Who produced the weapons for the Roman army

[Jim Webster]

We know in the late Empire there were the fabrica, and some of them could have started earlier. But I was wondering about earlier and also whether the fabrica had a monopoly

I came across these quotes

"for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there. So long, indeed, as Hadrian was close by in Egypt and again in Syria, they remained quiet, save in so far as they purposely made of poor quality such weapons as they were called upon to furnish, in order that the Romans might reject them and they themselves might thus have the use of them; but when he went farther away, they openly revolted."
Cass. Dio, LXIX, 12. 

Tac., Hist., II, 82, tells of how Vespasian ordered the cities to produce weapons in occasion of the war against Vitellius (69 AD): "The first business of the war was to hold levies and to recall the veterans to the colours. The strong towns were selected to manufacture arms; gold and silver were minted at Antioch; and all these preparations, each in its proper place, were quickly carried forward by expert agents. Vespasian visited each place in person, encouraged the workmen, spurring on the industrious by praise and the slow by his example, concealing his friends' faults rather than their virtues".

Now one thing that struck me was if these weapons are produced by 'private' manufacturers, obviously they could make other things when not fulfilling arms contracts.
But given that in theory the population was no allowed to bear arms, you would have thought that blacksmiths might be a bit lost when it came to specialist work like sword making.  But you have Luke 22: 36 "He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
The disciples turned round and said "See, Lord, here are two swords" (Sword being machairan)
So when even wandering preachers could go round tooled up, it looks as if there wasn't a shortage of weaponry being made.


Veg. Mil., II, 11: "The legion had a train of joiners, masons, carpenters, smiths, painters, and workmen of every kind for the construction of barracks in the winter-camps and for making or repairing the wooden towers, arms, carriages and the various sorts of machines and engines for the attack or defense of places. They had also traveling workshops in which they made shields, cuirasses, helmets, bows, arrows, javelins and offensive and defensive arms of all kinds. The ancients made it their chief care to have everything for the service of the army within the camp. [...] All these were under the direction of the officer called praefectus fabrum".

Just wondering if anybody has any more interesting references?

[Anton]

That's an interesting one Jim.  Gildas had something to say about it.

They urge the Britons, rather, to accustom themselves to arms, and fight bravely, so as to save with all their might their land, property, wives, children, and, what is greater than these, their liberty and life: they should not, they urge, in any way hold forth their hands armourless to be bound by nations in no way stronger than themselves, unless they became' effeminate through indolence and listlessness; but have them provided with bucklers, swords and spears, and ready for striking. Because they were also of opinion that it would bring a considerable advantage to the people they were leaving, they construct a wall, different from the other, by public and private contributions, joining the wretched inhabitants to themselves: they build the wall in their accustomed mode of structure, in a straight line, across from sea to sea, between cities, which perhaps had been located there through fear of enemies; they give bold counsel to the people in their fear, and leave behind them patterns for the manufacture of arms.
Gildas DEB 18

[Justin Swanton]

It seems the fabricae existed only from the time of Diocletian according to this study, and these references come from (or refer to) the principate period and earlier. Roman arms manufacture during the Republic and Principate was concentrated in the cities, the logical places for mass production of military equipment. The fabricae weren't always located in places where significant numbers of troops were stationed far away from the major cities, hence it wasn't a question of obviating long-distance transport of weaponry. It seems that their principal advantage was cheap production: since each fabrica specialised in a weapon type they could mass-produce it more easily, and since they used slaves the overheads weren't so great. Which makes sense since from the Tetrarchy onwards money was a growing problem for the Empire. Late-Roman equipment was simple and cheap compared to that of the Principate or mid-imperial period.

[Imperial Dave]

yup...just look at the helmets, body armour (if any) and shields for comparison

[Jim Webster]

It seems the fabricae existed only from the time of Diocletian according to this study, and these references come from (or refer to) the principate period and earlier. Roman arms manufacture during the Republic and Principate was concentrated in the cities, the logical places for mass production of military equipment. The fabricae weren't always located in places where significant numbers of troops were stationed far away from the major cities, hence it wasn't a question of obviating long-distance transport of weaponry. It seems that their principal advantage was cheap production: since each fabrica specialised in a weapon type they could mass-produce it more easily, and since they used slaves the overheads weren't so great. Which makes sense since from the Tetrarchy onwards money was a growing problem for the Empire. Late-Roman equipment was simple and cheap compared to that of the Principate or mid-imperial period.

Now there's an article to read with tomorrow's lunch 

[dwkay57]

I was always under the impression that during the early period of the empire there were factories run private individuals as state concessions. But of course like most of my other impressions this could be wrong.

