Hi guys,
I'm looking into starting a Late Roman/Early Byzantium army and I'm looking for resource material. I plan on getting the Osprey books but also looking for prints (artwork, equipment, a couple of painting guides would also be useful).
For models I like the look of Lurkios Early Byzantines and was wondering if they would do to represent a late 4th/5th century Roman army? I know that there were a high number of "barbarians" recruited by the Western Empire but I'm unsure about the East.
(Corrected a typo in the title.)
Hello Jamie,
What would you like to know about this particular army, and between which dates (roughly)?
Patrick
Huh, weird. I started typing a topic when my computer froze on me earlier. Didn't realise that it posted. Will amend.
The joys of technology.
The period is perfect for Notitia Dignitatum shield patterns - and Like Ueda-Sarson's website is excellent for these.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/NotitiaPatterns.html (http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/NotitiaPatterns.html)
Regarding the actual look of troop types I am no expert. This I leave to those more capable in this respect.
Gentlemen, please ...
Thanks for the link Patrik.
As nobody else seem to be coming up with anything, a couple of information links to try:
1) Wikipedia entry on the Late Roman Army (this is quite a detailed one, and even has some pictures):
http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Late_Roman_army (http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Late_Roman_army)
2) Wikipedia entry on the East Roman Army (unfortunately much less informative but a bit more specialised):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Roman_army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Roman_army)
And a Chilean collector's figures, which seem quite like the real thing:
http://tinyurl.com/k7dd26j (http://tinyurl.com/k7dd26j)
Pictorial information for the military of this period is a bit thin on the ground but from the Slingshot archive check out anything written by Jim Sye. Jim's knowledge of the period is immense and he has written at length about the late Roman period in Slingshot. Check out the Slingshot archive.
If you are looking for historical information and possible military units and armies, look for books by authors such as Peter Heather, John Haldon and Stephen Williams & Gerard Friell. The latter pair's "Theodosius: The Empire at Bay" is a good read. The bibliographies of these books plus the extensive bibliographies accompanying Jim's articles in Slingshot will give you a pile of potential resources to examine.
It seems quite likely that the "barbarians", mainly Goths, would be serving in Roman regular units. Their dress and equipment may have been quite individualistic, but with the use of similar shield colours/patterns, mail shirts and helmets it would have lent some visual uniformity to the units.
Have fun - it's a good period to build armies in.
There are two questions about mixing Late Roman and Early Byzantine figures. The Late Romans are from a period of say 300-450 Ad, the Early Byzantines from 450 to 600.
Did the Early Byzantines use the crested Intercisa style helmet? Did the Late Romans wear long "Gothic' tunics and wide bottomed trousers with embroidery bands. If we take the classic Late Roman loo then its about 360 AD and if we have the classic Early Byz its 530 which is nearly 200 years different.
I suspect that the Early Byz have spangenhelm helmets, but some styles with crests that look very intercisa like will have survived. The wide trousers may well not be universal.
So ideally you would have different sets of figures, but in practice it would be difficult to say that LIR figures would be totally out of place.
Roy
Thanks for the suggestions guys, I'll check them out.
From what I've discovered so far (conflicting accounts mostly) until the reorganisation in the 7th century the Early Byzantium army was primarily similar to the Late Roman period but had started to adopt Persian armour & other equipment. This would suggest as you point Aligern that different models would be required but also that LIR equipment (heavy infantry?) was still in use so some models would be similar but others would be different.
At this point I think a mix would be beneficial, LIR models to represent the older style of armour still in use mixed with EB for the newer.
After all this research now I'm tempted to collect a Mid and late Byzantium army...
I would urge you to have a look at the pen & ink drawings of the Column of Arcadius and the Column of Theodosius. You will see how Late Roman infantry and the Goths were depicted.
The Goth's on the Column of Arcadius were those under the command of Gainas, who was a Roman military commander who made an attempt at taking Constaninople around 400AD. The Goth's are shown wearing long sleeved tunics coming to the knee, and long trousers. They also have that kind of 'Page boy' type hair style that some Late Roman art works show, especially from the 5th Century onwards.
And are you the same Jamie of Eve Online fame?
Quote from: valentinianvictor on July 24, 2013, 08:00:59 PM
I would urge you to have a look at the pen & ink drawings of the Column of Arcadius and the Column of Theodosius. You will see how Late Roman infantry and the Goths were depicted.
The Goth's on the Column of Arcadius were those under the command of Gainas, who was a Roman military commander who made an attempt at taking Constaninople around 400AD. The Goth's are shown wearing long sleeved tunics coming to the knee, and long trousers. They also have that kind of 'Page boy' type hair style that some Late Roman art works show, especially from the 5th Century onwards.
I'll have a look for them, and yes. Didn't know that I was famous however :D
Noticed this upcoming book from Ike Syvanne when looking at Amazon today:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Military-History-Late-Rome-284-361/dp/1848848552
The troops on the Column are interesting. Adrian has, in the past, supplied excellent pictures of them and they look like they are wearing classicised helmets and cuirasses. Now one gives one's money and takes ones choice as to whether these are realistic representations or not. It seems to me likely that the helmets are made to look like Attic Greek helms and the armour is heroicised into a Hellenistic looking cuirass with pteruges. I would be given immense confidence if such a helmet were to be found, but at the moment it is a fudge to say that they look like Intercisa style helmets but with a frontal peak added... That would fly in the face of all t.
