StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Despite the sheer number of works that deals with armies before the industrial age, I have yet to encounter much works that deals with the production and equipping of troops with their armour and weapons. A fair number of works that deals with logistics of the various armies before the industrial age usually focus on food and water, while works that deal with the equipments of those armies never really discussed how did they manage to produce enough equipment for their entire army.

I understand that many ancient armies leave the process of equipping troops to the prerogative of the individual. Warriors and citizens were expected to purchase weapons and armours on their own and maintain it at their own homes. Such equipments were passed down to the next generation as long as they were well maintained. However, knowing about this does not gave us much insight on the weapon making industry in the past.

How regular were such equipment produced by the weapon and armour smiths? What happened when there is a shortage of available military equipments? Were nation states in the past reliant on using captured enemy equipment to cover up for the shortfall? What about nation states that were responsible for equipping their armies, like the Romans? We understand the Roman state gave money to newly recruited soldiers and expect them to buy their equipment with it. However, how long does it take for the Roman cottage-industry to produce such a large amount of equipment in a short amount of time?

Given how the post-industrial age armies still have problems with shortfall of basic military equipments such as rifles, surely it would be reasonable to expect a pre-industrial age army to have more problems equipping their troops? Does anyone know any works that can help us better understand the production of equipping of military equipment before industrialisation?

I'll need to do some more reading, but I've been able to get some sources on the fabricae that produced arms and armor for the Roman legions. Wikipedia gives a reference in Later Roman Empire, a 1964 book by A.H.M. Jones, for this bit:

In the 4th century, the production of weapons and equipment was highly centralised (and presumably standardised) in a number of major state-run arms factories (fabricae) documented in the Notitia. It is unknown when these were first established, but they certainly existed by the time of Diocletian. In the 2nd century, there is evidence of fabricae inside legionary bases and even in the much smaller auxiliary forts, staffed by the soldiers themselves. But there is no evidence, literary or archaeological, of fabricae outside military bases and staffed by civilians during the Principate (although their existence cannot be excluded, as no archaeological evidence has been found for the late fabricae either). Late fabricae were located in border provinces and dioceses. Some were general manufacturers producing both armour and weapons (fabrica scutaria et armorum) or just one of the two. Others were specialised in one or more of the following: fabrica spatharia (sword manufacture), lanciaria (spears), arcuaria (bows), sagittaria (arrows), loricaria (body armour), clibanaria (cataphract armour), and ballistaria (catapults).

A section from this website also provides some information.

At some point in the fort's life, one of the barrack blocks was converted into fabrica or workshops. Buildings were added to the barrack block in the north-west corner of the fort forming two new wings aligned with the rampart.
There is evidence for metal furnaces and industrial activities such as blacksmithing and weapon production in an extensive area of ash and clinker-filled pits. Archaeologists also found a fragment of sandstone flooring.
A Roman fort required engineers, carpenters, masons, wagon-makers, blacksmiths, painters and other artisans to function properly, so the soldiers turned their hands to these skills.

In 4th century Rome, at least, it looks like production of standardized arms and armor was regularly done by the military in their forts. Other sources have mentioned land-owning soldiers (at least in the early republic) providing their own equipment. I'd imagine that cottage industries were a major source to supplement this.

I do remember reading something about 18th century firearms manufacture as well, specifically on a piece regarding the Brown Bess musket, that talked about how parts weren't standardized because production was mostly a cottage industry. While the Land Pattern got its name because all weapons were produced based on a "pattern", or sample model, they still did not have the exactly matching parts necessary for interchangeability. It wasn't until the late 18th century, going into the 19th, that industrialization and standardization to the degree of perfectly matching parts became a reality. I'd imagine that arms and armor manufacture in past centuries would not have been especially dissimilar.

There is an article posted by MC Bishop that address the Roman Fabrica. The Military fabrica and production of arms in the Principate.

Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16305330/The- ... principate

However, he limits his discussion to the production of arms to the camps. A little bit more elaboration on how the cities fashioned enough arms for newly raised legions would be nice. This would tell us the problems the Romans faced when they tried to expand their armies by recruiting new legions from scratch.

