Can anyone recommend an article or chapter that discusses the strength of the argument for Auxiliaries' Equipment, particularly the oval shield?
I am trying to get back to the original logic of why I can just say the standard, "oh the guys with round shields are auxiliaries."
Because I stare at Trajan's column and there are at least two occasions where there is an image of two near identical "legionaries" standing next to each other - but one with a classic legionary's scutum and one with a classic auxilia's oval shield.
I have had a look at a couple of general books - the old Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army (Cheeseman) and the Republican Roman Army (Sage), but they don't survey the data.
They seemingly do one of two things.
They might identify sculptures with certain "auxilia" equipment, but don't explain why the soldier portrayed is identified as auxiliary to begin with - and so you risk circular logic.
Or they identify grave markers which may have the advantage of firmly identifying the image as describing an auxiliary, but have the disadvantage of being harder to generalize from.
Or alternatively is the whole case for uniformity overstated?
(I have a similar question about sculptures of Roman cavalry.)
Not much luck there... :)
I'll try again.
When we see a Roman soldier on Trajan's column wearing the lorica segmentata and carrying an oval shield, do we think its an auxiliary wearing heavier armour, or a legionary carrying something other than a scutum?
Sorry, I missed this thread somehow.
Anyone with a lorica seg and an oval shield is probably a legionary, and the oval shield is probably still a scutum.
Michael Bishop's Handbook on lorica seg is available from https://www.academia.edu/513011/Lorica_Segmentata_Volume_I_A_Handbook_of_Articulated_Roman_Plate_Armour and on p.91 he alludes to the arguments for non-legionary use, and gives a few references in note 3.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 26, 2016, 09:43:29 AM
Anyone with a lorica seg and an oval shield is probably a legionary, and the oval shield is probably still a scutum.
OK that's interesting.
So would you suggest that the most useful heuristic is: if we can see lorica-seg, assume its a legionary (in the absense of other evidence)?
Just a quick follow up... if we cannot see any lorica-seg but can see a classic rectangular scutum or an oval shield, can we make any generalizations about whether a figure is auxiliary or legionary?
An example might be distracting, but on Trajan's column there are a lot of soldiers with mail-shirt, kerchief and round shields. But if anyone knows a reading that discusses whether or not auxilia infantry were armed similarly or differently to legionaries - that would be great!
Quote from: Dangun on October 26, 2016, 12:59:04 PM
So would you suggest that the most useful heuristic is: if we can see lorica-seg, assume its a legionary (in the absense of other evidence)?
That would be my personal conclusion, because I have not (yet) been convinced by the "auxiliary segmentata" arguments. Others might disagree.
QuoteJust a quick follow up... if we cannot see any lorica-seg but can see a classic rectangular scutum or an oval shield, can we make any generalizations about whether a figure is auxiliary or legionary?
An example might be distracting, but on Trajan's column there are a lot of soldiers with mail-shirt, kerchief and round shields. But if anyone knows a reading that discusses whether or not auxilia infantry were armed similarly or differently to legionaries - that would be great!
I think that the difference between legionary and auxiliary shields is primarily that legionaries use concave shields and (most?) auxiliaries use flat shields, rather than the outline. For example Annaius Daverzus of Coh. IIII Delmatarum has a narrow, flat, rectangular shield....
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roemerhalle_Kreuznach_Soldatengrabstein.jpg
But I am not sure how far that is provable.
There are a couple of infantry on the Column with short auxiliary mail and "legionary"-style curved rectangular scuta. Phil Barker identified them as a
cohors scutata, possibly a
cohors scutata civium romanorum (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RK2pLin2sPAC&pg=PA459&lpg=PA459&dq=cohors+scutata&source=bl&ots=-7VJiY7DA7&sig=5uPNMQeu3fFLIbKXOlrg84G6mRc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR5ILfv_jPAhUIOsAKHdeFBJ4Q6AEILjAE#v=onepage&q=cohors%20scutata&f=false) since they have "legionary-style" shield-blazons that might imply citizen units. I have also seen them dismissed as sculptors' mistakes.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 26, 2016, 01:48:45 PM
But I am not sure how far that is provable.
Quite.
I am sure we are dealing with some kind of inference.
Because I haven't come across anything in the literary histories.
But I do wonder where the flat shield = auxilia, curved shield = legionary argument comes from.
Its one of those things you absorb as a teenager, the first time you read about the Roman Army, but I am interested in trying to find out the basis for thinking that auxilia infantry were armed and armored differently to the legionarii?
Just an example... In D'Amato's "Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier" he says: "The column depicts most of the leginary infantryman with armour known under the modern name lorica segmentata, while most of the auxilia are portrayed clad in ring-mail or leather". But what does he use for evidence.... "it was necessary to fix a general principle of (artistic) distinction between the different bodies of the military." WHAT?? That's terrible logic. Completely circular. It may be true, but he has not provided evidence.
He then goes on to say that some of the auxilia on the Adamclisi monument are clearly dressed as auxilia, but must be identified as legionaries due to the insignia. Very confusing.
(PS: The Phil Barker explanation strikes me as overly complicated.)
Quote from: Dangun on October 26, 2016, 04:25:06 PM.... but I am interested in trying to find out the basis for thinking that auxilia infantry were armed and armored differently to the legionarii?
A couple of passages spring to mind.
Quote from: Tacitus Histories I.38.3Then he ordered the armoury to be opened. The soldiers immediately seized arms without regard to military custom or rank, with no desire to distinguish praetorian or legionary by their proper insignia; they were mixed with the helmets and shields of auxiliaries (miscentur auxiliaribus galeis scutisque); there was no tribune or centurion to direct them; each guided and spurred himself on; and the chief incentive of the rascals was the grief of loyal men.
Quote from: Tacitus, Annals 12.35Yet even there, both light and heavy-armed soldiers (ferentarius gravisque miles) rushed to the attack; the first harassed the foe with missiles (telis), while the latter closed with them, and the opposing ranks of the Britons were broken, destitute as they were of the defence of breast-plates or helmets. When they faced the auxiliaries, they were felled by the swords and javelins of our legionaries (gladiis ac pilis legionariorum); if they wheeled round, they were again met by the blades and spears of the auxiliaries (spathis et hastis auxiliarium).