He evidence that shows that Roman sculptors do change armour forms substantially from what is worn at the time. So the Helmets on the Ludovisi sarcophagus are fantasies as are the helmets on Trajan's column or the column of Marcus Aurelius. Similarly with the impossible lyrical on these artworks. Depiction on a Roman relief is just not certain reproduction of a form of armour.
Even something such as the Tropaeum Traiani , a representation made in the field and much nearer what we actually recover from Roman sites changes the representation of armour.
Ro
Quote from: aligern on August 03, 2013, 10:14:26 AM
That would fly in the face of all the evidence that shows that Roman sculptors do change armour forms substantially from what is worn at the time.
Would it be possible to summarise this evidence for the benefit of those who know of the sculptures but not why they should be considered inaccurate?
I've come to the conclusion that the troops depicted in Late Roman artworks and monuments wearing Attic style helmets and with muscle cuirasses are in fact troops belonging to the Palatine legiones. These may well have been issued with equipment that differed from the Comitatensis legions as a measure of their status.
But is there any evidence for that conclusion Adrian?
Patrick set a challenge which I did not pick up, to go through the archaeological evidence and place it against the artistic evidence. I do think that this would be really worth doing, but it would take time and some artistic ability. There are certainly some realistic representations such as the soldier in the Roman catacombs who is wearing an Intercisa helmet and long mail.
An area of difficulty with such a work would be that some sculptures are realistic, but crude, some are heavily classicised, some have elements of realism an elements of classicisation and some are conventionalisations.
The lorica segmentata on Trajan's column does not match to what archaeology actually finds, that on the column of Marcus Aurelius even less so. Helmets on both columns are altered to be smaller and neater and have features such as cheek pieces are cut down and have the shapes changed. Shields on the column are tile shaped , but reduced in size. Interestingly the Tropaeum of Trajan which is in the realistic but crude category shows soldiers radically different from those on the column in Rome.
In the period that Adrian is addressing quite a few Roman helmets are found. They appear to follow two main types, the Intercisa , with two hemispherical bowls and a central ridge and the Fayyum type of Spangenhelm. It is entirely possible that Attic style helmets existed in the fourth century, but I am unaware of any being found and there are enough Intecisas and spangenhelms to say that they are the norm types. There is also good evidence that helmet shapes may be classicised, that is given attic features, even when other elements of the armour are more realistically shown. I think this is exemplified by the Carolingian 'morion' style helmets which are very likely to be more to do with ideas of what warriors ought to look like in a world that looked back to Rome for legitimacy.
As an interesting example, go look at the representation of Persians on the arch of Severus and those on Persian monuments. The Roman reliefs show the Persians as unarmoured with floppy hats and hexagonal shields. I am not against that as being near to say hillmen infantry on the Persian side, but where are the armoured cavalry present in large quantities in the Persian army.
To return to the column of Trajan, what is the relationship between the trophies on the bottom of the column and that of the figures on the spiral scenes. The trophies contain some fantastical and impractical items and some that are quite practical. The practical helmets and body armours do not appear on the spiral scenes. Decebalus and his nobles are shown unarmoured, which is extrememly unlikely.
Doubtless Adrian has some better evidence than simply looking at the 4th century reliefs and deciding that what others see as classicisation is actually realistic. He will have a line of logic and it will ge good to see it.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on July 21, 2014, 10:20:03 PM
In the period that Adrian is addressing quite a few Roman helmets are found. They appear to follow two main types, the Intercisa , with two hemispherical bowls and a central ridge and the Fayyum type of Spangenhelm.
I am reminded of our conversation about so-called "Gothic" helmets for sale on e-bay. I think Duncan identified these as a separate but similar lineage to spangenhelms. So could this type of cross-banded helmet have been around in the Late Roman army?
I have no concrete evidence other than observing that people tend to depict what are the 'ideal' in artworks or monuments. The ideal at that time I would have thought would have been the Palatine troops. Now, I fully understand that scupturers used pattern books, I've actually seen an artwork depicting such a thing. But even so, we do see the troops that are depicted tend to be wearing armour and bearing arms contemporary to the works.
There are just too many artworks and monumental works showing troops in attic style helmets and muscle cuirasses to dismiss them out of hand.
As to the physical evidence. I would suggest that the amount of helmets and body armour plus weapon remains that have been discovered so far probably does not amount to more than 1% of the potential that could have existed say between 300AD and 400AD. Who knows what else has perished to the ravages of time the last 1700 years?
It seems to me that whether the portrayals on question are realistic or idealised, the first and perhaps foremost question is whether they are intended to depict palatini. Have we any good reasons for thinking they are not?