I understand that many ancient armies leave the process of equipping troops to the prerogative of the individual. Warriors and citizens were expected to purchase weapons and armours on their own and maintain it at their own homes. Such equipments were passed down to the next generation as long as they were well maintained. However, knowing about this does not gave us much insight on the weapon making industry in the past.

One thing to remember is that "armies" are not necessarily permanent government institutions in the ancient era. The Romans were in fact one of the rare exceptions.

The armies of the ancient Greeks for instance were much more aptly described as militias (voting-age men who only donned armor and arms when there were disputes with other city-states), which evolved into mercenary bands of landless soldiers.

In cases like this it's not so much the army letting its soldiers pick their own weapons and gear, but more of the fact that the army really didn't have the permanence or authority to impose any level of standardisation. It may not even have a budget to buy arms or armor in the first place.

How regular were such equipment produced by the weapon and armour smiths? What happened when there is a shortage of available military equipments? Were nation states in the past reliant on using captured enemy equipment to cover up for the shortfall?

For the Greeks, getting your weapons and armor was part of a Greek male's coming of age. Part of the requirement of being able to vote was serving in the city's phalanx, and without weapons or armor you couldn't serve in the phalanx. The arms makers tended to serve this specific clientelle only - including making necessary changes / repairs to arms and armor as needed.

There didn't seem to be a dedicated arms industry whose only purpose is to fill a government armory with weapons that can be used in a crisis (during or before one). I don't think they had even conceptualized the idea of a centralized armory to equip its army by this point in the first place.

Instead, you've got something more along the lines of little mom-and-pop stores who sold weapons (and who may be part of a bigger monopolizing guild). When a Greek citizen comes of age and needs to get his arms and armor, he goes to the shop and has something custom-made for himself.

====

Also, yes. This isn't a great system if you face a sudden crisis and need more soldiers. That's why to quickly build up numbers, the Greeks later tended to rely on hiring mercenary armies - who already came with their own weapons and armor.

I also highly doubt that captured equipment would be immediately useful to make up for the shortfall. Armor for instance may not easily fit a different owner. Capturing enemy stocks wholesale is also not very likely - there generally aren't any armories full of weapons to capture in the first place.

What about nation states that were responsible for equipping their armies, like the Romans? We understand the Roman state gave money to newly recruited soldiers and expect them to buy their equipment with it. However, how long does it take for the Roman cottage-industry to produce such a large amount of equipment in a short amount of time?

My suspicion is "A pretty damn long time". Ancient era arms industries tended to be quite secretive (operating a lot like guilds) and rely entirely on manual labor. To fill out a big order, you can't just cram 100 new guys into the blacksmith's house and tell them to start hammering. The smith probably won't even let them in or teach them - because it diminishes their own worth to their clientelle and potentially creates more competitors.

And really, this persisted for an enormously long time, even up to the gunpowder age. It wasn't until the industrial era (1800s) that it became common to have a national armory capable of producing all the weapons for your army.

Before that, you might have a couple of state-controlled foundries producing weapons, but it's supplemented by purchases from privately-owned ones. The Spanish Armada for instance relied partly on several royal foundries to produce bronze cannons, but had to beg, borrow, or steal most of its guns from other sources (including several dozen guns from Sussex produced by less than scrupulous English gunsmiths!).

If you want some specific sources... try Keegan's "History of Warfare", which has a section (albeit highly speculative) on the chariot arms industry; and how it served the Egyptians and various Middle East clients.

My suspicion is "A pretty damn long time". Ancient era arms industries tended to be quite secretive (operating a lot like guilds) and rely entirely on manual labor. To fill out a big order, you can't just cram 100 new guys into the blacksmith's house and tell them to start hammering. The smith probably won't even let them in or teach them - because it diminishes their own worth to their clientelle and potentially creates more competitors.

True, blacksmiths have, and still are a quite secretive bunch when it comes to the fine points of their trade.

But actually, the bottleneck in weapon production is less the blacksmith than the grinders.

