Aetius Attila’s Nemesis Page 9

  RECRUITMENT

  There would appear to have been four methods of recruitment for the regular army in the later empire: legal requirement, the enrolment of volunteers, conscription, and levies from ‘barbarians’ settled either as prisoners of war or as normal Roman farmers with a duty to provide troops for the army when a levy was demanded.25

  Yet a career in the army was unpopular. In the fifth century there were many barbarian invasions of the West and a high level of brigandage, banditry and civil wars. Joining the army could mean a recruit being posted to a province far away, so leaving his family to the attention of a variety of enemies, as a result of which many men preferred to stay and defend their own homes.26 Furthermore, taxation was high, and there was a growing resentment of the actions of the army, who were now billeted around towns and cities. As a result, there is evidence of citizens siding with invaders in the expectation of better treatment and booty.27 However, it is likely that here, as elsewhere, regional variations and political pressures played a large part in the attraction of the army as a career, since especially in ‘peaceful’ provinces such as Egypt a career in the army would offer secure employment at relatively low risk.

  One of the other main methods of recruiting for the army, and the one most often mentioned in the Codex Theodosianus, was conscription. However, the fall in population numbers and the fact that a relatively high proportion of the population lived in towns resulted in competition between the army and the landowners in the Senate for able-bodied men. Although in times of war conscription may have been thought necessary, in times of peace the situation was different. In peacetime, provinces were allowed to pay a tax known as the aurem tironicum (‘gold for recruits’) instead of supplying men. Since the Senate of Rome used every means possible to avoid having men from their estates conscripted into the army, conscription was regularly commuted into the aurem tironicum and the money raised used to pay for Germanic mercenaries, who did not need training and who generally equipped themselves. Furthermore, the system was open to abuse, because emperors often found themselves to be short of money since the income from taxes rarely covered the expenditure needed to maintain the empire. When this happened, it was tempting to pass a decree calling for conscription simply in order to commute this to the aurem tironicum to boost the treasury.28 The vicious cycles these measures created was a major factor in tensions between emperors and Senate remaining high.

  Having looked at the difficulties of recruiting troops from large areas of the West, it should be noted that other provinces, especially those on the frontiers where life was harder, continued to supply recruits. In this period the Balkan provinces continued to be good recruiting grounds until after the collapse of the West, following which eastern emperors began to recruit in Asia Minor.29

  Whatever the origin of new troops, whether conscripts, volunteers or mercenaries, it was the task of the duces to supervise recruitment and the assignment of individuals to units. This also included the weeding out of men unsuitable for a military career.30 Unfortunately we are not given any details as to how this functioned.

  TRAINING

  Until recently it was accepted by many historians that, following Zosimus, training of the army had declined and that this was accompanied by a commensurate loss of discipline.31 The quality of the troops within the Roman army was always proportional to the quality of leadership, yet the question of leadership is rarely raised in relation to the Late Roman Empire.32 Ammianus gives accounts where leaders did not lead their troops effectively.33 Following the enlargement of the army and the inaugurations of many new units under Diocletian and Constantine, large numbers of new commanders had been required and it must be accepted that there is the likelihood that overall the quality of army commanders had declined. This factor is important, in that the training of troops depended upon the efficiency – or otherwise – of their commanding officers. The predominant factor in troop training is the quality and enthusiasm of the officers. If the officers were of high quality, the troops would receive regular training wherever they were stationed; if not, they would not be trained. If the officers were poor, training was most likely neglected.

  ARMY EQUIPMENT*

  The equipment used by the troops was still regulated by the government and manufactured in fabricae, state-owned arms factories whose workers were actually classed as part of the military establishment. Seven of these fabricae were located in Gaul and it is probably indicative of the confusion prevalent in Britain and Gaul in the early-fifth century that at some point it was recognized that the supply of military equipment to Britain would fail. Although the precise date and circumstances are unknown, it is interesting to note Gildas’ claim that the empire recognized that Britain would no longer be an integral part, instead giving ‘energetic counsel to the timorous natives’ and leaving them ‘patterns by which to manufacture arms’.34

  The nature of the equipment used by the later Roman army has been the source of much debate, since Vegetius claims that the army no longer wore armour:

  From the founding of the city down to the time of the deified Gratian, the infantry army was equipped with both cataphracts (body armour) and helmets. But upon the intervention of neglect and idleness field exercises ceased, and arms which soldiers rarely donned began to be thought heavy. So they petitioned the emperor that they should hand in first the cataphracts, then helmets.

  Vegetius, 1.20

  Coupled with the lack of archaeological findings that can be specifically dated to the period and the confusing picture painted by surviving monuments and funeral stelae, the statement was taken at face value and used as evidence that the later army was no longer equipped with metal armour.

