by Ian Hughes
Lamellar
A surprising absence during this period is that of lamellar armour. Made of longer strips of metal wired to a forming garment of cloth or leather, these long scales ran vertically in the armour producing a very firm but extremely stiff protection. Attested both before and after the period, it is curious that between c.350 and 425 there is no evidence at all for this armour, although it was present both before and after. The most obvious explanation is that it continued in use but that there is no written, architectural or archaeological evidence for it. However, the lack of evidence is puzzling.
Shields
The common form of shield used by the Romans was a large oval shape. However, the depiction of round shields on monuments has led to confusion. Some have seen this as evidence that the Roman army was being influenced by Germanic shields, whilst others have suggested that the oval shield was used by the vast majority of troops, with the round shields being used by guardsmen.86
Although it is certain that round shields were used by the Romans, their derivation remains uncertain, and we do not know how widespread their use was in the army. No doubt there were practical, regional or fashionable reasons for their distribution, along with their plausible use by guards units as a mark of distinction.
However, there is another form of shield that needs to be examined: the hexagonal shield (figure 11). These shields appear to have developed first amongst the Germanic tribes, and there are depictions of them on the Arch of Orange, amongst other works. Testifying to their use in Roman settings are the wall paintings from Dura Europus. It is a sign of the adaptability of the Roman army that they were willing to use any item from their enemies’ arsenals if they believed it gave them an advantage. In this case, the shield was probably suitable for use by riders with heavy mail coverings, possibly due to its shape and weight.
The Notitia Dignitatum lists many shield patterns and labels them as though they were associated with specific units within the army. Although the accuracy of the Notitia in this regard is open to question, it is interesting to note that according to Ammianus at the Battle of Strasbourg the Germanic tribesmen recognized Roman units by their shield devices.87 Although the Notitia may be of dubious accuracy, the theory that units had specific shield designs appears to be correct.
Other
The use of segmented armour for the arms and legs of heavily armoured horsemen, the catafracti and clibanari, is attested and evidenced in the drawings of armour produced by the fabricae in the Notitia Dignitatum (see Plate 30). However, there is no evidence of its use by the infantry, although this should not be ruled out if the occasion arose.
The catafracti and clibanari also had armour for their horses. The exact nature that this took is unclear, although evidence from before and after this period suggests that it could be either linen, horn, copper-alloy or iron scales, or even possibly mail, though the latter would be extremely heavy.
Finally, it should be noted that greaves for troops’ legs were now extremely uncommon, although again they are depicted both before and after this period, so it is possible that they continued in use.
Chapter Five
The Barbarian Armies
Our knowledge of the Roman army is based largely around conjecture and the interpretation of earlier and later sources. For the armies of the opposition, evidence is even more sparse. Although many writers described the nature of the Germanic forces, these descriptions are usually based more on literary themes and a desire to differentiate between the tribes than on reality. A major example of this is the descriptions of the francisca. This classic Germanic throwing-axe is portrayed as being used mainly by the Franks. However, archaeology has shown that it was distributed over a far wider area and so was used by the Alamanni, amongst others. As a result, it should be remembered that our descriptions of the various Germanic ‘nations’ conform more to ancient historiography and the desire to find a way of differentiating between the tribes than it does to reality. With these observations in mind, it is possible to investigate the German armies.
Organization
We know from later records that after the Germans had settled down in their own kingdoms within the former boundaries of the Empire they settled upon a decimal system for the organization of their armies.1 This is a reasonable assumption, but it should be remembered that the Germans did not have formal, professional armies comparable to the Romans. Their armies were formed ad hoc based upon the nature of the forces available. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that these armies were based upon a very informal adoption of the decimal system, with plenty of leeway allowed to take into account tribal and even village loyalties.
Most Western barbarians were farmers.2 When called upon to serve the majority will have been equipped only with a spear and shield, and probably with missile weapons such as the francisca and the ‘javelin’. These men will have been called upon by their political leaders, and here we do have some form of insight. The loyalty and service of a cluster of farms and villages were usually owned by one man. These are sometimes called cantons.3 These groups may have been classed as individual tribes by Roman authors. The number of men that cantons could raise would vary, but it is estimated that the largest cantons would be able to muster at most 2,000 men, with the average more likely to be around 1,000.4 This would tie in with the later ‘official’ the thusundifath (leader of 1,000).5 It is possible that such men were in charge of 1,000 warriors since this was the number that would earlier have been raised by a single canton. Most of the men would be farmers, however each leader would have had a small retinue, his comitatus, maintained out of his own pocket, that served him in military matters. There can be little doubt that the majority of raids would be carried out by a single canton.
Command hierarchy
Each canton would hold a political alliance with a more powerful leader, who is likely to have dominated several such cantons. The larger armies had an even more complex hierarchy, with several layers of such leaders ending in the ‘rule’ of one or two leaders. Such a situation is described by Ammianus Marcellinus. It is worth quoting Ammianus when he describes the German forces at the Battle of Strasbourg (Argentoratum).
