Warrior [15] Late Roman Cavalryman AD 236-565

by Simon MacDowall

  'Those men, especially those receiving allowances for the purpose, should certainly he required to provide servants for themselves, slave or free, according to regulations in force. At the time of distributing pay, care should be taken, just as with the soldiers, to register the servants and their arms . . . If some of the men are unable to afford servants, then it will be necessary to require three or four lower-ranking soldiers to join in maintaining one servant . . . There should he enough servants for each section to take care of their horses, in proportion to the differing rank of the units or the number of horses.'

  A nobleman’s country villa. During the 5th century the power of large landowners grew to the point where many employed their own private armies. In addition, poor soldiers in static units sometimes hired themselves out to work the fields of these immense holdings. Both practices were officially illegal but commonplace. (Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Trier)

  We get glimpses of routine daily life for a cavalryman from surviving unit and personal records, mostly from Egypt and in the main describing duties carried out by static troops. The duties carried out by the Ala Quinta Praelectorum, a unit of Egyptian limitanei in the mid-4th century, include policing routine patrolling:, tax collecting and even providing nets to catch gazelles. The work of such static cavalry units in peaceful regions probably equates more to that of a modern border police than a regular military unit.

  As time progressed these static units increasingly took on the appearance of part-time militias. Laws from the 5th century onwards indicate that many men of the limitanei, and later the comitatenses as well, took up other occupations. Many farmed their own land, others worked the land of powerful landowners, and some had private businesses. An order from the emperor Leo in the mid-5th century informs the patrician Aspar that soldiers should be occupied with public duties and not devote themselves to cultivating fields or looking after animals or to commerce. They were in future not to be seconded to the service of private estates, and were supposed to remain with their units to drill each day. Despite official displeasure these practices continued. One soldier in 6th-century Alexandria is recorded as spending most of the day weaving baskets and praying, only joining his unit for military duties in the evening. Other records from Egypt show that many soldiers had extensive business dealings and openly carried out other occupations.

  D Billeting the field army (Italy, 5th century AD)

  Units of the mobile field armies did not have permanent quarters. When on campaign they would live under canvas, and at other times they were billeted on the local population. The ordinary citizen had to surrender one-third of his house to a soldier, which often resulted in friction between ‘host' and 'guest'. Hosts were not required to provide anything other than bare rooms, but we have many examples of soldiers extorting food, bedding and oil, and even ordering baths. These demands for extra services were known as Salgamum and a series of laws in the 4th - 5th centuries officially forbade it. A ruling in 340 states that ‘hosts’ could voluntarily provide such things. Presumably it would have been fairly easy for a soldier to create the circumstances by which a householder might be persuaded to 'volunteer' more than he had to. An account from Edessa between 503 and 505 tells of soldiers turning people out of their homes, beating them up, stealing clothes and belongings and exacting oil, wood and salt. An official complaint to the local commander resulted in a ruling that the soldiers were entitled to a bed, bedding, firewood and oil - in contravention of the imperial laws prohibiting Salgamum.

  Soldiers had been allowed to marry since the reign of Septimus Severus, and were accompanied by their families, sometimes even on campaign. In this scene a German soldier of the Italian field army, together with his family, are extorting food from their Italian host. The normal friction between host and guest must have been greatly increased by the fact that the vast majority of the soldiers, particularly in the west, were Germans with different language, customs and possibly religion. Great difficulties arose, for example, when Julian’s primarily pagan Celtic and Germanic troops were stationed in Greek-speaking Christian Antioch.

  Soldiers in field army units, with no fixed base, would have had little opportunity for other occupations. This, however, was balanced by high status, better pay anti plenty of opportunity for battlefield loot. The field army soldiers led a more dangerous life than their counterparts in static units, as they were far more likely to be called on for serious combat. They could also be posted from one end of the Empire to the other. Being moved far away from their home areas caused great resentment among the soldiers, even if they were allowed to bring their families. In AD 360, for example, the Gallic field army mutinied when faced with an order to move east to join a campaign against the Persians.

  Soldiers in field army units, with no fixed base, would have had little opportunity for other occupations. This, however, was balanced by high status, better pay anti plenty of opportunity for battlefield loot. The field army soldiers led a more dangerous life than their counterparts in static units, as they were far more likely to be called on for serious combat. They could also be posted from one end of the Empire to the other. Being moved far away from their home areas caused great resentment among the soldiers, even if they were allowed to bring their families. In AD 360, for example, the Gallic field army mutinied when faced with an order to move east to join a campaign against the Persians.

  This 5th-century wood carving from Egypt depicts Roman garrison troops defending a town against raiders. Only on rare occasions did such static troops have to engage in combat. Most actions were now fought by the bands of mounted warriors who formed the field armies, (Museum für Spätantike und Byzantinische Kunst, Berlin)

  Field army soldiers were billeted on the local population and were given allowances to purchase food and other necessities. On campaign they might live under canvas and be supplied with hard rations, but this was not always the case. Describing the occupation of Carthage by Belisarius' troops, for example, Procopius tells us:

  'The clerks drew up their lists of the men and conducted the soldiers to their lodgings as usual, and the soldiers themselves, getting their lunch by purchase from the market, rested as each one wished.'