  However, more recent work has overturned this acceptance, and has, for example, shown that the sculptures in many cases have small holes drilled in them to make the appearance of mail armour.35 Furthermore, it is possible that Vegetius is describing an actual petition from the scholae palatinae, a guard unit, that they be excused from wearing armour.36 However, the remains of copper alloy scales found at Trier, along with remnants of mail found at Trier, Weiler-la-Tour and Indepenţa, the latter of which date to the late-fourth or early-fifth century, shows that armour was still being used in the late empire, a point reinforced by Ammianus Marcellinus, who gives many references to individuals wearing armour.37

  Finally, there is the evidence in the Notitia Dignitatum. There are drawings in the manuscript that illustrate the insignia of some of the office holders, and in some instances these depict some of the equipment made in the fabricae. These include the items such as helmets and body armour previously thought to be no longer in use. As a result, it is now generally accepted that the late Roman army wore heavy equipment equal to that of their predecessors.

  However, it should be remembered that the process of production was time-consuming and expensive and consequently items that were no longer ‘fashionable’ would continue to be issued until stockpiles were used. Therefore, many items of equipment from earlier periods may have continued in use on a small scale, remaining invisible in the archaeological and sculptural records. This is especially the case when it is noted that Synesius, Themistius, Libanius, Ammianus, Vegetius, the ‘Abinneus Archive’ and the Law Codes all attest to the fact that imperial laxity resulted in troops facing a lack of equipment, as well as arrears in pay and the supply of food.38

  MISSILES

  Long Range: Bows, Slings (fundae), Staff-slings (fustibali), Crossbows (arcuballistae), Artillery

  The Romans used a wide variety of long-range missile weapons, although knowledge of some of these can only really be attributed to scenes found on murals and mosaics, and so may only have been used for hunting. The most common form of missile weapon was the composite bow, as attested by the title sagittarii (archers) in the Notitia Dignitatum. These were the standard missile weapon of the Roman army and were similar to those in use by the Persians and other eastern enemies of the empire.

  Slings and sta
ff-slings (slings attached to a 4 foot-/1.18 metre-long stave) were also used. However, they never appear to have formed a large proportion of the military establishment, probably being restricted to a few skirmishers supporting the combat troops.

  A little-used weapon in military circles is the crossbow, which may be the weapon described by Vegetius as arcuballistae.39 Other versions of the weapon included the cheiroballista described by Heron, which was loaded by placing the end on the ground and pressing on the stock until the string was drawn and a bolt/arrow fitted into the weapon. The crossbow is often portrayed in hunting scenes in murals and mosaics, but does not appear to have formed a major part of the army’s arsenal.

  Artillery had been used by the Roman army since at least the second century BC. Later variants included the manuballista of Vegetius, a torsion engine capable of accurately firing projectiles for a long distance.40 The army also produced a version mounted on a cart for ease of transport, known as the carroballista, which is shown on Trajan’s column. There is little doubt that these weapons were used in the field, but the regularity and form of their deployment remains open to doubt. There was also the artillery used for siege warfare, such as the onager (‘wild ass’), which was too large and difficult to set up for use in the field.

  Short Range: Darts, Javelins*

  There appear to have been a variety of darts, including types called plumbatae, mattiobarbuli/martiobarbuli, plumbatae tribolatae and mamillatae. These were carried by the infantry and thrown as the range closed. The plumbatae had a lead weight behind the head to aid in penetration, whilst the plumbatae tribolatae is claimed to have had three spikes emerging from the lead weight so that if it missed a target it still posed an obstacle by presenting a sharp point to an unwary foot or hoof.41

  There were a variety of thrown weapons that come under the loose category of javelin. These include types called the spicula, the hasta, the pila, the iacula, the verruta and the tela. Despite prolonged investigation, it is clear that the differences between these weapons are unknown.42 Vegetius suggests that each man should be issued one heavy javelin (spiculum) and one light javelin (verrutum).43 However, it should be noted that these different names may be describing weapons that are almost identical. For example, it is known that the older pilum existed in a variety of forms, with some being heavier than others. It is possible, therefore, that Vegetius’ report of a spiculum, which is usually accepted as the newer name for the pilum, actually describes the heavier variety, whilst the verrutum is referring to a lighter version of the same weapon. Certainty in these matters is impossible.

  Combat Weapons: Swords, Spears, Others44

  Earlier Roman infantry had been heavily trained in the art of using the short sword known as the gladius hispaniensis whilst the cavalry had been issued with the spatha. For unknown reasons, by the time of the later empire the whole army appears to have used the spatha. Vegetius also attests to the use of a shorter sword, which he calls the semispatha.45 Although there have been a variety of swords found in the archaeological record that are smaller than the spatha, Vegetius tells us nothing about the weapon, so any correlation between archaeology and Vegetius remains speculation. The spatha was a long, double-edged sword that varied from between 0.7 to 0.9 metres in length.46 Although such weapons are usually described as being used in a ‘slashing’ motion, the spatha had a point that made it suitable for thrusting as well.

  It is commonly assumed that hand-held, shafted weapons can be divided into those used as missiles and those retained for use in hand-to-hand combat. However, it is clear from ancient sources and modern re-enactors that there was little, if any, difference between the two types of weapon. This leads to the obvious conclusion that whether they were used as missile or hand-to-hand weapons was determined more by circumstances than by weapon typology. Therefore, any of the weapons described in the section on close-range missiles as javelins could also be used in combat, should circumstances dictate. Furthermore, spears such as the spiculum, which had a large part of its shaft encased in iron, would be ideal in combat, as the iron would protect the wooden shaft from being sheared by enemy swords. Alongside these types of dual usage are types classed simply as ‘spears’, used by both infantry and cavalry and ranging between 2 and 2.5 metres in length.47 Yet even these could either be thrown a short distance or retained for combat.

