Read Online Belisarius: The Last Roman General by Ian Hughes - Free Book Online

dress and equipment. It has always been assumed by scholars that the Roman army retained many features throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods. In the earlier empire, the state-owned fabricae (factories) manufactured weapons, shields, armour and helmets. These were then distributed around the empire. Furthermore, helmets, body armour, shields and swords would be manufactured to specific patterns, depending upon whether the unit receiving them was a legio (legion), ala (cavalry) or auxilia (non-Roman infantry) unit. Many writers have assumed that the model remained true throughout the empire.
     
    The theory does not take into account a major change in practice in the era approximate to the fall of the west. Earlier, money was deducted from troops’ wages to pay for the equipment that they used. However, Anastasius changed the system in 498 or thereabouts. The soldiers were now paid ‘in full’, but they were expected to equip themselves out of their own purse. The large increase in pay meant that service in the army now became a viable career again; conscription was no longer needed and the army increased in size. The new levels of willing manpower available may have been a factor in Justinian’s attempt to reconquer the west.
     
    It is likely that the equipment that they bought depended upon several factors. Certainly, there was the obligation to fulfil their duties, and in this it is likely that they would purchase offensive weapons consistent with that of their unit, otherwise they would be a liability to their comrades. It is possible thatthese were still supplied specifically by the government in order to avoid confusion. It would also be necessary to buy equipment that would identify them as belonging to their unit; either they would have helmet plumes of the same colour or their shields would be painted with a colour or pattern to match that of their colleagues, or both.
     
    Yet within specific limitations, there would be a great deal of flexibility according to their personal tastes. Specific weapons, such as swords, were doubtless bought for individual preference, since weight, length and ‘feel’ are highly individual aspects of weapons. In addition, the more expensive defensive items would not be to everyone’s taste. Helmets and body armour could have been bought and tailored to fit, with the individual having to balance the greater cost of chain mail with its excellent defensive properties against the cheaper but more easily-damaged scale armour. Nor was this all. There was the possibility of using quilted linen armour, or even of relying upon a large shield and having no armour to cover the body at all. Furthermore, in provinces such as Egypt and Spain where there was little danger of military duties, with the troops acting more as a police force, there would have been little incentive for the troops to buy armour which they were never likely to use.
     
    The same factors also apply to helmets. Although it is common to find helmets described as either ‘infantry’ or ‘cavalry’ helmets, it is likely that by the later period covered here there was a considerable overlap of helmet usage between the various services of the army. Since it was down to cost and personal taste, a relatively rich infantryman could probably afford the same helmets – or better – than the less well-off among the cavalry.
     
    Therefore, the common image of units wearing exactly the same equipment should no longer be considered the norm. There was likely to be a variety of helmets, shields and armour within each unit, with only the colours of crests and/or shields defining the parent unit of the soldier. The main limiting factor would be availability. The equipment needed to re-equip the army, following both the defeat at Adrianople and the decision to change the armament of the cavalry, had to be manufactured in eastern fabricae: the fabricae of the west having by now been lost. This would have greatly reduced