  Horse armour, because of its weight and expense, was probably quite rare. Examples of full scale horse armour have been found at Dura Europos, but their use was probably limited to the clibanarii of the eastern regions. Chamfrons like this one, although thought to be designed for cavalry games, may have been more widespread and used in combat by western catafractarii. (National Museums of Scotland)

  Although becoming increasingly important, 4th-century cavalry still acted primarily in support of the infantry. (Arch of Constantine, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Rome)

  EQUIPMENT

  Issue and supply

  In theory the soldier received his clothing and equipment from the state, but in the anarchic period of the 3rd century there was no centralised supply system. Soldiers were supposedly supplied from workshops attached to their fort, but many units, particularly cavalry, were almost constantly on duties elsewhere, and rarely saw their home base. Re-supply, therefore, would have had to come from a variety of sources: battlefield salvage, pillage, local purchase or official re-supply from locations other than the soldier's home base. The result would have been that rarely would two 3rd century cavalrymen have looked alike, and might have had serious equipment deficiencies.

  The creation of state-run arms factories (fabricae) at the end of the 3rd century may have been an attempt to find a better way of supplying soldiers who were constantly on the move. Even then, there was no concept of uniformity in the modern sense: fabricae continued to build on local traditions, so that a workshop in the east might produce scale armour while a similar one in the west produced mail. Since the field armies were mobile, individual soldiers in the same unit could wear a variety of styles of equipment, reflecting a variety of' supply sources. The 4th-century soldier was probably better and more efficiently equ
ipped than his 3rd-century predecessor, but except in static units he would still not have presented much of a uniform appearance.

  Central re-supply began to break down again towards the end of the 4th century, and equipment issues were replaced by allowances from which the soldier was expected to equip himself. A law of AD 375, for example, states that recruits were to be given 6 solidi to buy clothing and for other initial expenses. By the 6th century even horses, weapons and armour were supplied in this way, although the powerful warlords of the 5th and 6th centuries sometimes supplied their retainers our of their own pockets. Procopius, for example, praises Belisarius' generosity in replacing arms and horses lost in battle by his men at his own expense.

  An attempt at the end of the 6th century to replace the allowance system with uniform and arms issues caused great resentment in the army, which suggests firstly that soldiers did not spend their full allowances on equipping themselves, and further that equipment varied greatly between units and even within the same unit.

  Basic clothing and equipment

  The soldier’s clothing, probably bought on the local market, would have reflected the civilian fashions of the time, and should not be thought of as ‘uniform’ in the modern sense. The basic dress was a very loose-fitting long-sleeved tunic decorated with contrasting coloured bands at the cuffs and neck, and discs on the shoulders and skirt. Most tunics would have been made of undyed wool, linen or a wool-linen mix, and they might have been bleached white or left a natural light beige. Wealthier soldiers, or those who wished to present a more military appearance, might have purchased red dyed tunics which had long been considered a military colour. Other colours blue, green and yellow - were less common but are shown on some mosaics and paintings from the period.

  Leg-wear varied according to the region and the season. In cold climates breeches or long trousers were worn, usually of dark brown wool, although some cavalrymen may have worn leather breeches. The lower legs were often covered by knee-high socks bound up with laces in a cross-garter pattern, or with wrap-around puttee-like bindings. In warmer climates the lower leg coverings were often worn without breeches or trousers.

  To keep out the cold and wet, each soldier had a thick wool cloak, or sagum. Dull yellow or reddish browns seem to have been the most common cloak colours, but richer soldiers and officers might have worn brighter hues. When not in use, the cloak was rolled up behind the trooper's saddle. The Strategikon (a (6th-century military manual) states that soldiers' cloaks should be large enough to wear over their armaments' so as to protect them from dampness. It explained other benefits too: 'Such cloaks are also necessary in another way on patrol, for when the mail is covered by them, its brightness will not be seen at a distance by the enemy, and they also provide some protection against arrows.'

  Right: Additional leg and arm defences, like this example from Scotland, would have beep worn by Roman cataphracts. A unit of catafractarii was stationed in north Britain during this period. Far right: A modern reconstruction of a laminated thigh guard. (National Museums of Scotland)

  It was the soldier's equipment, not the colour or style of his clothing, that set him apart from his civilian counterpart. The most basic military item was a wide leather belt decorated with bronze stiffeners and studded with various straps and fasteners to allow the attachment of extra personal equipment such as a purse or knife. The long sword, or spatha, was worn on the left side, usually suspended from a baldric over the right shoulder, but it could also be worn from the waist-belt. Most cavalrymen carried a spear, or hasta, as their primary offensive weapon, but they supplemented it with several light javelins which might be held in the left hand behind the shield or in a javelin ease behind the saddle.

