Excellent long form discussion of mail (whence it came, properties and evidence). He argues that it's mail that makes the difference in the rapidity of the Roman victories of the 2nd Century BC - with the scutum, the legionary in mail was near invulnerable to most weapons of the Hellenistic world other than the sarissa.
Thanks for the link. Looks interesting so will try it tomorrow
Very interesting. I noted the idea mail doubling over the shoulders of early mail suits. Rob had noticed this as present on some of the armies we are printing for Ilipa and initially thought it wrong and removed them but then replaced them after more research.
Quote from: Ian61 on December 05, 2023, 12:41:21 PMI noted the idea mail doubling over the shoulders of early mail suits.
The "traditional" explanation being it's due to fighting people armed with cutting swords. Aiming for the head, blows would glance from helmets onto the shoulders, so these were up-armoured. An expert like Duncan will now appear and tell me that's a myth :)
Interesting video. It sounds like our Armies are far too pat at being mailed one way rather than more mixed, although I have already tried this with my Umbrian legionaries for Ilipa by mixing the various armour options - we had taken the idea that as they were responsible for their own armour there would have a number of cost levels available, the square breast protector being the lowest acceptable. The Campanians are all in the better mail armour as we had the impression that this was a quite wealthy region. (Admittedly this impression comes from later accounts but I am not changing this now as I have another hundred models to paint before March yet.)
I would expect multiple options present in units due to supply and demand and the value of even old styles of armour
It's all very well banging on about the virtues of mail armour, but many Roman legionaries were not fortunate or wealthy enough to own such a useful piece of kit. They had to make do with something that looked remarkably similar to a dustbin lid tied across the front of their chests and hope for the best.
I mean, what proportion of the cohort need to have upgraded their dustbin lids for mithrail before the unit as a whole started slicing through its opponents like a knife through butter?
And once we have answered this question, how long will it take before wargames rules and army lists stop putting the dustbin lids into the same category as the much to be desired mail shirts?
???
nowt wrong with a dustbin lid
Quote from: Imperial Dave on December 06, 2023, 11:22:30 AMnowt wrong with a dustbin lid
More commonly used as shields, though. Perhaps a saucepan lid would better represent a
pectorale.
even better :)
I suppose I should watch the video, but I am interested in the apparent technological determinism of "Have mail, will conquer". Also, I think I would raise the issue of every one and his dog raising "Imitation legionaries" which did not enable them to conquer the world. Could they not source the mail?
Quote from: Erpingham on December 06, 2023, 02:13:48 PMI suppose I should watch the video, but I am interested in the apparent technological determinism of "Have mail, will conquer". Also, I think I would raise the issue of every one and his dog raising "Imitation legionaries" which did not enable them to conquer the world. Could they not source the mail?
The answer is probably clear from the video which emphasises the cost/manpower implications of having mail. The high end luxury afforded only by noble Celts was provided to Romans in greater quantities only because they had money and a lot of manpower (Celtic slaves) to throw at it.
Quote from: Ian61 on December 06, 2023, 03:17:23 PMQuote from: Erpingham on December 06, 2023, 02:13:48 PMI suppose I should watch the video, but I am interested in the apparent technological determinism of "Have mail, will conquer". Also, I think I would raise the issue of every one and his dog raising "Imitation legionaries" which did not enable them to conquer the world. Could they not source the mail?
The answer is probably clear from the video which emphasises the cost/manpower implications of having mail. The high end luxury afforded only by noble Celts was provided to Romans in greater quantities only because they had money and a lot of manpower (Celtic slaves) to throw at it.
So really the expansion is down to a superior economic base and the ability to mobilise slave manpower to support the war effort, and not "we have the mail shirt and they do not" (apologies to Hillaire Belloc)?
Yes. :)
he who has the mostest and all that....
Quote from: Erpingham on December 06, 2023, 02:13:48 PMAlso, I think I would raise the issue of every one and his dog raising "Imitation legionaries" which did not enable them to conquer the world. Could they not source the mail?
Ah, but they were all monarchies rather than a republic, so they would have had royal mail, and royal mail rarely delivers.
Boom tish
::)
The critical point Bret D makes (IMO) is that mail was a new technology to the Greek east and that the weapons used in Hellenistic warfare were not capable of piercing or cutting through a mail shirt. It's a window of opportunity that the Romans were well placed to take advantage of and would contribute much to understanding why the Romans crushed their 2nd C BC opponents so rapidly when their previous wars had taken many years.
Also, once a nation starts winning repeatedly, the reputation for invincibility grows for the beneficiary and their enemies start to believe it.