You could hammer out the crude sword out in less than one hour, but you needed a good day or two to grind the sword to working shape and mount the grip and fittings. To speed up production of weapons you'd have the blacksmiths do less shaping, and put more people on the grindstones.

To really speed up production, you put the blacksmiths in charge of the smelters, where you need the skill to sort out the iron lumps and to average out the quality.

You then have some strong men (that part of forging is rather easy learned) or water powered hammers simply beat the result into long bars, which were cut, hardened (by professionals, but this is a rather quick process) and then ground into swords by more semi-skilled people.

Still, we are talking by speeding things up from 10 to maybe 50 swords a day once the line is running properly, since the master blacksmith will still need to supervise everybody. Weapon making, with separate people forging, grinding and making the scabbard and fittings was the most sophisticated assembly line style method back then. (The first kind of industrialized work division, and it hasn't changed much until these days.) Without this, a single blacksmith would have made 1 or 2 swords a week, at most...

http://av.zrc-sazu.si/pdf/55/AV55_Kmetic_et_al.pdf

A bit on metallurgy of roman weapons. Most of them were really crude made, still showing markings or work on them, and showed signs of bad craftsmanship.

*decarbonization of outer layers due to prolonged heating instead of quick work
*inhomogenous structure due to hasty work
*varying hardness across the piece due to bad hardening technique

This means that the weapons were made very quickly, cutting corners (no proper homogenization of steel, no rest periods to normalize tension), and by semi-skilled workers.

Even the sword, which seemed to be made using a Damaszener technique, was made badly, which led to all the gains being lost due decarbonisation of the surface during the welding.

LaCroix wrote:Still, we are talking by speeding things up from 10 to maybe 50 swords a day once the line is running properly, since the master blacksmith will still need to supervise everybody. Weapon making, with separate people forging, grinding and making the scabbard and fittings was the most sophisticated assembly line style method back then. (The first kind of industrialized work division, and it hasn't changed much until these days.) Without this, a single blacksmith would have made 1 or 2 swords a week, at most...

Personally, I suspect the ancient-era smiths may be reluctant to even allow this sort of assembly line process. If you've got strangers who figure out how to do the forging, grinding, etc... what's to stop them from opening their own shops later?

Making only a couple of swords / armor a week really sounds to be the norm, especially with the Greeks. Stocks of armaments were really built up gradually, as opposed to getting a bulk order getting fulfilled very quickly.

Zinegata wrote:Personally, I suspect the ancient-era smiths may be reluctant to even allow this sort of assembly line process. If you've got strangers who figure out how to do the forging, grinding, etc... what's to stop them from opening their own shops later?

First word: slaves.
According to Keegan, arms factory workers were deemed important enough to be branded "as a deterrent against desertion." The metallurgic analysis of my prior post shows very well that most stuff was made by mediocre skilled hands in a hurry. A truly skilled blacksmith wouldn't make such errors. Rome was probably the first nation to implement this assembly line method in a broad scale, but it was rather common in antiquity.

Why?

Second word: specialization. Most blacksmiths didn't want to waste their time grinding blades for hours.

Grinding was usually the task that apprentices did for like 1/3 of their apprenticeship, another third was pushing bellows. Swinging the sledgehammer at the point the master marked with a hammer tap was another 1/4, only the rest was when the master really taught you something important.

Also, you need to be a carpenter and leather worker to make scabbards and stuff. And usually, if a product needs 2or 3 different skills to make, you suck at at least one.

Oh, and to cover the point of "why teach someone if he'd open his shop later?" - That's what journeyman-ship was invented for. After finishing your apprenticeship, you got a set of tools (which you had made yourself during the final phases of apprenticeship), some raw material, and were sent off. It was expected that you travel around for up to a year (= far, far away) and settle there...

chitoryu12 wrote:I do remember reading something about 18th century firearms manufacture as well, specifically on a piece regarding the Brown Bess musket, that talked about how parts weren't standardized because production was mostly a cottage industry. While the Land Pattern got its name because all weapons were produced based on a "pattern", or sample model, they still did not have the exactly matching parts necessary for interchangeability. It wasn't until the late 18th century, going into the 19th, that industrialization and standardization to the degree of perfectly matching parts became a reality. I'd imagine that arms and armor manufacture in past centuries would not have been especially dissimilar.

