sported by every man. I can't imagine ancient armies being much more uniform.
Cheers
Mick
Border/limitanei units would be even more heterogeneous!
Quote from: Holly on July 01, 2020, 09:49:21 PM
Border/limitanei units would be even more heterogeneous!
In the later empire you get more centralised supply, but how well that worked on the borders is moot. Firstly one assumes the field armies would get first pick of what was there
Also when it came to clothing etc, the military supply system has always relied on 'three sizes fit all' and getting soldiers (or their wives, mothers or girlfriends) to make it fit better.
One could assume that on the borders there would be people associated with the unit (be the soldiers with the knack, wives or whatever) who would knock up trousers and tunic of approximately the right colour rather than wait for the next consignment to come along. After all, somebody had to be the one who would sew on the embroidered panels after taking them off the last garment
Long ago, I read an article on Roman legions which compared their uniformity with that of school children in their uniforms. At a distance they looked like they were dressed the same but as you got closer you saw some had new uniforms, some hand-me-downs. Styles and shades were slightly different, shoes were different, different classes had developed styles of tie tying and so on. A corrective to the Guards on parade image.
In Early Modern Europe, soldiers were often issued so and so many ells of cloth, which they were supposed to turn into clothes themselves, or get a tailor/wife/whatever to do it for them. Presumably this resulted in a lot more uniformity of colours than of cut.
But do we know how the supply of clothes to legionaries at any period was supposed to work even in theory?
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 02, 2020, 08:38:43 AMBut do we know how the supply of clothes to legionaries at any period was supposed to work even in theory?
We have a papyrus from the "receivers of public garments" recording delivery of cloaks and tunics from weavers in Egypt to soldiers in Judaea, dated AD128, and another for soldiers in Cappadocia iin 138; there's a document from a cohort in Moesia sending men abroad, probably to Gaul, to obtain clothing; a plaque with an inscription from a vexillation of I Adiutrix to a clothes-dealer doing business for them in (probably) Gaul... it looks like a system of taxation in kind, at least in the East, supplemented by individual units working with private contractors. These references from essays in
Wearing the Cloak (https://amazon.co.uk/Wearing-Cloak-Dressing-Soldier-TEXTILES-ebook/dp/B00MZKAU6C/).
What about socks...? as in those posted to Northern Britain.....surely non standard issue ;D
Quote from: Holly on July 02, 2020, 10:34:51 PM
What about socks...? as in those posted to Northern Britain.....surely non standard issue ;D
And thus traditional English dress of socks and sandals.
Quote from: DougM on July 02, 2020, 11:13:21 PM
Quote from: Holly on July 02, 2020, 10:34:51 PM
What about socks...? as in those posted to Northern Britain.....surely non standard issue ;D
And thus traditional English dress of socks and sandals.
yea gods...the shame
Quote from: Holly on July 02, 2020, 10:34:51 PM
What about socks...? as in those posted to Northern Britain.....surely non standard issue ;D
http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/4DLink2/4DACTION/WebRequestQuery?searchTerm=346&searchType=number&searchField=TVII
that was the reference I was referring to Duncan....when in Britain...send socks and underpants ;D
Quote from: Holly on July 03, 2020, 09:00:31 AM
that was the reference I was referring to Duncan....when in Britain...send socks and underpants ;D
supplementing normal issue, or were they just not army issue?
Quote from: Holly on July 03, 2020, 09:00:31 AM
that was the reference I was referring to Duncan....when in Britain...send socks and underpants ;D
Ah the famous Commandos of the Roman Legions. ::)
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 03, 2020, 12:45:47 PM
Quote from: Holly on July 03, 2020, 09:00:31 AM
that was the reference I was referring to Duncan....when in Britain...send socks and underpants ;D
supplementing normal issue, or were they just not army issue?
stout hessian weave....
Well we have here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RUN-TGktYLYC&pg=PT33&lpg=PT33&dq=roman+army+issue+socks&source=bl&ots=PSQydHBiNp&sig=ACfU3U3babuMLHatr4XuePLOd46F7y2K8w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvqvHQj7HqAhX8TRUIHUxpDcM4ChDoATABegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=roman%20army%20issue%20socks&f=false)an instance of pay deductions for socks, suggesting that they were issued, at least to some troops in that well-known frozen northern wasteland, Egypt.