After all, we're all pretty settled on the idea of the Marian legionaries being standarised on mail armour, so why would it be so difficult to take the position that by 150 BC, Roman armies were increasingly armoured in mail to a degree where mail became the primary armour type.
It would also make sense as to why the scutum begins to shrink (at least by the time of Augustus or maybe Caesar).
Anyhow! 😊
Good points all, just checking though...
Quote from: Chilliarch on December 07, 2023, 11:23:03 PMIt would also make sense as to why the scutum begins to shrink (at least by the time of Augustus or maybe Caesar).
That is such an incredibly logical point that at first reading I just thought 'Of course, that makes sense although that is some time after the introduction of mail why not simultaneously with the Marian reforms?'. On second thoughts though, whilst I am no expert is this really true? I know the scutum changed shape and form a number of times. It becomes rectangular about the time you suggest - Model Caesarean legionaries are always given the oval shields but EIR legionaries the rectangular ones - are these lighter? Looking at my models this could be true they do seem to be less tall against the figure. Of course construction might also have changed to make it lighter but still protect from missiles whilst maintaining the boss which protected the hand and as we are lead to believe allowed its use as a secondary weapon.
I suspect that the 'mail is wonderful' angle is over streched.
Most armours are effectively cut proof for the areas they cover (eg 17thC 'buff coat').
The spread of mail in the Roman armies represents economic power. The same power that provided weapons, food, logistics etc. All of these are force multipliers that project onto battlefield prowess.
I don't believe there is any evidence for the introduction of mail in Roman armies being linked to the Marian reforms (if these are even a genuine thing anyway!).
Mail was extremely expensive to produce. It is the growing economic power of Rome (controlled by the senators who commanded Roman armies) that enables it to be produced in large quantities.
QuoteMail was extremely expensive to produce.
Expensive but mass producible. You can break it into processes and have slave labour working on at best semi-skilled processes until they drop, then replace them. Perhaps the opposition were ground down by Lurkio the Riveter?
I think this is a fair point, mass producing mail rings would be comparatively easy. Whilst drawing wire and riveting small rings is tricky, when all you have to do is train people to those tasks, you don't need to train them as blacksmiths or armourers
Agreed. Mass production of mail is possible as Rome's economic power grows. I am not convinced it is easy - you have to have a whole supply chain of iron ore, charcoal, labour (free or slave), food, water, housing and factories/storage. By the middle of the 1st century BC the republic must have been capable of producing thousands of mail shirts. This is in an age where land transport is very expensive, river transport vulnerable to floods and transport by sea subject to storms for 6 months of the year. By the 1st century AD, the Roman military runs industrial enterprises like this, quarrying in the Medway valley for example.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on December 14, 2023, 09:23:41 AMI am not convinced it is easy - you have to have a whole supply chain
Good point. Organising such a chain, though, is a Roman strength. It doesn't have to be all under one roof, either. Clusters of workshops producing the basic materials for the more skilled process of assembling the mail shirts would work. Another thing about mail is it is durable and repairable. It can be refashioned into newer styles if needed. So, growing your supply can be incremental over a number of years and veterans' kit can pass to tyros with probably fort-based refurbishment.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on December 14, 2023, 09:23:41 AMBy the middle of the 1st century BC the republic must have been capable of producing thousands of mail shirts.
Yes and no. My problem with this hypothesis is that I am not aware of much evidence of any sustained state enterprise before the principate. Yes, roads, aqueducts, theatres, temples get built, but this is due to the leadership of individual magistrates initiating a project that will win them thanks, glory and votes.
Is there a mechanism whereby Lurkio the Riveter is chained to his bench punching out mail day after day for the state? Once you have an emperor, an established army, and imperial taxation not being milked by greedy governors too obviously for personal enrichment, such a construct becomes perfectly credible and we know that it existed. Individual wealthy entrepreneurs may have had fabricae churning out kit, in the reasonable expectation that it will be needed by Sulla, Pompey or Caesar as they recruit to go and bash some foreigners, but that is supposition.
Also, I am very hesitant that mail was the secret armament that won Rome her empire in the second century BC. There is the old question of exactly to when does Polybius' description of the armament of the legion date? Yes, he places it before the Second Punic War, but arguments have been made that it may be more contemporary with when he was writing several decades later. If true, that would suggest that the hastati, for example, were still less well protected than the senior classes, unless one assumes literary licence on P's part whereby he stereotypes each class to reflect average wealth and affordable kit, rather than a hodge podge depending on genuine wide variation in individuals' panoplies according to means.
