Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mythos_Ruler

Civ: Eastern Romans/Early Byzantines

Recommended Posts

man we need this!! >:D I love roma in all eras!! herculean era or Justinian comitases or skotoutai ether time :D we need this! might as well too the imperial era rome too. with segmentata maybe a late Sparta faction too. with pikes instead of hoplites. with plos and Knossos helmets. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tallestdavid said:

man we need this!! >:D I love roma in all eras!! herculean era or Justinian comitases or skotoutai ether time :D we need this! might as well too the imperial era rome too. with segmentata maybe a late Sparta faction too. with pikes instead of hoplites. with plos and Knossos helmets. 

The imperial Rome and  Late are planned for 0 A.D second part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-Roman-legions-stop-looking-like-this-

main-qimg-3bd656c77e16ad3d7718bbd37833930b-c

main-qimg-85f0b9943230fa66a16b5e5bbaa58f49-c

Bonus.

main-qimg-c3927f2cdafff57720813e339f284084-c

Quote

The ‘Roman Legion’ was a military unit spanning over a millennium (or two if you include the Eastern Empire until 1453). To imagine that they had a standard uniform or equipment for all that time is absurd. Consider that if you did a search of ‘20th Century US Army Uniforms’ you would get everything from the Philippine Insurrection blue shirts and khaki with wide-awake campaign hats to the digital camouflage and berets of the 1990s.

Quote

Unfortunately, modern dyes and pigments have very little to do with what was around the first millennium BC and AD. What kinds of reds and browns you would have would not be the vibrant Technocolor hues of the 1950s-60s blockbuster movies. Neither would the plumes or metal acotremonts match the visuals you have in your head from those films.

They would have more functional weapons and uniforms with wide ranges of uniformity from era to era or even from legion to legion and cohort to cohort. Industrial standardization is a fairly recent idea. The colors would be dull and incredibly muted hues and appear rather shabby at first glance.

To expect that the legion guarding the Mount of Olives in Judea would be outfitted or armed the same way a legion in Cartagena or Brittania in the same year is simply not a realistic idea. That would mean that the sword or weapons smiths would have had a standard design or the fabric purchased locally have the same pigment over 2000 miles apart.

main-qimg-7e938eb6c58c605d4169c72ba9294a8f-c

Quote

Why did Romans abandon segmented armour? Well, I believe, it is due to almost constant wars (and several huge battles with horrific casualty rates) in the first quarter of 3rd century CE which lead both to loss of equipment and economical decline (which continued at least till the middle of 4th century CE).

Segmented armour was more expensive than mail (after all, even a teenager with little to no training can make a mail shirt) because it requires a qualified smith (if it was forged) or a skilled operator (if it was rolled). Moreover, it was rather difficult to repair a damaged segment or hinge in comparison to mail which has no hinges and hooks at all. And we, frankly speaking don’t know how widely spread segmented armour was. What we do know, however, is that there was at least one item of segmented armour produced around 300 CE. Exact number of them is, of course, unknown.

This, however, is only speculation and we don’t know any certain reasons.

Speculation, but not far from facts.

Quote

In addition, a good portion of Roman troops were Barbarians, who typically already wore mail. Their tactics and manner of armor were incorporated in their kit. Since they wore mail before joining, they continue to wear it after.

Proper maintenance of armor required great deal of discipline. This discipline largely has evaporated by 3rd AD. While there were still good generals and good legions, the level of discipline just wasn’t there. The Segmantata was NOT made of stainless steel, it was made of steel, which is to say easily rusted. You needed to properly clean, polish, oil, etc... which is difficult under the best of circumstances, impossible if you don’t have great logistics. Now mail, also needs to be cleaned and that isn’t easy, it is non-the-less easier to deal with. Segmantata repairs can only be made by skilled smiths, something which again, isn’t easy without proper logistics.

Quote

The Legion’s purpose changed. It was no longer a force of conquest, but rather small(ish) units of mobile troops to defend a wide border. Mobility was far more important than formation and numbers. Things become easier to use and carry by smaller, but mobile, units.

A final thought. Roman Legions weren’t static. They evolved based on current needs. They fought as Hoplites, as Maniples, as Cohorts, as small units, etc... as needed. The face of the legion, their kit, and their tactics, altered based on what was current situation. Therefore this isn’t really a question of superior vs inferior, but rather question of what works given current circumstances.

Quote

Plus we know the Roman soldiers loved their bling, covering their armour in decoration and tinning the steel and bronze to look like silver

main-qimg-856a69304447fba44cb702c31c68f1e6

Quote

They had standards and flags, animal skins and medals. Ancient writer Josephus describes armies as “glittering in the sun”. While campaigning may have taken the edge off this, the Romans knew the impact of a well turned out soldier both on the soldier and the enemy.