Quote from: Duncan Head on July 03, 2020, 01:53:27 PM
Well we have here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RUN-TGktYLYC&pg=PT33&lpg=PT33&dq=roman+army+issue+socks&source=bl&ots=PSQydHBiNp&sig=ACfU3U3babuMLHatr4XuePLOd46F7y2K8w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvqvHQj7HqAhX8TRUIHUxpDcM4ChDoATABegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=roman%20army%20issue%20socks&f=false)an instance of pay deductions for socks, suggesting that they were issued, at least to some troops in that well-known frozen northern wasteland, Egypt.
A chap I knew (dead now) swore that Egypt can get very cold at night ;D
Thanks for the source. It does look as if socks were a standard issue
Even with sandals
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 03, 2020, 02:01:58 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on July 03, 2020, 01:53:27 PM
Well we have here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RUN-TGktYLYC&pg=PT33&lpg=PT33&dq=roman+army+issue+socks&source=bl&ots=PSQydHBiNp&sig=ACfU3U3babuMLHatr4XuePLOd46F7y2K8w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvqvHQj7HqAhX8TRUIHUxpDcM4ChDoATABegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=roman%20army%20issue%20socks&f=false)an instance of pay deductions for socks, suggesting that they were issued, at least to some troops in that well-known frozen northern wasteland, Egypt.
A chap I knew (dead now) swore that Egypt can get very cold at night ;D
Thanks for the source. It does look as if socks were a standard issue
Even with sandals
And cue thousands of wargamers repainting hundreds of thousands of tiny little Roman toes from flesh to sock colour. My Romans are of course, wearing their flesh-coloured sock issue.
Quote from: DougM on July 03, 2020, 02:09:09 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 03, 2020, 02:01:58 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on July 03, 2020, 01:53:27 PM
Well we have here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RUN-TGktYLYC&pg=PT33&lpg=PT33&dq=roman+army+issue+socks&source=bl&ots=PSQydHBiNp&sig=ACfU3U3babuMLHatr4XuePLOd46F7y2K8w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvqvHQj7HqAhX8TRUIHUxpDcM4ChDoATABegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=roman%20army%20issue%20socks&f=false)an instance of pay deductions for socks, suggesting that they were issued, at least to some troops in that well-known frozen northern wasteland, Egypt.
A chap I knew (dead now) swore that Egypt can get very cold at night ;D
Thanks for the source. It does look as if socks were a standard issue
Even with sandals
And cue thousands of wargamers repainting hundreds of thousands of tiny little Roman toes from flesh to sock colour. My Romans are of course, wearing their flesh-coloured sock issue.
early camo design....
Here is a British example of Roman footwear style.
(https://i2.wp.com/newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41163000/jpg/_41163867_romansocklong.jpg)
Certainly in 25/28mm, that roll-top should be visible on the figure.
Quote from: Erpingham on July 03, 2020, 02:25:56 PM
Here is a British example of Roman footwear style.
(https://i2.wp.com/newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41163000/jpg/_41163867_romansocklong.jpg)
Certainly in 25/28mm, that roll-top should be visible on the figure.
Wow, that's a bit brilliant.. did they also become fully acclimatised to England, and start replacing helmets with hankies tied in knots at the corners?
Quote from: DougM on July 03, 2020, 05:14:56 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on July 03, 2020, 02:25:56 PM
Here is a British example of Roman footwear style.
(https://i2.wp.com/newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41163000/jpg/_41163867_romansocklong.jpg)
Certainly in 25/28mm, that roll-top should be visible on the figure.
Wow, that's a bit brilliant.. did they also become fully acclimatised to England, and start replacing helmets with hankies tied in knots at the corners?
and introduce string vests too...
Quote from: Holly on July 03, 2020, 05:20:18 PM
Quote from: DougM on July 03, 2020, 05:14:56 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on July 03, 2020, 02:25:56 PM
Here is a British example of Roman footwear style.
(https://i2.wp.com/newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41163000/jpg/_41163867_romansocklong.jpg)
Certainly in 25/28mm, that roll-top should be visible on the figure.
Wow, that's a bit brilliant.. did they also become fully acclimatised to England, and start replacing helmets with hankies tied in knots at the corners?
and introduce string vests too...
Ah.. the little known Legio XXXVII & Bar (Yorkshire)
Quote from: DougM on July 03, 2020, 05:49:55 PM
Quote from: Holly on July 03, 2020, 05:20:18 PM
Quote from: DougM on July 03, 2020, 05:14:56 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on July 03, 2020, 02:25:56 PM
Here is a British example of Roman footwear style.