Now all these warlike and savage tribes were led by Chnodomarius and Serapio, kings higher than all the rest in authority (potestate excelsiores ante alios reges) … these were followed by the kings next in power (potestate proximi reges), five in number, by ten princes (regalesque decem), with a long train of nobles (optimatum), and 35,000 troops levied from various nations, partly for pay and partly under agreement to return the service.
Ammianus Marcellinus, 16.12.23–27.
As can be seen, Ammianus struggled to translate the German terms into Latin, with reges being the only word he felt was suitable. There can be little doubt that the ten ‘princes’ were the leaders of cantons, and that the ‘nobles’ were their ‘comitatus’. These ten leaders owed service, or at least some form of loyalty, to five men ‘next in power’ and these five followed the orders of Chnodomarius and Serapio. Yet although this system seems to follow to some degree the feudal system of the Middle Ages, this is not quite true. Any of the leaders from the canton upwards only owed loyalty to their ‘superiors’ out of common interests or fear. Each canton was its own political unit with its own, individual agenda. In theory, they could change allegiance whenever they desired. The Romans had in the past exploited these divisions for their own political purposes, and after Adrianople this factor had allowed Theodosius to slowly strip the Goths of men. Theodosius had negotiated with individual cantons and then moved them away from the Balkans. Political disunity was one of the major failings of the Germanic peoples at this time.
Training for command
This system left little room for formal command and control as practised by the Romans, and this must be seen as one of the main downfalls of the Germanic armies at this time. Obviously, the leaders of these groups gained experience from participating in inter-tribal or anti-Roman warfare
and raids, but had no formal training, even of the rudimentary form available to Roman officers. Along with the lack of control over their forces, the fact is that the only commands most German generals had held was during raids and small-scale skirmishes. This is not an ideal preparation for leading troops in major battles.
Training and discipline
There were two elements to the composition of the German armies. The first was the comitatus of the individual leaders. The comitatus was a group of warriors who had sworn to protect their leader. In return, he provided them with food, equipment and entertainment. The main way he did this was to use them to raid either other tribes or the Roman Empire. In this way he collected booty (including slaves) which could be distributed as ‘pay’. A successful raid would also attract more men, so enlarging the leader’s comitatus and making him more powerful.
The men who formed the comitatus were retained on a permanent basis and so had plenty of free time in which to practise the art of warfare. Obviously, whether they did or not depended upon the status and nature of their leader. A powerful leader with a reputation for aggressive warfare may have encouraged military training: a less-aggressive leader may not have encouraged practice to such a great extent. Although as a consequence the quality of these troops could vary, potentially they formed a well-trained core of ‘professional’ warriors who in skill may have been able to match those of the Roman army. However, it is unlikely that they practised warfare on a larger scale, so the Roman legions tended to have the strategic and tactical advantage in large-scale battles.
It may be assumed that only the leaders and the comitatus would have had the finances available to buy horses. This would explain two stereotypes of Germanic cavalry. First, their paucity in numbers. Modern estimates suggest that a Germanic army would at the most have a third of its forces mounted. More often than not, the proportion would be lower, probably at around one-fifth.6 The vast majority of the army were farmers relying on subsistence agriculture and could not afford to buy a horse.
8. A tenth-century illustration showing the overarm use of a spear (left) and (right) a drawing from the Stuttgart psalter showing a ridge helmet and a shield with a ‘spiked’ boss (after Boss).
The second stereotype is the quality of German cavalry. Vegetius himself comments that the Romans had progressed in their cavalry arm thanks to the example set by the Goths, Alans and Huns.7 This suggests that the comitatus of the leaders did, in fact, spend time training at arms. However, it is noticeable that all of the nations attested as being worthy of emulation are from the East. Here, the cost of horses was lower and more individuals could afford to own one.8 The nations of the West may have lacked suitable terrain for the rearing of horses and training of cavalry. From an earlier period, Caesar had sometimes had to supply his German mercenaries with horses, since their own were too small for the task.9 The situation may have been improving over the intervening centuries, since later the Alamanni were renowned as a people ‘who fight wonderfully from horseback’.10 As a result, the armies faced by Stilicho need to be analysed in detail to determine the proportion of cavalry to infantry.
The other part of the army, and by far the largest number, was formed of the farmers who made up the bulk of the German population. The majority were equipped with spears and shields, although the better-off would be able to afford a sword. From the third century on, the deposition of swords becomes slightly more common in burials, although the finds at Ejsbøl North in Jutland has spearmen outnumbering swordsmen by a factor of three-to-one.11 In contrast, thrown weapons such as axes and ‘javelins’ were relatively common. These men would have had some training, but mainly under the tutelage of fellow villagers who had seen service before. As a result, the quality of the massed forces of the Germans was variable. This helps to explain why the German warriors were renowned for their first fierce charge. They would attempt to intimidate and break the enemy as soon as possible. If the enemy were not broken, the German forces did not have the quality to maintain a long hand-to-hand battle and the chances were that they would break and run. This was especially the case in terms of the amount of equipment available.