For pre-industrial equipment, that degree of standardization usually wouldn't be beneficial anyway. Equipment had to be something you could maintain in the field with hand tools, so you had to be able to adjust the fit of metal parts, make sure the wooden stock of a gun or the leather straps on a harness could be changed to accommodate a metal part, and so on.

Interchangeable parts are only something you need when:

1) The devices are mass-produced, so there's a real advantage to having a factory constantly churn out new parts for a machine every day to replace broken parts.

2) The devices have enough moving parts and precision-made parts that just bashing 'not quite' interchangeable parts into a fit isn't an acceptable outcome. For a musket this really isn't a problem; the things have a gun barrel, a wooden stock (which can be adjusted in the field easily), and a lock mechanism that while intricate isn't that complicated, hard to make, or hard to adjust. A bolt-action rifle is an entirely different question, of course.

Zinegata wrote:In cases like this it's not so much the army letting its soldiers pick their own weapons and gear, but more of the fact that the army really didn't have the permanence or authority to impose any level of standardisation. It may not even have a budget to buy arms or armor in the first place.

The nature of the equipment was standardized (all men carry spears or whatever); the details, not so much.

There didn't seem to be a dedicated arms industry whose only purpose is to fill a government armory with weapons that can be used in a crisis (during or before one). I don't think they had even conceptualized the idea of a centralized armory to equip its army by this point in the first place.

Instead, you've got something more along the lines of little mom-and-pop stores who sold weapons (and who may be part of a bigger monopolizing guild). When a Greek citizen comes of age and needs to get his arms and armor, he goes to the shop and has something custom-made for himself.

The Greeks were among the least centralized of the civilized nations in classical times, though. What about Egypt, or Persia? In places like that, you might not have an 'army' as we understand the term, but there were certainly large bodies of armed men on permanent retainer to the ruler. What arrangements did they have?

I also highly doubt that captured equipment would be immediately useful to make up for the shortfall. Armor for instance may not easily fit a different owner. Capturing enemy stocks wholesale is also not very likely - there generally aren't any armories full of weapons to capture in the first place.

If you capture the armor of 100 men, you can probably find 100 of your own men to put it on- a blacksmith may have to pound on it and it may be uncomfortable, but it's not the end of the world to have that problem. Or even trade around: A's gear may not fit C, but if A can fit B and B can fit C, you come out ahead.

Capturing arms and armor was a huge part of ancient warfare- look at the battles fought in the Iliad over the equipment of defeated warriors. Because metal tools and weapons were expensive in time and labor, they made valuable loot even above and beyond the 'upgrade' potential for a soldier looking for better protection.

Of course, most of this equipment is captured by winning battles- dead enemies, surrendered enemies, or enemies who throw away shields, armor, and weapons to escape faster.

Zinegata wrote:Personally, I suspect the ancient-era smiths may be reluctant to even allow this sort of assembly line process. If you've got strangers who figure out how to do the forging, grinding, etc... what's to stop them from opening their own shops later?

To underline what LaCroix said...

Grinding literally just involves holding the blade up against a big rock and turning a crank. It can be done by untrained slaves who learn how to do it in a couple of hours. Heck, this is ancient times so ANYONE will probably know how to sharpen a knife or bladed tool.

Likewise for things like pumping bellows. There's no logical reason for a skilled craftsman to do such things if he can get a random guy to do it for him, he'll do better all around. It's the main reason ancient slavery even existed. There were a huge range of unskilled tasks that were just utter grunt work and drudgery. No free person would do them if he didn't have to. So instead of having free women grind grain between a pair of rocks and wear their elbows out turning the stones, you had slaves do it. Instead of freemen baking bricks in the hot sun and fires, slaves did it. Instead of grinding vaguely sword-shaped iron bars into nasty weaponry, you had a slave do it, one iron filing at a time. And so on.

For the more skilled work you have apprentices- any given blacksmith probably spends 20% or more of his career (depending on life expectancy) doing semi-skilled grunt work. He's young, he's inexperienced, but he's physically probably in good shape compared to the old master, so let him swing the big hammer while he watches and learns how to do the job properly.