Tacitus a number of times (eg
Annals I.51, II.52) seems to equate auxiliary infantry (or at least, non-legionary cohorts) with lights troops,
leves cohortes.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 26, 2016, 05:08:06 PM
Tacitus a number of times (eg Annals I.51, II.52) seems to equate auxiliary infantry (or at least, non-legionary cohorts) with lights troops, leves cohortes.
I've read some commentary on those lines from Tacitus.
For example D'Amato: "Tacitus... emphasis the character of the leves cohortes (light cohorts), but it is not clear whether he is referring to auxilia."
And we could find other examples of where auxiliary infantry are put in the front line and the author doesn't note a significant difference in equipment or performance.
I remain a little confused on what seems to be a fundamental point.
Quote from: Dangun on October 27, 2016, 02:34:08 AM
And we could find other examples of where auxiliary infantry are put in the front line and the author doesn't note a significant difference in equipment or performance.
Mostly later ones than these references, though. One possibility percolating through my mind is that most auxiliaries were noticeably lighter in the Julio-Claudian era but got closer to being heavy infantry from the Flavian period onwards (leading to increased use of tribal numeri as a new source of light troops). Needs further research, of course.
I wonder if that development(into cohorts of heavy infantry), was not driven by the expense of the army. Didn't Augustus cut down the number of legions, the civil war being over, and thus the auxiliaries would be less often supporting legionary battle lines and more usually fighting on their own. Then, when it came to set piece battles the commNders took the opportunity to use whole battle lines of auxiliary sprearmen with the legions in reserve?
Roy
Augustus set the establishment at 28 legions (as against the 50-odd knocking around when he took charge). The big difference between legionaries and auxilia was of course citizenship, but the general idea seems to have been that the auxilia fulfilled the old role of pre-90 BC Italian allies, covering the legions' van and rear on the march and their flanks on the battlefield - and also generally being first into danger and last out.
This would generally suggest somewhat lighter equipment, and is also consistent with the differences in weaponry (
hasta and
spatha as opposed to
pilum and
gladius) noted by Tacitus.
Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxilia#Foundation_of_the_auxilia_under_Augustus_.2830_BC.E2.80.9314_AD.29) notes:
Quote"At the start of Augustus' sole rule (30 BC), the original core auxiliary units in the West were composed of warlike tribesmen from the Gallic provinces (especially Gallia Belgica, which then included the regions later separated to form the provinces Germania Inferior and Germania Superior), and from the Balkan provinces (Dalmatia and Illyricum). By 19 BC, the Cantabrian and Asturian Wars were concluded, leading to the annexation of northern Hispania and Lusitania. Judging by the names of attested auxiliary regiments, these parts of the Iberian peninsula soon became a major source of recruits. Then the Danubian regions were annexed: Raetia (annexed 15 BC), Noricum (16 BC), Pannonia (9 BC) and Moesia (6 AD), becoming, with Illyricum, the Principate's most important source of auxiliary recruits for its entire duration. In the East, where the Syrians already provided the bulk of the Roman army's archers, Augustus annexed Galatia (25 BC) and Judaea: the former, a region in central Anatolia with a Celtic-speaking people, became an important source of recruits. In N. Africa, Egypt, Cyrene, and Numidia (25 BC) were added to the empire. Numidia (modern day Eastern Algeria) was home to the Numidians/Moors, the ancestors of today's Berber people. Their light cavalry (equites Maurorum) was highly prized and had alternately fought and assisted the Romans for well over two centuries: they now started to be recruited into the regular Auxilia. Even more Mauri units were formed after the annexation of Mauretania (NW Algeria, Morocco), the rest of the Berber homeland, in 44 AD by emperor Claudius (ruled 41–54).
Recruitment was thus heavy throughout the Augustan period, with a steady increase in the number of units formed. By AD 23, the Roman historian Tacitus records that there were roughly the same numbers of auxiliaries in service as there were legionaries. Since at this time there were 25 legions of c. 5,000 men each, the Auxilia thus amounted to c. 125,000 men, implying c. 250 auxiliary regiments."
The whole concept of auxilia was probably overhauled following the events of AD 9 ("Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!"). Until then, auxilia seem to have been raised from local peoples and were sometimes commanded by local rulers. A desire to avoid any repetition of Arminius' treachery (and the Great Illyrian revolt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellum_Batonianum)) may have seen the auxilia regularised and placed under Roman officers as part of the Roman army establishment, the grant of citizenship at the conclusion of a fixed term of service being introduced as part of the package.
Once regularised, their local fighting styles would have tended to coalesce along the lines of their training, and their training was good: under Civilis, the Batavians were considered capable of matching legionaries and under Agricola the auxilia won Mons Graupius without the legions intervening.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 26, 2016, 01:48:45 PMThere are a couple of infantry on the Column with short auxiliary mail and "legionary"-style curved rectangular scuta. Phil Barker identified them as a cohors scutata, possibly a cohors scutata civium romanorum (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RK2pLin2sPAC&pg=PA459&lpg=PA459&dq=cohors+scutata&source=bl&ots=-7VJiY7DA7&sig=5uPNMQeu3fFLIbKXOlrg84G6mRc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR5ILfv_jPAhUIOsAKHdeFBJ4Q6AEILjAE#v=onepage&q=cohors%20scutata&f=false) since they have "legionary-style" shield-blazons that might imply citizen units.
OK, there does seem to be good archaeological evidence for at least one auxiliary unit using "legionary-style" rectangular scuta, but it's an unusual unit, in that it's one of the
cohortes voluntariorum who were recruited from citizens:
QuoteLeather shield covers can tell us a great deal about the original shield shapes and sizes. Even in some cases, which unit were using certain types of shield. ...
One notable example from Roomberg (NL) belonging to a soldier of Cohors XV Voluntariorum cR (pf) is particularly interesting in that it is a cover for a rectangular shield with a board wide enough to have been curved in the manner of the legionary scutum (contrary to Bishop and Coulston 'The study of Roman military equipment II p255).