If we can agree that an Attic helmet and a muscled cuirass signify palatini, we can then move on to consider whether or not the representation is likely to be accurate, bearing in mind both the content and the paucity of such archaeological evidence as we possess for the period.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 23, 2014, 07:42:37 PM
It seems to me that whether the portrayals on question are realistic or idealised, the first and perhaps foremost question is whether they are intended to depict palatini. Have we any good reasons for thinking they are not?
Perhaps one route would be to look at the distribution of the images. Are attic helmet/ muscled cuirass types more commonly found in contexts where there were
palatini or are they more broadly spread. The latter would suggest that we are looking at stylised images, rather than attempts to depict soldiers as seen.
We find Intercisa helmets that are highly decorated and look as though they belong to officers or rather superior units. These helmets with cheekpieces and neck guards are are definitely less expensive to manufacture than earlier helmets. This has been credited to the third century when the army grew substantially in size so there were more troops to equip and less money available. IMO it is likely that the palatini wore decorated versions of the Intercisa or the spangenhelm and that the artist 'atticised them' . For examples of this see the figures from the Piazza Armerina mosaics.
Attic helmets are made from one metal sheet and are IIRC spun from the sheet. They are thus much easier to make from bronze than iron. Presuming that the spinning technology existed it would be quite a difference to produce a one piece bowl from the mechanics of the two four and six bowl helmets that are found.
The number of helmets we do find is tiny, but it is indicative that they are all of multi part construction.
Now I could believe that a guard unit such as the scholar might have something very fancy, but not the palatine legions and auxilia as that is thousands of men.
It would be interesting if Adrian would put up some pics or reference to pics where we could see what he means.
Roy
I've put some links to some very interesting discussions on RAT which go someway I hope to support my theory-
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-military-history-a-archaeology/322524-santa-maggiore-mosaic.html
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roman-military-history-a-archaeology/287105-4th-century-gear.html?limitstart=0&start=15
I went and looked, though I think I had seen the discussion before. Interestingly both key views are represented, that the helmets in the artworks at Santa Maria Maggiore (which I have visited and thought to be mainly Hellenistic in inspiration) are either Intercisa models classicised, or accurate representations of models of helmet current in the Vth century.
I don't think that debate can be resolved other than by looking at artistic representations that precede and surround the mosaics in date and comparing them with the real kit that has been excavated. One of the contributors makes a point about a synagogue representation from the third century IIRC and posts a picture of an actual helmet. If one did not have the real piece to look at then it would be easy to imagine that the helmet was quite differently constructed.
Incidentally, I agree with the gentleman who sees in the SMM mosaics the originals of the morion like Carolingian helmets shown in ninth century art, though I do not think it is necessarily those specific mosaics as there are other representations that have crested helmets with pointed peaks applied by the artist to 'atticise' them and make them properly classical.
Roy
The issue I have is that at its peak the Late Roman army numbered anywhere between 400,000 and 600,000 men strong (which may well have included riverine and naval units, limitanae etc). How many Late Roman helmets have actually been found, 100?, 200? Certainly less than a 1000, so we have found less than 1% of the total number of helmets that potentially could have been in use, and that does not take into account replacement helmets, spares etc so the total number of helmets that could have been in use between 300AD and 400AD may have run into several million.
It will likely be the case that it will take a very lucky, chance find now that will turn up a helmet which looks like those in the art/monumental works.
It is a bit more complicated than just numbers though. We rarely have but a fraction of the weapons used in ancient conflict. The question is about representativeness. Do we have enough, from a wide enough distribution and representing a status range, to suggest we have a reprentative cross section of Late Roman helmet types?
We do have a representative selection , because Intercisas are found on the Rhine, on tne Daube and in the East and are also represented in art. Interestingly the Intercisas represented in art are associated with long coats of mail and there are some very good reasons why such mail armours represent the standard Late Roman protection.
I have become deeply suspicious of representations of Late Antique troops in armour with pteruges because there is so little corroborative evidence. Mail, however, is backed up by the description of long mail coats in the Strategikon.
Roy
I'm away from the forums for a year and come back to some interesting reading! 8)
After some long consideration (and going from employed to unemployed to temp to permanent) I've settled on starting an Early Byzantine. I'm currently reading Byzantium at war and would welcome suggestions for some more reading material.
Ostrogorsky
Have you read Ilkke Syvanne's
The Age of Hippotoxotai? I'm not sure where to recommend getting it, though.
Armen Ayvazyan's The Armenian Military in the Byzantine Empire (http://www.amazon.fr/The-Armenian-Military-Byzantine-Empire/dp/2917329599) is relevant, but as I said on another thread:
QuoteA curious little book made up of two almost unconnected essays, one about the Armenian revolt of 538-9 (in which the Byzantine general Sittas was killed); the other questioning why the Armenians aren't listed among the enemy nations in the Strategikon (the answer being, it seems, "they weren't actually enemies at the time" - I feel this one doesn't really tell us much).
The third of the Osprey Roman Military Clothing (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Roman-Military-Clothing-(3)_9781841768434) titles will be helpful for painting, though some of the more exotic reconstructions might best be handled with caution.