  Many burials include a short, single-edged knife, which by this time appears to have replaced the earlier broad-edged dagger, the pugio. The change in the design of the dagger may simply have been recognition that its use as a utility tool far outweighed its employment as a weapon. As a consequence, it became simpler and was only sharpened on one side.

  Alongside traditional Roman weapons were others that were either of unknown origin or were Germanic imports. For example, there is evidence that some at least of the Roman cavalry used conventional axes, as mentioned by Ammianus and Procopius and shown in the stela from Gamzigrad and the Column of Arcadius.48 Unfortunately, these examples of the use of axes are very rare and so the distribution of these weapons remains a mystery. There is also the use of maces, as mentioned by Theophylact.49 Germanic imports included weapons such as the sax (a singleedged long knife) and the francisca (throwing-axe), which were slowly being introduced into the empire, and attested later is the use of the lasso, following Hunnic practice.50 Again, the extent of their use in the Roman army remains unknown.

  Defensive Equipment: Helmets, Mail, Scale, ‘Muscle Cuirasses’,

  Lamellar, Shields, Other

  The earlier use of helmets with single-piece bowls spun from a single piece of metal disappear before the middle of the fourth century. Their place is taken by two new forms. The most common of these are the styles termed ridge helmets. Possibly deriving from Persian helmets, they are first found in archaeological deposits dating to the early fourth century, possibly c AD 325.51 This date is confirmed by a coin from the reign of Constantine I (306–337), which appears to show Constantine wearing a ‘stylized Berkasovo helmet’, and by the sculpture found at Gamzigrad dating to the end of the third century (see Illustration 3).52

  There are several slightly different styles, all – as in the ‘Berkasovo’ example just cited – named after the place where they were found. There are many finds from around the empire, but probably the most important were the up to twenty examples found at Intercisa (modern Hungary). There was a variety of styles involved, including the extraordinary version with an integral metal crest known as Intercisa 4. Yet all of these were made using a similar technique, which was to manufacture the bowl as two separate pieces before joining them with a strip of metal along the crown, which gave them their distinctive ‘ridge’ appearance.

  It would appear that many of these helmets had attachable crests, and it may be that the ‘integral crest’ of Intercisa 4 was either cheaper than buying a separate crest or may have been a way of distinguishing officers from other ranks.53

  At some point in the fourth century, if not earlier, the Roman army adopted another form of helmet, the spangenhelm. Named after the spangen, the plates that joined the separate parts of the bowl together, they may be dated as early as the Tetrarchy (c.293–312), although this date is uncertain and they may only have been introduced in the fifth century.

  The reason for the change from one-piece bowls to ridge helmets (and possibly spangenhelms) is unclear. Earlier claims that this was due to the expansion of the army under Diocletian and the need to supply equipment that was cheaper and easier to make have recently been questioned.54 It has been pointed out that the new manufacturing method required accuracy in order to join the two halves of the bowl properly, so making them difficult to manufacture. Furthermore, the fact that many of them have traces of silver, gilt and/or paste gemstones attached results in the end product actually being quite expensive.

  These claims do not take into account the fact that the process of spinning iron can both weaken it and lead to irregularities in the bowl. This may account for the need
to reinforce earlier, one-piece bowls across the brow. Furthermore, unless the manufacture was extremely well controlled, the ensuing bowl could be slightly off-centre and so weak down one half. This would have resulted in a high wastage of material as sub-standard bowls were returned to the forge for remaking. The new methods produced bowls that did not need brow reinforcement and were of a more uniform thickness and quality, since they are easier to work and toughen than the one-piece skull.55 Although looking to modern eyes, with computer-driven accuracy, as if they are a step back, in production and quality they may actually have been an improvement on earlier helmets.

  Although a little strange in appearance, there are artistic representations of troops wearing coifs.56 These appear to be allied to extremely long coats of mail. How they were manufactured or what form they took in reality is unknown, as none have ever been found in the archaeological record.

  A final piece of protective headgear was the Pilleus Pannonicus (Pannonian hat). This was a round, flat-topped cap. The earliest depiction is from the coins of Constantine I and from the Arch of Constantine. When seen in detail it is depicted as being ‘brown and furry’ and was probably made of felt.57 Of little defensive value in itself, its use amongst the military may have started due to its being used as a helmet lining. It may then have become a symbol for members of the army who were not wearing their helmets. In the porphyry sculpture of the four tetrarchs in Venice, the four emperors are wearing the Pilleus Pannonicus, possibly as a sign of their affiliation with the army.

  It is unfortunate that due to decomposition or rust the vast numbers of helmets that were once in use have been reduced to a mere handful. The case is even worse when it comes to body armour. Therefore, what follows is largely conjectural and could be supplanted at any time by new archaeological finds.