- from: http://www.romanarmy.net/artshields.htm
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 27, 2016, 09:11:47 AMOne possibility percolating through my mind is that most auxiliaries were noticeably lighter in the Julio-Claudian era but got closer to being heavy infantry from the Flavian period onwards (leading to increased use of tribal numeri as a new source of light troops).
This feels right. At a minimum, the differences seem to be quickly disintegrating.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 27, 2016, 01:21:06 PMOnce regularised, their local fighting styles would have tended to coalesce along the lines of their training, and their training was good: under Civilis, the Batavians were considered capable of matching legionaries and under Agricola the auxilia won Mons Graupius without the legions intervening.
Which would seem unlikely if they were less well armed and armoured?
Quote from: Dangun on October 27, 2016, 04:44:03 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 27, 2016, 01:21:06 PMOnce regularised, their local fighting styles would have tended to coalesce along the lines of their training, and their training was good: under Civilis, the Batavians were considered capable of matching legionaries and under Agricola the auxilia won Mons Graupius without the legions intervening.
Which would seem unlikely if they were less well armed and armoured?
Not necessarily: their weaponry (and to an extent armour, from what we can judge) were different; in WRG terms auxilia would have been LHI (loose formation heavy infantry) with JLS (javelin/light spear) and shield whereas legionaries were HI (close formation heavy infantry) with HTW (heavy throwing weapon) and shield. Legionary equipment was optimised for close combat while auxilia equipment would have been suited to a more general soldiering role. If you needed the enemy flushed out of difficult terrain, you used the auxilia. If you needed them cut up on the flat, legions and auxilia could do the job, but legions would do it better and perhaps with fewer losses. That at least is my understanding.
If someone thought it worth noting that Civilis' auxiliaries could match legionaries, doesn't that suggest that most auxiliaries couldn't?
I note the revolt was right at the transition from the Julio-Claudian period to the Flavian. Maybe it's a transitional period where some auxiliaries had become proper heavy infantry while other units were still lighter?
On the use of segmentata by (Batavian) auxiliaries, see also http://www.cohibat.co.uk/page14.php
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 27, 2016, 07:47:12 PM
Not necessarily: their weaponry (and to an extent armour, from what we can judge) were different; in WRG terms auxilia would have been LHI (loose formation heavy infantry) with JLS (javelin/light spear) and shield whereas legionaries were HI (close formation heavy infantry) with HTW (heavy throwing weapon) and shield. Legionary equipment was optimised for close combat while auxilia equipment would have been suited to a more general soldiering role. If you needed the enemy flushed out of difficult terrain, you used the auxilia. If you needed them cut up on the flat, legions and auxilia could do the job, but legions would do it better and perhaps with fewer losses. That at least is my understanding.
This is definitely the caricature.
But I don't see a huge amount of evidence for it, especially if we focus only on auxiliary infantry versus legionary infantry i.e exclude auxilia cav or archers.
The idea that "their weaponry (and to an extent armour, from what we can judge) were different" is common, its certainly the impression I got from the first picture book I read about the Roman army. But there are not many compelling literary quotes on the topic and when we look at a sculpture or a frieze we see a disconcerting variety even before we address the problem of not knowing exactly what we are looking at.
Which sort of inspired the thread - when we see a flat round shield, why do we see auxilia? And what do we see when we see a mail shirt and helmet?
Uncertainty is fine. I don't don't know this stuff very well and was just wondering whether there was a solid argument somewhere that I could read.
QuoteWhich sort of inspired the thread - when we see a flat round shield, why do we see auxilia? And what do we see when we see a mail shirt and helmet?
Well, the auxilia/legionary split seems well ingrained in Roman Army books. I've thought of it as a question of martial traditions. Our legionaries represent the Italian Way of War - heavy body shield, special type of heavy throwing weapon, handy sword. Our auxiliaries represent the non-Italian way - spears, javelins, flat oval/clipped oval shields, big swords. But, as you say, why do we think this way?
If we start with what we know - that Roman art clearly shows troops with different types of armour - what are the other explanations for the differences? We could then see if they offer a more plausible explanation than the traditional one.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 28, 2016, 10:24:20 AM
Well, the auxilia/legionary split seems well ingrained in Roman Army books. I've thought of it as a question of martial traditions. Our legionaries represent the Italian Way of War - heavy body shield, special type of heavy throwing weapon, handy sword. Our auxiliaries represent the non-Italian way - spears, javelins, flat oval/clipped oval shields, big swords. But, as you say, why do we think this way?
Mainly, it seems, because our literary sources do. Vitellius' (or rather Caecina's) assault on Placentia, AD 69:
"Almost before dawn of day the walls were crowded with combatants, and the plains glittered with masses of armed men. The close array of the legions, and the skirmishing parties of auxiliaries assailed with showers of arrows and stones the loftier parts of the walls, attacking them at close quarters, where they were undefended, or old and decayed. The Othonianists, who could take a more deliberate and certain aim, poured down their javelins on the German cohorts as they recklessly advanced to the attack with fierce war-cries, brandishing their shields above their shoulders after the manner of their country, and leaving their bodies unprotected. The soldiers of the legions, working under cover of mantlets and hurdles, undermined the walls, threw up earth-works, and endeavoured to burst open the gates." - Tacitus,
Histories II.22
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 28, 2016, 01:27:17 PMThe close array of the legions, and the skirmishing parties of auxiliaries ...
"densum legionum agmen, sparsa auxiliorum manu". Nice - shame it's only at a siege :(
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 28, 2016, 01:31:42 PM
"densum legionum agmen, sparsa auxiliorum manu". Nice - shame it's only at a siege :(
Indeed. :(
Later on, in
Histories IV.20, we have the Batavians behaving rather differently:
"Three thousand legionaries, some raw Belgian cohorts, and with them a mob of rustics and camp-followers, cowardly, but bold of speech before the moment of danger, rushed out of all the gates, thinking to surround the Batavians, who were inferior in number. But the enemy, being veteran troops, formed in columns [cuneos],
presenting on every side a dense array, with front, flanks, and rear secure. Thus they were able to break the thin line of our soldiers."
Then again, and to pick up Andreas' point, these Batavians were regarded as exceptional.
