StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I was watching Ben-Hur the other night and noticed some of the soldiers wearing what looked like lorica segmentata , only made from leather instead of metal. I also remember leather cuirasses from the mini-series Rome. Did Romans ever wear this sort of thing or is this just the prop/costume department's way of cutting costs?

Second question: Does anyone know of any halfway reliable pictures of Carthaginian troops and the type of gear they wore? Everything I've been able to Google looks like a casting call from a Mad Max movie.

Elfdart wrote:I was watching Ben-Hur the other night and noticed some of the soldiers wearing what looked like lorica segmentata , only made from leather instead of metal. I also remember leather cuirasses from the mini-series Rome. Did Romans ever wear this sort of thing or is this just the prop/costume department's way of cutting costs?

In the making-of documentaries for Gladiator, they mentioned that they used leather instead of steel just because it's so much more convenient for the actor. It seems like an obvious cinematic decision.

Elfdart wrote:I was watching Ben-Hur the other night and noticed some of the soldiers wearing what looked like lorica segmentata , only made from leather instead of metal. I also remember leather cuirasses from the mini-series Rome. Did Romans ever wear this sort of thing or is this just the prop/costume department's way of cutting costs?

Cinematic decision. There was some very, very expensive leather armor that consisted allegedly of several dozen of hard leather strips laid over each ohter, which was favored by at least one Emperor because it provided elegant and great protection against stab wounds while being able to be easily concealed.

However, this would have been far too expensive for the common soldier.

Second question: Does anyone know of any halfway reliable pictures of Carthaginian troops and the type of gear they wore? Everything I've been able to Google looks like a casting call from a Mad Max movie.

Which carthaginean troops especially?

Hannibal Barca's men. I've seen some pics and reliefs of his allies (though I don't really know how accurate those are either, come to think of it), but none of Hannibal's Carthaginians themselves (I'm not including paintings from the 1700s, where he seems to have been a popular subject).

Elfdart wrote:Hannibal Barca's men. I've seen some pics and reliefs of his allies (though I don't really know how accurate those are either, come to think of it), but none of Hannibal's Carthaginians themselves (I'm not including paintings from the 1700s, where he seems to have been a popular subject).

Just to be clear on this - do you mean his spanish core troops, the citizen infantry or the sacred band of carthage? Because just "his men" can mean all three.

His regular troops from Carthage itself, though all three would be nice. I'm assuming his Gallic troops weren't much different from the ones Caesar would fight later.

There are not really many good reconstructions out there. However, "Peter Connolly - Hannibal and the Enemies of Rome". It is similar to Osprey, but way, way better and more correct. Seriously, Peter Connolly is great. His diagram of the organization of a roman legion is still the best I have ever seen.

EDIT: However, it has been over 12 years since I read that book, so my memory of its quality might be a bit hazy.

I can second that book (it's actually called "Hannibal and the Enemies of Rome"), Peter Connolly is a fantastic illustrator and known to be a stickler for accuracy.

Twigler wrote:I can second that book (it's actually called "Hannibal and the Enemies of Rome")

Yeah. Enemies instead of empires, you are correct.

It is too bad that most of his books are marketed as children when IMO the vast majority of history students should at least read them because nowadays most of them know nothing about the Roman army at all. Seriously, just three weeks ago I experienced: "What is a legate? What is a tribune?" *blank stares*

Let me see if I get this right...

A tribune was an elected official charged with protecting the public interest of the plebes, with the original veto power over Senate actions; they were also inviolate in their person according to Roman law so long as they held office.

A legate was... damn, I don't actually know what a legate was. High-ranking military officer, I think, but that's all I know. Sorry.

(in my defense, I am a physics student, not a history student)

Simon_Jester wrote:Let me see if I get this right...

A tribune was an elected official charged with protecting the public interest of the plebes, with the original veto power over Senate actions; they were also inviolate in their person according to Roman law so long as they held office.

That's the tribune of the plebs. But Tribune can also mean a military officer.

A legate was... damn, I don't actually know what a legate was. High-ranking military officer, I think, but that's all I know. Sorry.

The general of a legion if I recall. Although there seems to be two types of legate, one type of legate is in charge of more than one legion, while the other is only in charge of one.

For the legate, it depends on the time and the kind. The legate was initially the second in command and the delegate of a consul, and as the consul delegate the legatus legionis was in fact the commander of a legion. Then Augustus introduced the legatus Augusti pro praetore, essentially the military governor of an imperial province (a province whose governor was chosen by the emperor and not by the Senate) with full civilian power and the absolute command of all legions in his province. As such he could have been directly in command of a single legion, if that was all he had, or commanding multiple legions and related legati legionis.
For the tribune, it could be multiple officers. The tribuni plebis were the elected heads of the plebeians of Rome (and only Rome), and were the plebes spokesmen with a de facto power of veto (meaning that if they were present they could forbid to do something and you had to obey or face the entire plebe of Rome hellbent on killing you) and immune to any harm (meaning that the plebeians would lynch you if you attempted to harm them) due to be sacrosant. The tribuni militum, six for legion, were the commanders of a legion (alternating command between them, with two commanding at time) until replaced by the legati legionis, and, after the Marian reform, the legatus helpers, with the tribunus laticlavius being a young noble learning the job and acting as second in command and the five tribuni angusticlavii being five veterans of equestrian rank. The tribunus celerum was the commander of the celeres (the king's bodyguard) and his second in command until the fall of the monarchy and the abolition of both king and tribunus celerum offices. The tribuni cohortis were cohort commanders, with the tribunus cohortis urbanae commanding troops in Rome. The tribunus aerarii was originally the pay officer, but was replaced by other officers. Last, the tribunus vacans was a staff officer with no command at all. Existed other tribunes according to who nominated them and how long they served.