LaCroix wrote:Oh, and to cover the point of "why teach someone if he'd open his shop later?" - That's what journeyman-ship was invented for. After finishing your apprenticeship, you got a set of tools (which you had made yourself during the final phases of apprenticeship), some raw material, and were sent off. It was expected that you travel around for up to a year (= far, far away) and settle there...

My point isn't that he wouldn't have anyone to help him at all (otherwise the craft would die with no apprentices).

My point is that he may not want that many people (creating a semi-factory like environment) being "apprenticed" under him, especially if they're just going to work for him on a temporary basis for one order. Because it does undermine his ability to monopolize the skill and picking who to pass it on.

More likely, as was the case in the Armada, the government would instead utilize additional suppliers - i.e. blacksmiths normally focused on civilian products or from nearby areas - as opposed to forcing a blacksmith to massively expand his own operation.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm not saying that some blacksmiths didn't have assistants or possibly even a large staff. But I am saying that a massive, sudden expansion of his staff to increase productivity for one order is probably not something a blacksmith would welcome.

The Greeks were among the least centralized of the civilized nations in classical times, though. What about Egypt, or Persia? In places like that, you might not have an 'army' as we understand the term, but there were certainly large bodies of armed men on permanent retainer to the ruler. What arrangements did they have?

It's honestly hard to say given the paucity of detailed materials. But the permanence of both the Egyptian and (especially) Persian armies may not have been that much better than the Greeks. The Persian state was somewhat feudal in nature, with the King needing to call upon his various Governors / Generals to provide troops. It wasn't like the Romans with their permanent standing army.

I suspect the model would be similar to what the Spanish experienced for the Armada - a couple of government-owned foundries, supplemented by mom-and-pops.

Capturing arms and armor was a huge part of ancient warfare- look at the battles fought in the Iliad over the equipment of defeated warriors. Because metal tools and weapons were expensive in time and labor, they made valuable loot even above and beyond the 'upgrade' potential for a soldier looking for better protection.

Of course, most of this equipment is captured by winning battles- dead enemies, surrendered enemies, or enemies who throw away shields, armor, and weapons to escape faster.

Capturing equipment after a battle tends to fall under booty though, as opposed to a real alternative to the problem of "not having enough manufacturers to rapidly produce weapons". Moreover, if you collected the arms and armor after a battle, it's not likely that you'll have a lot of spare men that could use the said weapons (the exception being large uprisings, wherein most of the rebels start off with no equipment in the first place).

That being said, yes, you can use war booty captured from previous wars to equip armies of later wars. The Armada for instance - in its quest for more cannons - apparently even raided museums / monuments and got the cannons captured by Charles V in some of his previous campaigns...

Zinegata wrote:My point isn't that he wouldn't have anyone to help him at all (otherwise the craft would die with no apprentices).

My point is that he may not want that many people (creating a semi-factory like environment) being "apprenticed" under him, especially if they're just going to work for him on a temporary basis for one order. Because it does undermine his ability to monopolize the skill and picking who to pass it on.

You seem to forget that these weren't temporary orders. Any blacksmith making weaponry was a highly sought specialist, and there were permanent relations to the rulers. Weapon smiths actually produced weapons in mass during peacetime to prepare for the next war.

Also, ancient weapons weren't something you passed on from father to son. These things hardly survived a couple of battles. It wasn't unusual for blades to loose half an inch of it's width after battle from grinding the nicks out. From Japanese smiths, it is said that 9 out of 10 blades they made were replacements for losses in combat. That's one reason why old katana blades are so valuable, there aren't that many left.

It was a fact so widely known that they even depicted nicked blades in paintings that depicted ongoing battles or aftermath scenes...

(quick search)
http://cdn2.iofferphoto.com/img/item/89 ... n_wave.jpg (the Naginata)
http://www.kuniyoshiproject.com/Warrior ... age007.jpg (swords and naginata on ground)

Weapon production was never a temporary business. Especially in Rome, the only area where manufactures of such a size you criticize would arise. Other areas would see shops with a dozen men, half of them used as human drive systems for bellows and grindstones.