"... a body of troops which, to whatever side they might incline, would, whether as allies or enemies, throw a vast weight into the scale ..." -
idem I.59
They were also not backward in expressing their own merits:
"They behaved themselves insolently, boasting, as they visited the quarters of the several legions, that they had mastered the men of the 14th, that they had taken Italy from Nero, that the whole destiny of the war lay in their hands." -
idem II.27
Auxilia in AD 69 were still a varied lot. From Vitellius' entry into Rome:
"The eagles of four legions were borne in front, and an equal number of colours from other legions on either side, then came the standards of twelve auxiliary squadrons, and the cavalry behind the ranks of the infantry. Next came thirty-four auxiliary cohorts, distinguished according to the names
or various equipments [species armorum] of the nations." -
Histories II.89
This was, of course, as of AD 69, a year in which:
"Nor were the men themselves a less frightful spectacle, bristling as they were with the skins of wild beasts, and armed with huge lances [ingentibus telis]" -
idem II.88
By the time of Trajan's column, a couple of generations of regularisation would have taken place. This is not necessarily the same as homogenisation, and the lack of a good military history of the Dacian wars is to be regretted.
Quote from: Dangun on October 28, 2016, 10:04:26 AMWhich sort of inspired the thread - when we see a flat round shield, why do we see auxilia? And what do we see when we see a mail shirt and helmet?
Uncertainty is fine. I don't don't know this stuff very well and was just wondering whether there was a solid argument somewhere that I could read.
Historiographically, I think the process may go something like this - subject to correction:
- Scholars have known, probably since the Renaissance at least, that the Roman army contained both citizen legions and non-citizen auxilia. The literary sources make this clear, and also hint that at least some auxiliaries at some dates were regarded as lighter armed than the legions: we have seen them referred to as leves or ferentarii, as sparsely-formed, as using spatha and lancea instead of gladius and pilum, as having different (different how?) shields and helmets.
- Trajan's Column, once studied in detail in the 19th century (the first plaster casts, the Cichorius plates), may have been decisive in establishing an image of the two classes. There are two main types of infantry on the Column: one in segmented armour and curved rectangular shields, one in short mail shirts (identified as leather jerkins until Russell Robinson) and flat oval shields. Yes, there are variants and oddities - one or two "auxiliaries" with "legionary" shields, the guys in the animal-skin headgear, the unarmoured slingers - but those are the overwhelming majority. Now, we can identify the first type as legionaries (and Praetorians) because in some scenes they are associated with legionary eagle-standards and distinctive Praetorian standards; and because most of their shields have variants of the winged-thunderbolt of Jupiter which is seen as characteristically Roman "national" imagery. They are also the guys working the artillery and doing the engineering, which we can see from the written sources as legionary specialties. The infantry with flat oval shields must then be auxiliary, and their shields bear a variety of motifs some of which are less Roman (peltai of Thracian origin, torcs of Celtic origin, etc). In addition, the cavalry, who are known from the texts to have been mostly auxiliaries, are armed and emblazoned in a style much closer to the second, "auxiliary", type of infantry than to the "legionaries".
- This distinction was reinforced by examination of large numbers of grave-stelae of soldiers, especially those from Britain and the Rhine frontiers which were the areas most thoroughly investigated up till the later 20th century. Many of these named the soldier's unit. Not all were in full battle gear, but of those who did wear some or all of it, some legionaries but no auxiliaries used the curved rectangular shield, some auxiliaries had the same short mailshirt as on the Column, etc etc.
- As time went on more finds, both of sculpture and of actual equipment from identifiable contexts (legionary bases or auxiliary forts, etc) modified the picture and suggested that there was quite a lot of variety in both legionary and auxiliary appearance, but didn't undermine the distinction completely. The Adamklissi metopes showed presumed-legionaries, with gladius and curved rectangular shields, wearing mail or scale armour, for instance (but noticeably longer mailshirts than the Column's "auxiliaries").
- The most radical attempt to undermine the dichotomy in equipment has been the suggestion that segmented armour and artillery were not unique to legionaries, based partly on finds in auxiliary forts. A lot of people are not convinced, since most of these finds can perhaps be explained by mixed occupancy or chance deposition.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 28, 2016, 02:30:00 PM
using spatha and lancea instead of gladius and pilum
This one is a little curious: while a lancea may be lighter than a pilum, you'd think a spatha would be
heavier than a gladius. It seems slightly odd for light or medium infantry to carry long(ish) swords, ones longer than those used by the heavy foot.
WP implies that Tacitus' auxiliaries at Mons Graupius might have been cavalry* - certainly, a long sword makes sense for horsemen. Is there any other piece of literary evidence to connect spathae specifically with auxiliary
infantry in early Imperial times? Does the monumental evidence show any difference in infantry swords?
* Specifically, it says there's no indication that they were cavalry - presumably, then, there's no indication they were infantry either, or whoever wrote the bit would have mentioned that as it'd be helpful to the argument.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 28, 2016, 04:10:35 PM
It seems slightly odd for light or medium infantry to carry long(ish) swords, ones longer than those used by the heavy foot.
Surely, the issue is how the sword is used, not how heavy the armour of the user is? If the auxiliary combat style is different to the legionary e.g. its more like a classical Celt, the tools of the trade would be different.
The spatha/gladius opposition in Tac. Annals 12.35 is at the storming of steep hills and ramparts, not a cavalry job; and the auxiliaries using the spatha are also called ferentarii, which usually means light infantry. And it's a series of rhetorical oppositions between the legionaries and the auxiliaries; opposing pedites with equites would have been an obvious choice for inclusion if it had been the case.
(The description of Mons Graupius does not mention the word spatha; but the Batavian and Tungrian auxiliaries who close with the sword (the word mucrones, sword-points, is used) are said to be cohortes, that is, infantry units. And probably not mixed part-mounted cohorts going by http://cohibat.co.uk/page8.php - unless III already was.)
Medium/light infantry might have a greater need for length in the sword blade than heavies, as with lighter protection they have more motivation to keep a bit of distance.