I checked through my reference books and could not find useful direct reference to arms factories apart from one which mentioned there existence near the German Limes. There were lots of references to weapons production facilities - including the smelting of metal - within legionary fortresses. Given the commonality and consistency of Roman armour, one guesses that there was an element of overall state control that maintained quality until the hard times set in.

[Imperial Dave]

privately run operations with the usual sweeteners for getting imperial contracts from central government is my take on it

[Anton]

I'd tend to the same view.

[Imperial Dave]

no reason to suppose that weapon manufacture and supply would be any different to other commodities such as grain or luxuries.

[Jim Webster]

I've just been reading "The supply and standardization of Roman military equipment in the first and second
centuries AD" Written for a Masters Degree

The point made is that there isn't much evidence of standardisation.
As an example he looks at the picture of Helmet evolution from Connolly (picture attached)

His comment is "Here, the author presents a diagram of Roman helmets that, at first glance, seems rather convincing. Helmets that have a similar look are placed in something resembling a family tree, with the oldest helmets at the top. This arrangement, along with the connecting lines, gives the appearance of order and direct lineage, even though the entire diagram is a guess based upon the way helmets look. A close examination of the tree shows various visual inconsistencies. Numbers 9 and 10 in the evolutionary chart, for example, are from the same time period, the mid-first century AD, but have totally different features. How can a helmet be the descendant of another helmet from the same time period? The peaked cap of number 9 appears to be close to what is called the 'Montefortino' style, while number 10, which appears to be its descendent, lacks this prominent feature. The only real similarity between these two helmets is the fact that both are made of bronze. There also appears to be no rhyme or reason in choosing which helmets are placed at the top of the tree. Number 8, which was found in Holland and is supposed to date to the early first century AD, is placed at the top of the tree while number 5, which was also found in Holland but dates to the late first century BC, is placed in the second level.
Given their close resemblance, it is hard to understand why number 10 is not considered to be a descendant of number 5; the first inclination may be to say that number 5 is from Holland while number 10 is from Italy, but number 9 is said to have descended from number 8 and they were found in Holland and Italy respectively."


I think one problem is that people have assumed standardisation and therefore have assumed that swords, helmets etc have 'evolved' as the pattern was changed, centrally. This can lead to archaeological finds being dated by their presumed place in the evolutionary chart

But actually the various types could have existed in parallel in different areas
After all a local smith would know what a sword looked like, but if the legionary said to him, 'I want mine a bit longer' because I'm bigger,' or 'the optio has a nice one, I like the way it's narrower in the middle, make it like that' then he'll do it

[Imperial Dave]

absolutely Jim. There would not be a standardisation across the entire Roman world even in Italy. Variations on a theme plus the inevitable 'whilst on campaign' leading to differences will happen. 

[Erpingham]

We might also consider the working life of equipment, how it might have been repaired or been subject to "mid-life" upgrades.  Did the Roman army junk all the helmets in a legion when a new pattern was mandated , or did stocks evolve over time as the new replacement batches arrived allowing the least adequate current equipment to be retired?

[Jim Webster]

We might also consider the working life of equipment, how it might have been repaired or been subject to "mid-life" upgrades.  Did the Roman army junk all the helmets in a legion when a new pattern was mandated , or did stocks evolve over time as the new replacement batches arrived allowing the least adequate current equipment to be retired?

Apparently they have found kit with several names on it, so a helmet could be passed down through several legionaries. So it's probable that the kit was only replaced when worn out.
Also as the soldier had 'purchased' his kit through stoppages in his pay, taking it off him without replacing it with something at least as good wasn't going to go down well.

When we get to the later empire we know they had the centralised production of a lot of things, so we can talk about replacement batches arriving.
But earlier the unit might have a bit of stuff in stock. A lot would be refurbished kit handed back by men leaving, which would sort of cover kitting out of new recruits. Then there may have been orders given locally to cover some production if you had more men coming than you had kit in stock for.
But a unit would probably run at a relatively steady state
It would only be if it had to be brought up to strength prior to being sent on a major campaign, or if it had taken serious losses that you would have to step in and buy in a big way.
I suspect that in a civil war there would be a lot of frantically getting everybody properly equipped and hastily bringing new recruits into the unit to get numbers up to strength

[Imperial Dave]

I suspect that richer individuals might purchase 'enhanced' kit and the lesser ones might have to just do with what they were given

[Jim Webster]

I suspect that richer individuals might purchase 'enhanced' kit and the lesser ones might have to just do with what they were given

Indeed some kit was 'enhanced' in that it's easy enough to get a craftsman to apply silver plaques to a belt or scabbard. Same with helmets, there's mention of silver 'helmet covers' being found separate to the helmet as 'hack silver'. Scrunched up and tucked into holes in walls