Weapon and armour technology and productive capacity is interesting but even when put together do not, I think, provide sufficient explanation for Rome's rapid victory over the Hellenistic Kingdoms. The different structure of Roman society with its ability to mobilise manpower and of the Senatorial class to maintain general unity of purpose contrast with the deep divisions between and within the Hellenistic states. The armies that beat the Macedonian and Seleucid monarchies had some Romans in them but the Romans were backed up by large numbers of Greek allies. Without that inside help, how far would a higher proportion of mail armour have taken the Romans?
Indeed. There is also the argument that has been advanced a number of times that what distinguished the Romans from their Hellenistic peers was stubbornness and determination bordering on the irrational. What doomed Hannibal was not shirking a siege of Rome but that even after three Roman armies had been destroyed in three years, at which point anyone else would have sued for peace, the Romans kept on fighting.
Hannibal ad porta!
Quote from: DBS on December 14, 2023, 03:30:39 PMQuote from: lionheartrjc on December 14, 2023, 09:23:41 AMBy the middle of the 1st century BC the republic must have been capable of producing thousands of mail shirts.
Yes and no. My problem with this hypothesis is that I am not aware of much evidence of any sustained state enterprise before the principate.
I don't think it was "state" enterprise as such. It was senatorial enterprise - they were the generals who needed the troops to have this sort of stuff. I believe there is some evidence of this sort of fabrication in northern Italy (Cisalpine Gaul) although I cannot find the paper where I read this at the moment.
It seems to me we are moving from a technological explanation to a wider social/political/economic/technical combination, where a well-equipped and trained military is just the tip of the spear.
Quote from: Erpingham on December 15, 2023, 09:48:02 AMIt seems to me we are moving from a technological explanation to a wider social/political/economic/technical combination, where a well-equipped and trained military is just the tip of the spear.
My pet theory is that the explosive expansion of the Roman Empire was partly driven by the decision to award Roman citizenship to the Latins, and gradually after that to ever larger areas of Italy and eventually Europe. I think before that citizenship had been limited to a single city - a whole country of citizens was an innovation.
I'd buy that,
I think without the population around Latium being large enough to reflate the army repeatedly, they would have had to seek terms with most of their opponents.
It was that numeric ability to hold out, retrain and re engage that got them past pretty much everyone they met up to the second Punic.
Ditto Caesar being able to stay in Gaul for so long, etc.
The Roman willingness to grant citizenship (of varying types) to a large number of people is widely seen as a significant factor in its success in creating its empire.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 09, 2024, 07:31:10 AMThe Roman willingness to grant citizenship (of varying types) to a large number of people is widely seen as a significant factor in its success in creating its empire.
and its achilles heel...
Or not as the case probably was.
Indeed. Greek xenophobia - together with their preference for beating each other up rather than uniting against common enemies - was a real Achilles heel. Hard to see how Roman openness, even if grudging at times, was a problem at all.
by making everyone a citizen in the 3rd century it effectively removed a fundamental building block in the sustainability of the empire in the long term. 'Outsiders' could become citizens by entering the empire and needed no qualification period like, for instance, the auxiliary soldiers who needed to serve for 25 years before reaping the full benefits of the empire in later life. 'Barbarians' could enter (ergo invade) to assume citizenship
anyway, thats my take ;D
Quote from: Imperial Dave on January 09, 2024, 11:32:16 AMby making everyone a citizen in the 3rd century it effectively removed a fundamental building block in the sustainability of the empire in the long term. 'Outsiders' could become citizens by entering the empire and needed no qualification period like, for instance, the auxiliary soldiers who needed to serve for 25 years before reaping the full benefits of the empire in later life. 'Barbarians' could enter (ergo invade) to assume citizenship
anyway, thats my take ;D
Gibbon would be proud of you ;) However, I think understanding and interpretation has moved on quite a lot since then ;D
Quote from: Imperial Dave on January 09, 2024, 11:32:16 AMby making everyone a citizen in the 3rd century it effectively removed a fundamental building block in the sustainability of the empire in the long term.
But this is the 3rd century AD, long after the Republican expansions.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on January 09, 2024, 12:05:02 PMQuote from: Imperial Dave on January 09, 2024, 11:32:16 AMby making everyone a citizen in the 3rd century it effectively removed a fundamental building block in the sustainability of the empire in the long term. 'Outsiders' could become citizens by entering the empire and needed no qualification period like, for instance, the auxiliary soldiers who needed to serve for 25 years before reaping the full benefits of the empire in later life. 'Barbarians' could enter (ergo invade) to assume citizenship
anyway, thats my take ;D
Gibbon would be proud of you ;) However, I think understanding and interpretation has moved on quite a lot since then ;D
😊