I'd say that the apparent-auxiliaries at Adamklissi have longer swords than the apparent-legionaries.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 28, 2016, 02:30:00 PM
Trajan's Column, once studied in detail in the 19th century (the first plaster casts, the Cichorius plates), may have been decisive in establishing an image of the two classes. There are two main types of infantry on the Column: one in segmented armour and curved rectangular shields, one in short mail shirts (identified as leather jerkins until Russell Robinson) and flat oval shields.... Now, we can identify the first type as legionaries (and Praetorians) because in some scenes they are associated with legionary eagle-standards and distinctive Praetorian standards; and because most of their shields have variants of the winged-thunderbolt of Jupiter which is seen as characteristically Roman "national" imagery.
Completely with you, thus far - the identification of legionaries seems completely reasonable because they get associated with symbols and standards.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 28, 2016, 02:30:00 PM
The infantry with flat oval shields must then be auxiliary.
This seems a bit speculative. And the guys with no shields, well I am not sure what heuristic we use at all.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 28, 2016, 02:30:00 PM
but no auxiliaries used the curved rectangular shield... (on grave stele)
This would be persuasive if it were true. But quite a big claim - and as you said there is at least one exception on Trajan's column. No idea myself... When D'Amato's book arrives I hope it establishes or refutes this kind of idea.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 28, 2016, 02:30:00 PM
The most radical attempt to undermine the dichotomy in equipment has been the suggestion that segmented armour and artillery were not unique to legionaries, based partly on finds in auxiliary forts. A lot of people are not convinced, since most of these finds can perhaps be explained by mixed occupancy or chance deposition.
Interesting.
Those not convinced, have a possible objection to the undermining argument.
But it feels VERY MUCH like interpreting data based on prejudice, and the simpler explanation would be to accept that the auxilia used the equipment.
Perhaps adding to the earlier comments that the auxilia distinction may have been more obvious in the first century BC - newly raised auxilia would also naturally be more distinct than an auxilia unit which has been around for a century or more being moved around the empire having turned over their members many times.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 28, 2016, 05:00:57 PM
The spatha/gladius opposition in Tac. Annals 12.35 is at the storming of steep hills and ramparts, not a cavalry job; and the auxiliaries using the spatha are also called ferentarii, which usually means light infantry. And it's a series of rhetorical oppositions between the legionaries and the auxiliaries; opposing pedites with equites would have been an obvious choice for inclusion if it had been the case.
(The description of Mons Graupius does not mention the word spatha; but the Batavian and Tungrian auxiliaries who close with the sword (the word mucrones, sword-points, is used) are said to be cohortes, that is, infantry units. And probably not mixed part-mounted cohorts going by http://cohibat.co.uk/page8.php - unless III already was.)
Medium/light infantry might have a greater need for length in the sword blade than heavies, as with lighter protection they have more motivation to keep a bit of distance.
I'd say that the apparent-auxiliaries at Adamklissi have longer swords than the apparent-legionaries.
Ah, thanks.
QuoteQuote from: Duncan Head on October 28, 2016, 02:30:00 PM
The infantry with flat oval shields must then be auxiliary.
This seems a bit speculative. And the guys with no shields, well I am not sure what heuristic we use at all.
Less speculative than many things said on these pages :) However, as Duncan has said, most identifiable auxiliaries on funerary monuments seem to carry oval shields (where they have shields) and most legionaries have rectangular shields. This makes the identification at least informed speculation. But I would repeat my earlier question - what alternative identifications are there? The Trajans Column and Adamklissi monuments have two main groups of armoured men; heavy armour, square shield and shorter mail, oval shield. It is possible that they are two types of legionary soldier, either from different places or having different functions within a legion. Or perhaps the "auxiliary" types are the forces of an allied power and not Roman at all. After all, their oval shields are like those of the Dacians and they practice barbaric customs like head-hunting. Both of these alternative hypotheses should be easily testable.
Do we have evidence of legions from widely separated geographies involved in the campaign?
Do we have evidence in this period of heavier and lighter troops in a legion?
Were there substantial forces of allied troops in the campaign?
Good questions. If only I had the answers ...
QuoteDo we have evidence of legions from widely separated geographies involved in the campaign?
We have at least one example: Legio I Minervia was raised by Domitian to serve in Germania Inferior at Bonna (Bonn); under Trajan it, together with Legio VI Victrix from Novaesium (Neuss) and Legio X Gemina from Noviomagus (Nijmegen) - source here (http://www.livius.org/articles/legion/legio-i-minervia/).
The
Historia Augusta also mentions Hadrian as commanding the I Minervia during Trajan's second Dacian campaign (
Hist Aug,
Hadrian 3.6).
QuoteDo we have evidence in this period of heavier and lighter troops in a legion?
Very good question, but short of drawing a line across time between
ferentarii and
lanciarii and saying 'there must have been something' I have no real answer.
QuoteWere there substantial forces of allied troops in the campaign?
Apparently, though mostly on the Dacian side, Decebalus having sent round to his neighbours for aid. As far as Trajan is concerned, Cassius Dio notes (LXVIII.11.1):
"As numerous Dacians kept transferring their allegiance to Trajan, and also for certain other reasons, Decebalus again sued for peace."
This had been a two-way traffic, as we can see from Dio's summary of the peace treaty concluding Trajan's first campaign.
"He [Decebalus] reluctantly engaged to surrender his arms, engines and engine-makers, to give back the deserters, to demolish the forts, to withdraw from captured territory, and furthermore to consider the same persons enemies and friends as the Romans did, and neither to give shelter to any of the deserters nor to employ any soldier from their empire; for
he had been acquiring the largest and best part of his force by persuading men to come to him from Roman territory." (
idem LXVIII.9.5-6)
Among other things Decebalus seems to have had a surplus of armour and/or weaponry, for under Domitian:
"Other events worth recording that took place in the Dacian War are as follows. Julianus, who was appointed by the emperor to conduct the war, made many excellent regulations, one being his order that the soldiers should inscribe their own names as well as those of their centurions upon their shields, in order that those of their number who should perform any particularly good or base deed might be more readily recognized. 2 He encountered the enemy at Tapae, and slew great numbers of them. One of them, Vezinas, who ranked next to Decebalus, finding that he could not get away alive, fell down purposely, as if dead; in this manner he escaped notice and fled during the night. 3 Decebalus, fearing that the Romans, now that they had conquered, would proceed against his royal residence, cut down the trees that were on the site and put armour [hopla = armour and/or weapons; here probably both] on the trunks [stelekhesi = on the stumps still standing], in order that the Romans might take them for soldiers and so be frightened and withdraw; and this actually happened." -
idem LXVII.10.1-3
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 28, 2016, 09:35:15 AM
On the use of segmentata by (Batavian) auxiliaries, see also http://www.cohibat.co.uk/page14.php
I just got around to following up on this link.