Standardization is tricky. The army had fabricae - workshops/factories but it is unclear how much of the kit they provided. What seems clear is enough similar equipment was made that modern archaeologists can group it into types ie Imperial Gallic helmets and Corbridge type armour.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tallestdavid said:

excubilators where basically varangians guards but with smaller axes. sine they both had shields. but be more historically to have the excubotors  however its spelled. :P 

We have Byzantines in an a mod called Millennium.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 2:36 AM, Lion.Kanzen said:

We have Byzantines in an a mod called Millennium.

yeah but its more late byzantine I wanted a late Roman empire with excubitors then varagian guards. but I still play it. just its strange being late medieval vs ancient Greeks xD

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 6:22 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Have a reference for this?

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=BpxFB%2f6B&id=8D43E2878791C8BA41C08BDE840975D968FE869A&thid=OIP.BpxFB_6BLwBsh0WYfXN1oAHaF9&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2foriginals%2f54%2f55%2fae%2f5455ae66fc05ffd5de76825d4db726d7.jpg&exph=600&expw=746&q=cleomenes+III+reforms&simid=608040403867337568&selectedIndex=34&ajaxhist=0

BAM! battle of sellesia by an eye witness! plus I assumed the spartans would be identical to their counter parts from the cleomenes III reforms. makedon had it plus it was basically a pills with little sunscreen so  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tallestdavid said:

Yeah, a middle-Hellenistic helmet. Pilos with, as you indicate, a bill in front and cheek pieces.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the third century crisis create this new form of Roman Empire. Constantine is other architect of this new Rome.

714fbefd711dfc39488c5800af54f9e8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Think the Timeframe will be last decades of third Century to V cover Millennium´s Byzantine art.

 

by the way look this baby, is so beauty.

the question is how Romans change so drastically from III to IV centuries?

 

Image result for cheek pieces helmet

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

the question is how Romans change so drastically from III to IV centuries?

 

Numerous civil wars, invasions, plagues, economic turmoil, and religious upheaval will do that.

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Numerous civil wars, invasions, plagues, economic turmoil, and religious upheaval will do that.

yes... but basically the few sources and evidences shows and said that.

Quote

The late Roman army is the term by which the military forces of the Roman Empire are known from the ascent to the throne of Emperor Diocletian in the year 284 until the definitive division of the Empire into its eastern and western halves in 395. A few decades later the western army disintegrated with the collapse of the western Roman Empire. The eastern Roman army, on the other hand, remained intact and essentially stable until its organization by themas and its transformation into the Byzantine army in the 7th century.

The principality's army underwent a significant transformation as a result of the chaotic 3rd century. Contrary to the principality's army, the army of the 4th century depended heavily on the levies and the soldiers who made them up were paid less than those of the 2nd century. Barbarians from outside the Empire probably contributed a greater proportion of recruits than during the first and second centuries, although there is little evidence of this fact.

the eng version.

The Imperial Roman army of the Principate (30 BC – 284 AD) underwent a significant transformation as a result of the chaotic 3rd century. Unlike the army of the Principate, the army of the 4th century was heavily dependent on conscription and its soldiers were paid much less than in the 2nd century. Barbarians from outside the empire probably supplied a much larger proportion of the late army's recruits than in the army of the 1st and 2nd centuries, but there is little evidence that this adversely affected the army's combat performance.

Scholarly estimates of the size of the 4th-century army diverge widely, ranging from ca. 400,000 to over one million effectives (i.e. from roughly the same size as the 2nd-century army to 2 or 3 times larger).[2] This is due to fragmentary evidence, unlike the much better-documented 2nd-century army.

version Wikipedia in Spanish vs version in English.

Quote

Much of our evidence for 4th century army unit deployments is contained in a single document, the Notitia Dignitatum, compiled c. 395–420, a manual of all late Roman public offices, military and civil. The main deficiency with the Notitia is that it lacks any personnel figures so as to render estimates of army size impossible. Also, it was compiled at the very end of the 4th century; it is thus difficult to reconstruct the position earlier. However, the Notitia remains the central source on the late Army's structure due to the dearth of other evidence.[4] The Notitia also suffers from significant lacunae and numerous errors accumulated from centuries of copying.

The main literary sources for the 4th-century army are the Res Gestae (History) of Ammianus Marcellinus, whose surviving books cover the period 353 to 378. Marcellinus, himself a veteran soldier, is regarded by scholars as a reliable and valuable source. But he largely fails to remedy the deficiencies of the Notitia as regards army and unit strength or units in existence, as he is rarely specific about either. The third major source for the late army is the corpus of imperial decrees published in the East Roman empire in the 5th and 6th centuries: the Theodosian code (438) and the Corpus Iuris Civilis (528–39). These compilations of Roman laws dating from the 4th century contain numerous imperial decrees relating to all aspects of the regulation and administration of the late army.