  The shield

  The most important piece of defensive equipment was the shield. This was the only part of their equipment where pains were taken to provide some degree of uniformity as a means of identification; The 5th-century writer Flavius Vegetius Renatus tells us that each unit had a distinctive shield emblem, This is substantiated by the Notitia Dignitatum, which lists the shield designs of most units at the end of the 4th century, and by later Byzantine manuals, which suggest that each unit should be identified by a common shield and colour of helmet plume. This does not imply that all men in the unit would have carried elaborately painted shields; after a battle, damaged shields would have had to be replaced from battlefield salvage or perhaps from a central reserve, and it is highly unlikely that a soldier on campaign would have had the time or the paint to reproduce some of the highly detailed designs shown in the Notitia before his next engagement. At best, he might have managed a quick coat of paint in the official unit colour.

  With the possible exception of some specialised skirmisher units, Roman cavalry wore some form of armour. The helmet was almost universal, although styles would vary greatly, even in the same unit. Monuments and gravestones from the 3rd century onwards tend to depict soldiers, whether infantry or cavalry, without armour. This has led many modern authors to believe that except for cataphracts, late Roman soldiers were unarmoured. Literary evidence, however, indicates that cavalry armour became more complete in the later Empire, and that the average trooper would have worn at least a light mail shirt similar to that of the auxiliary cavalry of earlier periods.

  Cataphractarii and Clibanarii

  While most Roman cavalry performed almost a light cavalry role, some units were specially armed and equipped as shock cavalry. These had the generic name of cataphracts (Cataphractarii or cataphracti). Their name stems from the word cataphracta which is repeatedly used by Vegetius to describe armour of any type, whether worn by infantry, cavalry or even elephants. Some of these heavily armoured units were also known as clibanarii. A description by Ammianus, for example, describes completely armoured lancers as 'cataphracti equites (quos clibanarios dictitant)' - ‘cataphract cavalry (which they call clibanarii)'. The fact that the terms cataphractarii and clibanarii were loosely and sometimes interchangeably applied by ancient writers has caused no end of confusion among modern scholars. Both types were clearly more heavily armoured than conventional cavalry, and any difference between the two most likely stems from their Origins rather than their role.

  E Equites Stablesiani (4th century AD)

  st

  This plate depicts a well equipped 4th-century cavalryman. He is probably a long-service veteran who has had the opportunity to kit himself out with some of the best equipment available. Some of it may be booty, some gifts or awards from his superiors, and the remainder purchased. His fine gilded helmet is based on one found at Deurne in the Netherlands, engraved ‘STABLESIA VI', so the owner belonged to a unit of equites stablesiani. It can be accurately dated to the first quarter of the 4th century from coins of AD 319 found with it.

  The cavalryman's side-arm was the spatha (E1a), a fairly long sword that could be used for stabbing or cutting. This example has a fine pattern-welded blade (E1b), made by iron rods twisted together, hammered, cut up and then recombined.

  This soldier’s closed sandal with spurs (E2) is common footwear for cavalrymen of this period. Typically for northern climates, he wears Germanic-style long trousers with additional wool bindings wrapped around the lower leg. Alternatively he could wear woolen socks like E3a which come from Egypt

  The fine tunic, made from a wool-linen mix with wide loose sleeves (E4), is based on an example found in Egypt and now in the Trier Staatsmuseum. Such a tunic might have been a private purchase or a gift. Red tunics had had military associations since Hellenistic times and may have been sought out by veteran soldiers to set them apart from the usual undyed civilian tunics. Recruits, however, were probably issued standard undyed or bleached white tunics with a simple uni-colour trim. The elaborate decorative pattern (E4a) would no doubt have been quite costly. When the tunic wore out, which would not have taken long on campaign, the decorative trim would have probably been cut off and stitched on to a new tunic.

  Alternative helmet styles ty
pical for the period are shown at E5 and E6. The Berkasovo helmet (E5) is a simpler version of the Deurne helmet worn by the main figure. It is a 'ridge' helmet, formed by two half bowls held together by a central ridge, with cheek and neck guards added on. The style was typical for the 4th and 5th centuries and probably had Persian origins. The Der-el-Medineh helmet (E6), to the spangenhelm family. These helmets, of Sarmatian origin, were made up of several plates (usually six; sometimes four) held together by reinforcing bands. This example is similar to those worn by soldiers depicted on the 3rd-century Arch of Galerius, and the style remained popular, with variations, throughout this period and beyond.

  This leather slipper-like shoe is typical of late Roman footwear and is depicted on numerous mosaics from the period - worn both by soldiers and civilians. (National Museums of Scotland)

  Equites cataphractarii were first introduced in the Roman army by Hadrian in the 2nd century. They were modelled on the Sarmatians, and as such would have worn fairly complete scale coals and spangenhelm helmets, carried a long lance (contus) in two hands, and had no shield. The horses of these cataphractarii may or may not have been armoured, Some literary descriptions mention horse armour; others do not. Monuments are equally vague: Trajan’s Column depicts Sarmatians riding elaborately armoured horses while later funeral stelae of members of the Equites Cataphractarii Pictavenses and Equites Cataphractarii Ambianses show armoured riders on unarmoured horses. One thing is clear, however: cataphractarii were more heavily armoured than conventional cavalry, and fought with a long lance rather than the traditional lighter spears and javelins.