But it is very interesting, thank you.
Basically it gives archaeological evidence of two auxiliaries who came home to their respective farms having brought their lorica segmentata with them.
The explanations given in one case are:
Quotea) It was a war trophy or 'spoila'
b) It belonged to and was worn by him and was deposited as a votive offering to his gods upon retirement and his return home
c) It belonged to a son who, now being a Roman citizen, joined the legions and it was deposited by him at a later date.
Take your pick.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 30, 2016, 09:07:29 AM
The explanations given in one case are:
Quotea) It was a war trophy or 'spoila'
b) It belonged to and was worn by him and was deposited as a votive offering to his gods upon retirement and his return home
c) It belonged to a son who, now being a Roman citizen, joined the legions and it was deposited by him at a later date.
Take your pick.
Sure. They are all possible. But they are not equivalently likely.
If you have two facts - an auxiliary fort and a lorica segmentata or an auxiliary's house and a lorica segmentata, the simplest explanation of the two facts are that the auxilia used/owned the lorica segmentata.
The other two explanations are certainly possible, but unnecessarily more complicated. We have no evidence for the son or anyone related being a legionary, why would an auxilia take an allies armour as spoils? etc. etc... Ocham's razor seems appropriate. Why introduce the complexity without evidence? Especially when our sympathy for the unnecessarily more complicated explanation might come from a prejudice - that I certainly learned - that auxilia don't use segmented armour.
Quote from: Dangun on October 30, 2016, 09:23:09 AM
... why would an auxilia take an allies armour as spoils?
Take a look through Tacitus,
Histories Book IV, especially chapters 54 to 79. The Batavians were not exactly allies of Rome during Civilis' revolt and had quite a few opportunities to pick up 'trophy' legionary armour.
Note that for this to be the explanation of lorica segmentata in Bavarian homes, the suits would have to date from this period (c.AD 69) or no more than a generation before. 'Corbridge' types are early versions of lorica segmentata, so this aspect at least would seem to fit.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 30, 2016, 10:24:06 PM
Quote from: Dangun on October 30, 2016, 09:23:09 AM
... why would an auxilia take an allies armour as spoils?
Take a look through Tacitus, Histories Book IV, especially chapters 54 to 79. The Batavians were not exactly allies of Rome during Civilis' revolt and had quite a few opportunities to pick up 'trophy' legionary armour.
But there again it probably wasn't something you wanted round the house after the revolt was over
Quote from: Dangun on October 30, 2016, 08:01:39 AM
Basically it gives archaeological evidence of two auxiliaries who came home to their respective farms having brought their lorica segmentata with them.
But one of them was a cavalryman, so perhaps irrelevant to use of segmentata by auxiliary
infantry. (The other's arm of service is unknown as far as I can tell.)
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 31, 2016, 07:16:21 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 30, 2016, 10:24:06 PM
The Batavians were not exactly allies of Rome during Civilis' revolt and had quite a few opportunities to pick up 'trophy' legionary armour.
But there again it probably wasn't something you wanted round the house after the revolt was over
So you find a hiding-place. :) This is, after all, something to show your grandchildren, when you tell them about your part in the good old days. And, over time, as your grandchildren omit to tell their grandchildren, it gets forgotten ...
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 31, 2016, 10:45:54 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 31, 2016, 07:16:21 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 30, 2016, 10:24:06 PM
The Batavians were not exactly allies of Rome during Civilis' revolt and had quite a few opportunities to pick up 'trophy' legionary armour.
But there again it probably wasn't something you wanted round the house after the revolt was over
So you find a hiding-place. :) This is, after all, something to show your grandchildren, when you tell them about your part in the good old days. And, over time, as your grandchildren omit to tell their grandchildren, it gets forgotten ...
as mentioned above in the thread, your Children and Grandchildren are citizens, they're in the legions.
Frankly I cannot see that weight of decent metal just being saved for covert display purposes
Why do we prefer the more complicated explanations?
We posit the existence of spoils, or of a legionary son for which there is absolutely no evidence.
Is it because we just don't like the idea that auxilia may have used segmented armour?
Again, its possible...
But this is exactly what primary evidence for the simple explanation would look like.
This could well be the proverbial candlestick in Professor Plum's bedroom :)
Quote from: Dangun on October 31, 2016, 02:36:06 PM
Why do we prefer the more complicated explanations?
We posit the existence of spoils, or of a legionary son for which there is absolutely no evidence.
Is it because we just don't like the idea that auxilia may have used segmented armour?
Because one of the two segmentata is apparently associated with a cavalryman, which seems to rule out your "simplest explanation" in that case; and hence casts doubt on whether that "simplest explanation" need apply in the other.
And because if most of the other dozens or hundreds of segmentata finds can be associated with legionaries, the "simplest explanation"
of the corpus of finds as a whole may be that they all were, rather than the more complicated situation where both types of infantry might use the armour.
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 31, 2016, 01:13:16 PM
Frankly I cannot see that weight of decent metal just being saved for covert display purposes
Batavians were receiving metal citizenship diplomas; this suggests there was no scarcity of useful metals, certainly nothing to merit trying to rework a suit of steel demanding a very high temperature and hence a lot of fuel and effort to turn it into anything else.
Quote from: Dangun on October 31, 2016, 02:36:06 PM
Is it because we just don't like the idea that auxilia may have used segmented armour?
As Duncan indicates, one does not like the idea that cavalry may have used segmented armour. Trophy? No problem.