Barbarian society had metalworkers of great skill and finesse. The quality of the goods they produced matched anything that could be made in Rome. However, there were not many of them. The result was that many items, such as swords, which were taken for granted by Roman soldiers, were available in Germania, but on a much reduced volume and at far greater expense. The majority of Germanic warriors could not afford a sword.
Still less could they afford protective equipment. It is interesting to note that a slightly later series of Frankish laws assessed a mail shirt as being equivalent in value to two horses or six oxen, and a helmet the equivalent of one horse.12 This helps to explain why the Romans forbade the sale of weapons and armour to the Germans, and also why Germanic tribes were so poorly armed. Unlike the Romans, they simply couldn’t afford the equipment.
Army equipment
Missiles
The majority of missiles used by Germanic troops appear to be of the hand-thrown variety. Although bows were in use, they were not composite bows as used by the Romans, Alans, Sarmatians and Huns. Instead, they were simple bows made from a single piece of wood.13 Archery does not appear to have been an important part of Germanic warfare, and so the evolution of the bow in the West was very slow when compared to the East. Agathias even goes so far as to claim that the Franks did not know how to use the bow.14 Furthermore, unlike the Huns and the Alans, the Germans did not employ the bow as a mass weapon from horseback. Only individuals used the bow when mounted in the West.15 Unfortunately, there is also little conclusive evidence for the carrying of more than one spear by the cavalry. Representations in art show only a single spear and ancient authors do not mention the use of javelins by German cavalry. As a result, it may be that German cavalry did not practise missile warfare, instead relying on advancing quickly to close combat and using the spear as a thrusting weapon. This is certainly the impression given by Procopius when describing the later warfare as practised by the Vandals and Goths.16
As with the bow, although there can be little doubt that the sling was known to the northern tribes, there is very little evidence for its use during the period in question. Therefore, although a possibility, whether or not it was used by troops in battle remains a mystery.
Alongside the variety of ‘javelins’ and their heavier equivalents (see below), the main missile weapon favoured by the Germanic tribes along the Rhine was the francisca. The francisca was a throwing axe carried by a large number of warriors. The axe was possibly first called the francisca by Isidore of Seville (c.560–636), who claimed that it was given that name by the Spanish because of its extensive use by the Franks.17 It is notable that slightly earlier than this Gregory of Tours (c.538–594) called it either the securis or the bipennis.18 Therefore, only by the later time of Isidore was it used extensively by the Franks. Prior to this, it was used by many of the Germanic tribes, and examples have been found in Britain, Alamannia and further East.19
One area where the Germans were poorly served was in siege warfare. The tribes of the West did not know how to build artillery or other siege weapons with which to take cities. Instead, they were forced to rely on subterfuge and the betrayal of cities by sympathetic individuals within them.
9. Franciscas. These drawings show that the francisca did not follow a single design, but had variations ccording to when or where it was manufactured.
Combat weapons
Swords
The sword used by the Germans was their own version of the spatha, the long, double-edged sword which varied from between 0.7 to 0.9 m in length.20 Unfortunately, although the German smiths were adept at making these weapons, the results were expensive and so restricted their distribution among the poorer classes of warrior.
Spears
As was stated in the section on Roman equipment, it is commonly assumed that hand-held, shafted weapon
s were either used as missiles or retained for use in hand-to-hand combat, whereas in reality there was little difference between ‘spears’ and ‘javelins’.
There was also little difference between many of the spears in use by the Romans and the Germans. For example, there seems to be a link between the Roman pilum and its derivatives, such as the spiculum, and the Germanic angon and its equivalents, as found in places such as Vimose and Illerup (third century), and Ejsbøl and Nydam (fourth century – figure 1). 21 These items also appear to have been widespread and not the dominant weapon of a specific group. The angon is found as far apart as Britain and the upper Danube.22
However, as with the Romans, the most common item appears to have been a simple spear, which could be used either underarm or overarm by both the cavalry and infantry, and which was c.2.5 to 3.5 m in length with a variety of metal heads fixed to the top of the shaft.23 These were the most common weapons used by the Germans, being found in large numbers throughout Germania.
10. A selection of the grave goods from a single grave at Krefeld-Gellep. The angon on the left, the spatha in the centre and the francisca on the right demonstrate that a single warrior could easily carry a variety of weapons that would later be associated with different ‘tribes’. Note also the ‘spiked’ boss at the top right.
Others
One item of equipment carried by German warriors was the seax, a ‘short-sword’ or ‘dagger’, depending on the dimensions of the individual weapon.24 A single-edged blade of various lengths, as time passed it gradually became longer and turned into a short sword. However, in this early period it is probably best thought of as a dagger for when the primary weapon, either spear or sword, was lost or rendered unusable. Like the francisca, although later identified with a specific people, in this case the Saxons, in the earlier period it was found throughout barbaricum, not just in Saxony.25