LaCroix wrote:You seem to forget that these weren't temporary orders. Any blacksmith making weaponry was a highly sought specialist, and there were permanent relations to the rulers. Weapon smiths actually produced weapons in mass during peacetime to prepare for the next war.

They're certainly not temporary orders - that's why I mentioned how Greeks got armaments as part of their right of passage into adulthood. What I'm talking about (and what the OP is asking) is how they fulfilled BIG and sudden orders in response to a crisis; the answer to which is "they generally can't".

Zinegata wrote:

LaCroix wrote:You seem to forget that these weren't temporary orders. Any blacksmith making weaponry was a highly sought specialist, and there were permanent relations to the rulers. Weapon smiths actually produced weapons in mass during peacetime to prepare for the next war.

They're certainly not temporary orders - that's why I mentioned how Greeks got armaments as part of their right of passage into adulthood. What I'm talking about (and what the OP is asking) is how they fulfilled BIG and sudden orders in response to a crisis; the answer to which is "they generally can't".

Partly true.

While they usually do have a stockpile made during peacetime, ramp-up times for serious production increase would be measured in weeks.

Of course, if they got notice of an army being en route, blacksmiths would start hammering everything they can get into weapons, and the grinding would only account to "make the edge of this metal strip sharp, fuck polishing or grinding the edge straight first!"
They could double or triple output, but that would only mean couple dozen more (badly) armed man per week.

Might be of relevance, stumbled across in a link.
Such would be the layout of a typical ancient shop.


You see, by just putting in two extra clay forges, two more children to turn the cranks and two more strong lads so they can take turns, it would be possible to work almost nonstop, doubling or tripling output, without the master giving up his cosy position.

Zinegata wrote:There didn't seem to be a dedicated arms industry whose only purpose is to fill a government armory with weapons that can be used in a crisis (during or before one). I don't think they had even conceptualized the idea of a centralized armory to equip its army by this point in the first place.

The macedonians did, for they (and not the Romans) were the first one where the state provided armor and weaponry en masse.

Instead, you've got something more along the lines of little mom-and-pop stores who sold weapons (and who may be part of a bigger monopolizing guild). When a Greek citizen comes of age and needs to get his arms and armor, he goes to the shop and has something custom-made for himself.

====

Also, yes. This isn't a great system if you face a sudden crisis and need more soldiers. That's why to quickly build up numbers, the Greeks later tended to rely on hiring mercenary armies - who already came with their own weapons and armor.

A couple of caveats here. First, greek nations did store armor and weaponry in centralized places in some cases. For example, armor and weaponry was also stored at the temple of mars and captured weapons were stored there as well. So yes, one could - in a crisis - equip people with weaponry.

The real reasons mercenaries were hired was that they already had the training, which some shopowner from Athens who maybe marches one or two weeks in full kit may not have.

My suspicion is "A pretty damn long time". Ancient era arms industries tended to be quite secretive (operating a lot like guilds) and rely entirely on manual labor. To fill out a big order, you can't just cram 100 new guys into the blacksmith's house and tell them to start hammering. The smith probably won't even let them in or teach them - because it diminishes their own worth to their clientelle and potentially creates more competitors.

No. The Romans had no trouble with equipping entire armies within a half-year time using only the above-mentioned sources of "small shops". Really, you had entire regions dedicated to sword-making in the ancient world. The far bigger issue limiting the Romans was pay, training and manpower, not equipping said manpower per se.

And really, this persisted for an enormously long time, even up to the gunpowder age. It wasn't until the industrial era (1800s) that it became common to have a national armory capable of producing all the weapons for your army.

Roman fabricae.

If you want some specific sources... try Keegan's "History of Warfare", which has a section (albeit highly speculative) on the chariot arms industry; and how it served the Egyptians and various Middle East clients.

Keegan should not be trusted when it comes to any topic about antiquity.

ray245 wrote:In 4th century Rome, at least, it looks like production of standardized arms and armor was regularly done by the military in their forts. Other sources have mentioned land-owning soldiers (at least in the early republic) providing their own equipment. I'd imagine that cottage industries were a major source to supplement this.