Quote
This could well be the proverbial candlestick in Professor Plum's bedroom :)
But was it put there by Professor Plum or Colonel Mustard? ;)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 31, 2016, 06:51:20 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 31, 2016, 01:13:16 PM
Frankly I cannot see that weight of decent metal just being saved for covert display purposes
Batavians were receiving metal citizenship diplomas; this suggests there was no scarcity of useful metals, certainly nothing to merit trying to rework a suit of steel demanding a very high temperature and hence a lot of fuel and effort to turn it into anything else.
they were Bronze, not steel
And if the armour had no economic value it wasn't loot, it was merely a souvenir that could get you killed and your sons would not appreciate
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 31, 2016, 09:52:04 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 31, 2016, 06:51:20 PM
Batavians were receiving metal citizenship diplomas; this suggests there was no scarcity of useful metals, certainly nothing to merit trying to rework a suit of steel demanding a very high temperature and hence a lot of fuel and effort to turn it into anything else.
they were Bronze, not steel
Precisely. A more valuable metal was being used for a relatively non-essential purpose, so one would expect less valuable (if more useful) metals to be even less scarce.
Quote
And if the armour had no economic value it wasn't loot, it was merely a souvenir that could get you killed and your sons would not appreciate
What we call a trophy. Visit any regiment's home base and there will be things nailed up on the wall that could cause an international incident if the original owners were to see them. I suspect soldiers were not too different in that respect back then, even if the audience would be local and private.
What could get you killed is taking the thing to be melted down. ("Ah, citizen of comparatively recent standing, what do you have there? My goodness, where did you get that, then? And don't even think of the
I got if off of a bloke wot found it in the Teutobergerwald excuse, we've had that one before.")
there's no evidence that this was a regimental base. It was a private house, old soldiers have to be careful what they keep in a private house
Taking it to get melted down is a doddle. You know the smith, every time you want a set of horse shoes you wander in with a bit of scrap iron, why should he even ask you questions? Questions are for officials, not villagers
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 01, 2016, 09:54:11 PM
Taking it to get melted down is a doddle. You know the smith, every time you want a set of horse shoes you wander in with a bit of scrap iron, why should he even ask you questions? Questions are for officials, not villagers
But this is not scrap iron, it is formed steel. Furthermore, it is noted as being "difficult to repair in the field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology#Roman_military_technology)" and if this is accurate it indicates that doing anything with it was something of a challenge for even army smiths. Hence, if you want it melted down, you need someone with a high-temperature furnace* and that means not your second cousin who is the local blacksmith but rather someone who is doing production for the Empire. Your local smith would probably shake his head and say: "Nah, can't use that stuff" (except he would say it in Batavian).
In any event, iron was hardly in short supply: it is estimated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_metallurgy#Output) that the Empire turned out about 82,500 tons of iron per annum or enough to build two super-dreadnought battleships. In the absence of a need for battleships the Romans put it to various other uses.
*
It may be worth noting that the Romans mined coal for their iron and steel industry, allowing them greater metallurgical scope than charcoal-burning local smiths.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 02, 2016, 11:47:02 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 01, 2016, 09:54:11 PM
Taking it to get melted down is a doddle. You know the smith, every time you want a set of horse shoes you wander in with a bit of scrap iron, why should he even ask you questions? Questions are for officials, not villagers
But this is not scrap iron, it is formed steel. Furthermore, it is noted as being "difficult to repair in the field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology#Roman_military_technology)" and if this is accurate it indicates that doing anything with it was something of a challenge for even army smiths. Hence, if you want it melted down, you need someone with a high-temperature furnace
There is a considerable difference between the 'field' and even a small forge.
Roman armourers would use a travelling forge for 'in the field' repairs.
The essential point seems to be that iron and steel were not particularly scarce at the time so there would be no particular reason to attempt to forge suits of armour into ploughshares or whatever. :)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 02, 2016, 06:01:19 PM
Roman armourers would use a travelling forge for 'in the field' repairs.
The essential point seems to be that iron and steel were not particularly scarce at the time so there would be no particular reason to attempt to forge suits of armour into ploughshares or whatever. :)
a travelling forge and a static forge are two different things
Iron and steel might be plentiful, but you've still got to pay for them. If you've already got something decent and spare you use that. The recycling of metal was common place in the ancient world. Hence Romans burying however many tons of nails when they abandoned a fort. It wasn't that they feared the Picts were going to undercut the North Briton carpentry industry
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 02, 2016, 06:13:24 PM
Iron and steel might be plentiful, but you've still got to pay for them. If you've already got something decent and spare you use that. The recycling of metal was common place in the ancient world. Hence Romans burying however many tons of nails when they abandoned a fort. It wasn't that they feared the Picts were going to undercut the North Briton carpentry industry
That said, in our present age of recycling there are people who collect cars and even tanks (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396934/See-astonishing-private-collection-100-military-TANKS-breathtaking-9-11-artifacts--including-burned-truck-firemen-perished--Americans-visit-year-museum-built.html) ... I think we can allow our poor Batavian his trophy suit of Roman armour.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 03, 2016, 10:20:53 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 02, 2016, 06:13:24 PM
Iron and steel might be plentiful, but you've still got to pay for them. If you've already got something decent and spare you use that. The recycling of metal was common place in the ancient world. Hence Romans burying however many tons of nails when they abandoned a fort. It wasn't that they feared the Picts were going to undercut the North Briton carpentry industry
That said, in our present age of recycling there are people who collect cars and even tanks (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396934/See-astonishing-private-collection-100-military-TANKS-breathtaking-9-11-artifacts--including-burned-truck-firemen-perished--Americans-visit-year-museum-built.html) ... I think we can allow our poor Batavian his trophy suit of Roman armour.
you cannot fit a 1st century provincial into a 21st century mindset , you might as well have him reading a daily newspaper or demanding a vote
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 03, 2016, 02:27:59 PM
you cannot fit a 1st century provincial into a 21st century mindset , you might as well have him reading a daily newspaper or demanding a vote
You do not have to: hanging on to armour is not just a 21st century habit. If one goes back in history, one confronts the shocking fact that some people even acquired armour that was not theirs (http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?41210-The-Stolen-Armour)!
