Roman Auxiliaries' Equipment

[Patrick Waterson]

The explanations given in one case are:

a) 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.

[Dangun]

The explanations given in one case are:

a) 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.

[Patrick Waterson]

... 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.

[Jim Webster]

... 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

[Andreas Johansson]

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.)

[Patrick Waterson]

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 ...

[Jim Webster]

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

[Dangun]

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 

[Duncan Head]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

This could well be the proverbial candlestick in Professor Plum's bedroom 

But was it put there by Professor Plum or Colonel Mustard?

[Jim Webster]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.")

[Jim Webster]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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" 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 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.

[Jim Webster]

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" 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.