Production of armor most likely was done in small quantities by legions beforehand as well, considering they had to fix the weapons in the field anyway.

LaCroix wrote: A bit on metallurgy of roman weapons. Most of them were really crude made, still showing markings or work on them, and showed signs of bad craftsmanship.

I do not think it is indicative of overall quality of Roman workers.

Thanas wrote:

LaCroix wrote: A bit on metallurgy of roman weapons. Most of them were really crude made, still showing markings or work on them, and showed signs of bad craftsmanship.

I do not think it is indicative of overall quality of Roman workers.

Of course not, the document states in the intro that this equipment was obviously made in a rush - which underlines the point that there was something like "boosted production" when equipment was needed, NOW!

Thanas wrote:No. The Romans had no trouble with equipping entire armies within a half-year time using only the above-mentioned sources of "small shops". Really, you had entire regions dedicated to sword-making in the ancient world. The far bigger issue limiting the Romans was pay, training and manpower, not equipping said manpower per se.

I exempted the Romans for a reason, and that was because they had a permanent standing army that was constantly buying arms and thus could support a huge number of "mom and pops" even in "peacetime". I don't think a similarly huge number of blacksmiths would have been available to the Greeks, simply because there was generally no standing army who'd regularly buy the stuff.

To expand, in the Armada example, there weren't quite as many big navies at the time that needed a constant supply of cannons. Which is why the Armada ended up getting guns not only from their own foundries (where the supply proved insufficient), but also from regions that supplied other major powers (i.e. the aforementioned Sussex gunsmiths who normally produced guns for the English Navy).

Zinegata wrote:

Thanas wrote:No. The Romans had no trouble with equipping entire armies within a half-year time using only the above-mentioned sources of "small shops". Really, you had entire regions dedicated to sword-making in the ancient world. The far bigger issue limiting the Romans was pay, training and manpower, not equipping said manpower per se.

I exempted the Romans for a reason, and that was because they had a permanent standing army that was constantly buying arms and thus could support a huge number of "mom and pops" even in "peacetime". I don't think a similarly huge number of blacksmiths would have been available to the Greeks, simply because there was generally no standing army who'd regularly buy the stuff.

Why are you so focused on mom and pops and insist they must be the only source?

Thanas wrote:Why are you so focused on mom and pops and insist they must be the only source?

That's not the intent. Even in the Armada example I said there were already royal foundries; and I didn't dispute the Macedonian armory or the Roman Fabricae.

But in cases of emergency my feeling is that these facilities can't be rapidly expanded, and you instead have to go fishing for other suppliers to meet the demand. In the case of the Romans my guess is that they had plenty of other small suppliers which are already regularly supplying the main army during peace time (even in an unofficial capacity - i.e. for minor repairs of soldier's equipment); so when wartime comes the Romans just have to call on these suppliers to supplement their big Fabricaes.

I am not saying they're the only source. But I'm guessing that the overall capacity of a nation / region is dictated not only by the government's own foundries / smiths / armory, but it's to a large extent dictated by the number of non-government operations that are also providing these services to the army.

If the army's demand isn't that great to begin with (i.e. Spain when building the Armada), then there will be a paucity of these non-government suppliers and thus the nation will have less capacity to suddenly fill big orders.

The legions were quite capable of fixing things themselves and also had the financial incentive to do so as they had to pay for any such repairs themselves. So your scenario is somewhat lacking here.

Thanas wrote:The legions were quite capable of fixing things themselves and also had the financial incentive to do so as they had to pay for any such repairs themselves. So your scenario is somewhat lacking here.

That the legions had their own men who were capable of fixing things themselves doesn't actually change the scenario that much. When these soldiers retire, don't you think those especially skilled in armor repair will end up in the arms industry or a related civilian craft? And wouldn't this constitute a pool of skilled labor which can then be tapped to quickly meet large orders when needed?