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 03, 2016, 08:15:54 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 03, 2016, 02:27:59 PM
you cannot fit a 1st century provincial into a 21st century mindset , you might as well have him reading a daily newspaper or demanding a vote
You do not have to: hanging on to armour is not just a 21st century habit. If one goes back in history, one confronts the shocking fact that some people even acquired armour that was not theirs (http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?41210-The-Stolen-Armour)!
yes, for resale, for use or 'for breaking for spares'
We have a surprising lack of evidence of ordinary infantrymen creating exhibition spaces to display their stolen armour
Or a considerable body of evidence which we have misinterpreted.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 03, 2016, 08:43:18 PM
Or a considerable body of evidence which we have misinterpreted.
I'm pretty sure I don't remember any ancient author talking about seeing stands of captured arms and armour as souvenirs in the houses of ordinary soldiers
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 31, 2016, 02:56:06 PM
And because if most of the other dozens or hundreds of segmentata finds can be associated with legionaries, the "simplest explanation" of the corpus of finds as a whole may be that they all were, rather than the more complicated situation where both types of infantry might use the armour.
Not sure I agree.
Shouldn't we prefer the simplest explanation that explains
all of the evidence, not an even simpler explanation that is contradicted by some of the evidence?
If the posited theory is: "only legionaries used segmented armour," the simplest interpretation of multiple examples of contradictory evidence is that the theory is incorrect. It might still be close to true - like "some auxiliaries used segmented armour" or "prior to year XX only legionaries used segmented armour."
I appreciate everyone's input. I'd never really looked at this before and its interestingly less clear than I imagined.
A slightly different question. Some auxiliary units have long histories. So after having been moved around the empire and having had their original recruits replaced by generations of new recruits over centuries what did the unit look like - Roman "factory"-standard equipped or retain its non-citizen equipment?
Quote from: Dangun on November 04, 2016, 07:16:33 AM
If the posited theory is: "only legionaries used segmented armour," the simplest interpretation of multiple examples of contradictory evidence is that the theory is incorrect. It might still be close to true - like "some auxiliaries used segmented armour" or "prior to year XX only legionaries used segmented armour."
I think the real question is whether we have 'contradictory evidence'. With 30 or so Corbridge lorica segmentata turning up in Batavia, and about 5 Kalkriese types, we have the right kind of 'cross-section' for trophies, a few from adventurous types who joined in the annihilation of Varus' legions and the bulk comprising take-home trophies from men who fought under Civilis in AD 69.
It might be helpful to have a more complete picture about all armour types found in Batavian territory so we can judge just how often 'ordinary' armour was found in similar circumstances, which might help is to judge whether it customarily found a resting-place with the owner or returned to circulation.
Attempting to suggest that lorica segemetata was used by Batavians means we need an explanation why this particular armour type, which seems uniquely unsuited for swimming, was used by a people whose unique or at least most noteworthy feature was the ability to swim rivers in full armour.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 04, 2016, 12:25:42 PM
Quote from: Dangun on November 04, 2016, 07:16:33 AM
If the posited theory is: "only legionaries used segmented armour," the simplest interpretation of multiple examples of contradictory evidence is that the theory is incorrect. It might still be close to true - like "some auxiliaries used segmented armour" or "prior to year XX only legionaries used segmented armour."
I think the real question is whether we have 'contradictory evidence'. With 30 or so Corbridge lorica segmentata turning up in Batavia, and about 5 Kalkriese types, we have the right kind of 'cross-section' for trophies, a few from adventurous types who joined in the annihilation of Varus' legions and the bulk comprising take-home trophies from men who fought under Civilis in AD 69.
Don't you need to see what distribution looks like in other areas? If it was similar, you might postulate that this is normal for equipment loss/disposal in the Roman army (which seems simpler than all lorica segmenta survivals are trophies).
Quote from: Erpingham on November 04, 2016, 12:37:53 PM
Don't you need to see what distribution looks like in other areas? If it was similar, you might postulate that this is normal for equipment loss/disposal in the Roman army (which seems simpler than all lorica segmenta survivals are trophies).
Indeed: we can then ascertain whether the excitement was because lorica segmentata is not found in any presumed or known auxiliaries' homes elsewhere or whether it is occasionally found elsewhere but this is the first time it has surfaced among Batavians.
There is a vaguely interesting discussion here (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads%2Fwhy-did-the-lorica-segmentata-fall-out-of-use-in-rome.863556%2F) which suggests another reason for lorica segmentata turning up in odd places: see posts 10 and 12 in the thread. In essence, it tended to break and was hard to fix. Not sure this explains our Batavian examples, which appear in the right types in the right numbers to be trophies, but it may explain why it was confined either predominantly or exclusively to legionaries, whose smithing and armouring support would have been much more extensive and comprehensive than that of auxiliary units. Hence auxilia would tend to be issued with more easily maintainable armour types.
Post no.14 in the thread suggests why lorica segmentata was considered desirable:
"Chain mail tends to put a lot of strain on the shoulders, and although a belt can reduce the pull from the sections below, the upper part is still almost entirely hanging from the shoulders and the lower section (which can vary considerably in length) will still exert some pull, which can be quite a bit at times as you move. That "pull" was comparatively minor in the Segmentata, where the semi-rigid upper lames effectively rested against the chest to some degree, spreading out the contact area and requiring less support from above.
When struck with a blunt object (a rattan SCA sword), a suit of chain mail distributed the impact vertically to a moderate degree (chain mail has a "grain", and flexes more in one direction than the other), but you could tell exactly where you were hit, and still feel it to a moderate degree through the underlying padded gambeson. Segmented armor transferred most of the shock from the lame which was struck to the lames that it partially overlapped, so I wasn't entirely sure where it hit, just some pressure in a general area. The gambeson was far thinner than the one I wore with the chain. Whack! "Does that hurt?" "No, I couldn't feel it." I was quite surprised at the result."
This suggests that lorica segementata was a) a more desirable form of protection but b) prone to breakage and difficult to fix and hence c) issued to legionaries because the 4,800-man legion had a much better repair and general smithing establishment than the c.600-strong auxiliary cohort; it could cope with repairs to this idiosyncratic armour type while the more modest support of an auxilia unit could not.