(https://i2.wp.com/newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41163000/jpg/_41163867_romansocklong.jpg)
Certainly in 25/28mm, that roll-top should be visible on the figure.
Wow, that's a bit brilliant.. did they also become fully acclimatised to England, and start replacing helmets with hankies tied in knots at the corners?
and introduce string vests too...
Ah.. the little known Legio XXXVII & Bar (Yorkshire)
but what I am unsure about is if the deckchairs should have regimental colours or down to local flavour
Quote from: Holly on July 03, 2020, 05:56:35 PM
but what I am unsure about is if the deckchairs should have regimental colours or down to local flavour
At the 'end' of Roman Britain, some claim to be able to trace British units because of the decoration on various items of kit. So the deckchairs might not be too far from the mark ;)
;D
So apart from Romans being painted wearing socks and sandals and knotted hankies under their various forms of helmets and wearing different shades of tunic, has this discussion affected any other battlefield attribute? I can see how it might influence some campaign mechanics if you are tracking equipment levels to a fine degree of detail.
interestingly I was reading about the shifting sands of late roman armour - ie how widespread was it. Surely this also ties in with the gradual decline of centralised issue and thus reliant on depots and local fabricae
Quote from: dwkay57 on July 04, 2020, 05:59:18 PM
So apart from Romans being painted wearing socks and sandals and knotted hankies under their various forms of helmets and wearing different shades of tunic, has this discussion affected any other battlefield attribute? I can see how it might influence some campaign mechanics if you are tracking equipment levels to a fine degree of detail.
In theory this is something all ancient armies would have to cope with. I've often pondered Hannibal's army in Italy. We know that Numidians 'married' local women, and they would be the ones who made their clothes for them. So styles would change. Armies would pick up clothes as they went along, prisoners didn't need them. Living off the land would cover more than just food 8)
undoubtedly Jim and the further afield the army went, the more kaleidoscopic the kit and weapons would ultimately become especially in climates different form the norm
Quote from: dwkay57 on July 04, 2020, 05:59:18 PM
So apart from Romans being painted wearing socks and sandals and knotted hankies under their various forms of helmets and wearing different shades of tunic, has this discussion affected any other battlefield attribute? I can see how it might influence some campaign mechanics if you are tracking equipment levels to a fine degree of detail.
Shoosh.. I have some Victrix figures to convert for campaigns in Britain (which is a but cheeky really, as it was actually more like campaigns in England and Wales).
just use any figure with a 'proper' unit shield design and bingo you're there...semi-native Romans
Ok, I thought I lost the thread somewhere around the woolly socks (Darn it! I didn't mean to make that pun).
Yes the logistics of putting and keeping a large army in the field is an issue, even with state run organisations. For irregular armies (if such things existed), especially those with lots of horses, it must have been even more difficult.
Quote from: dwkay57 on July 04, 2020, 05:59:18 PM
So apart from Romans being painted wearing socks and sandals and knotted hankies under their various forms of helmets and wearing different shades of tunic, has this discussion affected any other battlefield attribute?
In a sufficiently Watersonian set, the wearing of socks will render the Wascally Womans immune to cold weather penalties.
I see. So nomad horsemen in dbmm should have pony socks to avoid the hungry horses rule? 10 AP for socks as a stratagem.
QuoteOk, I thought I lost the thread somewhere around the woolly socks (Darn it! I didn't mean to make that pun).
Nice. I think you get bonus points for a double pun :)
"The supply and standardization of Roman military equipment in the first and second centuries AD" by Kevin Stover
"The state factories (fabricae) during the time of tetrarchy" by Piotr Letki
The above have just popped up on my academia "things you might want to read" email. Haven't looked at them yet but strangely seemed relevant to this thread.
Quote from: dwkay57 on July 29, 2020, 11:24:29 AM
"The supply and standardization of Roman military equipment in the first and second centuries AD" by Kevin Stover
Yes this is the one I quoted bits from in message 9 of the thread, well worth a read
Quote from: dwkay57 on July 29, 2020, 11:24:29 AM
"The state factories (fabricae) during the time of tetrarchy" by Piotr Letki
The above have just popped up on my academia "things you might want to read" email. Haven't looked at them yet but strangely seemed relevant to this thread.
Yes the second one is worth reading but by definition is mainly relevant to the later period
thanks for the references...
Ah that is why they seemed relevant! I thought they were familiar.
Did read some of the first piece and it was interesting, but lacked the time to finish it off.