Perhaps "mom and pops" may be inaccurate and too limiting a term (those skilled repairmen could end up retiring to a Fabricae too for instance; or they could be hired part-time for big orders), but I definitely think that having a permanent standing army - which creates a permanent demand for arms-making services - would ultimately spur the nation / region into having more capacity to build arms and armor. Whereas the lack of a standing army (i.e. the Greek militia system) would limit the development of such capacity (since there's little demand to meet).

Zinegata wrote:That the legions had their own men who were capable of fixing things themselves doesn't actually change the scenario that much. When these soldiers retire, don't you think those especially skilled in armor repair will end up in the arms industry?

Why?

Perhaps "mom and pops" may be inaccurate and too limiting a term (those skilled repairmen could end up retiring to a Fabricae too for instance),

Why would a legionnary do that? Admit it, this is just you speculating without any knowledge of Roman society, retirement or the fabricae.

but I definitely think that having a permanent standing army - which creates a permanent demand for arms-making services - would ultimately spur the nation / region into having more capacity to build arms and armor. Whereas the lack of a standing army (i.e. the militia system) would limit the development of such capacity (since there's little demand to meet).

That depends on a lot of factors. I personally think that with the demilitarization of the Roman society (recall that the entire regions the Romans conquered went from nearly 100% militarization aka tribesmen where everybody is expected to fith to a small occupation army that only encompassed a tiny percentage of all Roman society) the likelihood is more that arms making is concentrated among the few centers of production that supply the army and private citizens.

Thanas wrote:Why would a legionnary do that? Admit it, this is just you speculating without any knowledge of Roman society, retirement or the fabricae.

Hey, I never said I wasn't guessing . Though more details on the realities of the system would be nice.

I'm vaguely familiar that a Legionnaire who retires ends up with a parcel of land (often in conquered territory) to serve as his pension. But I'm having a little trouble believing that all legionnaires just end up being farmers.

That depends on a lot of factors. I personally think that with the demilitarization of the Roman society (recall that the entire regions the Romans conquered went from nearly 100% militarization aka tribesmen where everybody is expected to fith to a small occupation army that only encompassed a tiny percentage of all Roman society) the likelihood is more that arms making is concentrated among the few centers of production that supply the army and private citizens.

The thing about "few centers of production" is that they often ultimately rely on a lot of external labor / suppliers to help out with production. Sure, officially everything could be produced by the Fabricae. But when it needs to fill a big order, it will help a lot if there's a lot of nearby local labor who already know how to make bits of armor themselves.

I'm also having trouble equating "militarization of a region" (everyone carries a weapon) to "everyone knows how to make a weapon". The latter isn't necessarily synonymous with the former; and even among the tribes/barbarians I would suspect that weapons production was also concentrated to a few (or at least the very best production anyway).

Zinegata wrote:The thing about "few centers of production" is that they often ultimately rely on a lot of external labor / suppliers to help out with production. Sure, officially everything could be produced by the Fabricae. But when it needs to fill a big order, it will help a lot if there's a lot of nearby local labor who already know how to make bits of armor themselves.

There you go guessing again.

I'm also having trouble equating "militarization of a region" (everyone carries a weapon) to "everyone knows how to make a weapon". The latter isn't necessarily synonymous with the former; and even among the tribes/barbarians I would suspect that weapons production was also concentrated to a few (or at least the very best production anyway).

You completely misunderstand my argument. I am saying that with the arrival of the pax romana the demand for weapon producers is more likely to go down instead of (as you claim) to increase.

Hm, I discussed this thread with some friends and they send me following question:

I would expect that there had been some centers of prodcution that would expand their capacity with external sources if required. Basically a contractor/sub-contractor/free-lancer system. Just as today in many industries. Most smiths would work for civilian purposes, like repairing plows and knives, and only work for the goverment if demand is high. I would actually expect syndicates of groups of producers to bid for goverment cotracts in Rome. That is the modern solution when demand strongly varies. If the Romans did the same, I'd expect specific laws and legal practice dealing with such scenarios. Does anybody have knowledge of that?

So, did Rome have any sort of law for state buying weapons, or was it just ad hoc deals? Syndicates/cartels to dictate price? Subcontractor system, or was everything done in-house?