De re militari, a treatise on Roman military affairs by Vegetius, a late 4th or early 5th-century writer, contains considerable information on the late army, although its focus is on the army of the Republic and Principate. However, Vegetius (who wholly lacked military experience) is often unreliable. For example, he stated that the army abandoned armour and helmets in the later 4th century (offering the absurd explanation that this equipment was too heavy), which is contradicted by sculptural and artistic evidence.[5] In general, it is not safe to accept a statement from Vegetius unless it is corroborated by other evidence.

Scholars of the late army have to contend with a dramatic diminution of the epigraphic record in the 3rd and 4th centuries, compared with the 1st and 2nd centuries. diplomas were no longer issued to retiring auxiliaries after 203 (most likely because almost all were already Roman citizens by then). In addition, there was a huge reduction in the number of tombstones, altars and other dedications by Roman servicemen. Official stamps of military units on building materials (e.g. tiles) are much rarer. But this trend should probably not be seen as indicating a decline in the army's administrative sophistication. Papyrus evidence from Egypt shows that military units continued to keep detailed written records in the 4th century (the vast bulk of which are lost due to organic decomposition). Most likely, the decline in inscriptions is due to changing fashion, in part influenced by the increase in barbarian recruits and the rise of Christianity.[6] The dearth of inscriptions leaves major gaps in our understanding of the late army and renders many conclusions tentative

Quote

The role of cavalry in the late army does not appear to have been greatly enhanced as compared with the army of the Principate. The evidence is that cavalry was much the same proportion of overall army numbers as in the 2nd century and that its tactical role and prestige remained similar. However, the cavalry of the Late Roman army was endowed with greater numbers of specialised units, such as extra-heavy shock cavalry (cataphractii and clibanarii) and mounted archers.[3] During the later 4th century, the cavalry acquired a reputation for incompetence and cowardice for their role in three major battles. In contrast, the infantry retained its traditional reputation for excellence.

The 3rd and 4th centuries saw the upgrading of many existing border forts to make them more defensible, as well as the construction of new forts with stronger defenses. The interpretation of this trend has fuelled an ongoing debate whether the army adopted a defence-in-depth strategy or continued the same posture of "forward defence" as in the early Principate. Many elements of the late army's defence posture were similar to those associated with forward defence, such as forward location of forts, frequent cross-border operations, and external buffer-zones of allied barbarian tribes. Whatever the defence strategy, it was apparently less successful in preventing barbarian incursions than in the 1st and 2nd centuries. This may have been due to heavier barbarian pressure, or to the practice of keeping large armies of the best troops in the interior, depriving the border forces of sufficient support.

Spoiler

1ZAdEGl.jpg

the change is deeper in several helmets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammianus_Marcellinus

Quote

Ammianus served as a soldier in the army of Constantius II and Julian in Gaul and in the Roman–Persian Wars. He professes to have been "a former soldier and a Greek" (miles quondam et graecus).

Image result for late roman helmets

Ridge Helmets

Iron helmet constructed of two halves, large cheek offering near full protection of the face (from Christies New York Auction, Dec 8, 2005) 

Image result for late helmets

Ridge Helmet from Deurne, Leiden Museum, NL

b-2005-spangenhelm.JPG

 

http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquipment-Helmet-late.html

Late Roman Intercisa Cavalry HelmetAH6715N_5_l.jpg

Quote

The Late Roman army took a radical departure with its helmets in the late 3rd Century - the Gallic-Italic helmet was abandoned for the Intercisa and Spangenhelm. These helmets were copied by the Romans after conflict with the Sassanid Persians and the Sarmatians. These helmets may have been adopted because they were easier to make - the dome being several riveted pieces as opposed to a single piece of well-formed metal. The late Roman army was a mixed conscript and mercenary force, a highly unpopular departure from the well compensated, often volunteer forces of the ‘’Marian’’ Legion. These large numbers of men would need to be equipped en-masse by the increasingly cash-strapped coffers of the later, over-extended Empire.

Regardless of the economics, the intercisa helmets were still good, functional helmets, particularly ones such as this cavalry example which have the nose and brow guard. Hinged plates still provide protection to the face and neck and the helmet as a whole is an easier sum of the parts to construct, as opposed to the more elaborate, final forms of the Gallic-Italic helmet. In this Late-Roman helmet you can see the model for the war helmets that would be used in the migration era after the Western Roman Empire, and you can also see the beginning of the forms of the early medieval helmet.

This Late Roman Cavalry Intercisa helmet is made from thick gauge high carbon steel with brass rivets. The interior is lined with brown leather and has integrated leather suspension. 

A Century before we had this beautiful master piece helmet. 

Spoiler

Bbc3gx8.jpg

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1EtfcqVr.jpg

Quote

Late-Roman iron helmet with a christogram (chi-rho) found in Kessel, Limburg, the Netherlands. Collection of Centre Céramique, Maastricht. Photographed at the temporary exhibition Top or Topic in Centre Céramique in Maastricht.

File:Top or Topic (CC, Maastricht), ijzeren helm met christogram uit Kessel (350-400AD).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...