Elfdart wrote:Hannibal Barca's men. I've seen some pics and reliefs of his allies (though I don't really know how accurate those are either, come to think of it), but none of Hannibal's Carthaginians themselves (I'm not including paintings from the 1700s, where he seems to have been a popular subject).

Well, Hannibal's core troops in Italy started wearing Roman armor after a while (they were away from their factories and killing a lot of Romans), but I'm not sure of what kind of armor they used in the beginning.

Connolly's work is readily available on Amazon. I just bought a copy of The Greek Armies for less than $7. Hannibal and the Enemies of Rome is not so cheap.

If you can't get a hold of his work, John Warry's Warfare in the Classical World is available in many major bookstores (in the US at least). I believe he uses many of Connolly's illustrations, if he didn't hire the man out himself. Warry's works contain far more text proportionally than Connolly's but still should provide what your looking for.

Elfdart wrote:His regular troops from Carthage itself, though all three would be nice. I'm assuming his Gallic troops weren't much different from the ones Caesar would fight later.

How much detail would you need? Carthaginian troops were outfitted and fought as Helenist phalanx troops.

^That is highly dependant on the era, phalanx does not equal phalanx.

Thanas wrote:^That is highly dependant on the era, phalanx does not equal phalanx.

Not only by era: the phalanx used by Philip II of Macedon at Chaeronea was considerably different from both the Athenians' one and the Sacred Band's one, and the two allied phalanxes differed from each other.

True, but the kit was not dissimilar. We arae talking about helenistic infantry.

Actually, it was, depending on troot type.

IIRC Warry's book has a picture of Carthaginian heavy infantry - probably one of the elite units since he's well armoured: late Macedonian style helmet, linothorax, shin plates, and the typical bronze shield. The spear displayed is a lot shorter than the estimated length of a sarissa, more the size of a traditional hoplite spear.

That could be anyone from Sicilian hoplites, Citizen infantry, the sacred band to mercenaries recruited. Without seeing the picture, I am afraid that it will not help much.

Elfdart wrote:His regular troops from Carthage itself, though all three would be nice. I'm assuming his Gallic troops weren't much different from the ones Caesar would fight later.

Weren't his own troops only a small fraction of his army after a while? I was under the impression that his army had suffered severe attrition by the time it finally reached Italy, and he filled it out with scores of mercenaries.

The problem is that the vast majority of the whole carthaginean army was filled with men for hire. For examples, the men Hannibal had brought with him from Spain were not really carthagineans, lots of them were spanish tribesmen.

That said, you are correct, but of course it is not as if there were that many carthaginean citizens serving in the first place, especially not when compared to Rome.

Thanas wrote:The problem is that the vast majority of the whole carthaginean army was filled with men for hire. For examples, the men Hannibal had brought with him from Spain were not really carthagineans, lots of them were spanish tribesmen.

That said, you are correct, but of course it is not as if there were that many carthaginean citizens serving in the first place, especially not when compared to Rome.

I've heard it bandied about that this is one of the main reasons why the Romans were able to beat the Carthaginians in the Punic Wars. Is there any weight to that claim? I've always thought that a professional soldier, mercenary or no, is better than untrained rabble.

True, but the Romans were training all-year long. They had state-supervised exercises and every roman man had to pass muster. Furthermore, the Roman Army always retained a core of veteran soldiers and officers, so they had a lot of operational experience. Their discipline and drill also was rivaled only by a few nations.

Then you have to consider the fact that soldiers could, on occasion, serve for several years, even periods of about a decade if needed. After that time period, there is hardly any difference. Indeed, given the roman drill, I would suggest that after one or two years the average Roman soldier was much better than the average mercenary, who all too often was just some guy whose chieftain had called upon to serve in another army.

Thanas wrote:That could be anyone from Sicilian hoplites, Citizen infantry, the sacred band to mercenaries recruited. Without seeing the picture, I am afraid that it will not help much.

I had a chance to check it out myself last night and my memory wasn't that good apparently - the drawing is of a Libyan heavy phalangite, but it shows him wearing the spoils of war, i.e. Roman chain mail. The note mentioned that Hannibal's men would often take Roman armour with the exception of the shield to avoid being mistaken for a Roman by their own army.

As an FYI: The other two illustrations were of Numidian cavalry (b&w small illustration) and an Iberian tribesman (large colour one showing him wearing a sinew cap, square breast plate, a falcata, and an oval shield).