|
Post by Roland on Jun 15, 2020 13:50:25 GMT
Researching shield patterns using Notitia Dignitatum and many questions arise. With the understanding that much of what we think we know of the period is actually just speculative, I'm trying to get a handle on whether shield pattern uniformity within a legion or variety based upon sub units in that legion is the better ( more accurate) way to go. Looking for imput from folks more knowledgeable with late antiquity than I.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jun 15, 2020 15:55:05 GMT
Researching shield patterns using Notitia Dignitatum and many questions arise. With the understanding that much of what we think we know of the period is actually just speculative, I'm trying to get a handle on whether shield pattern uniformity within a legion or variety based upon sub units in that legion is the better ( more accurate) way to go. Looking for imput from folks more knowledgeable with late antiquity than I. Roland, What kind of sub-units are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Jun 15, 2020 19:26:13 GMT
I'm interested in within a particular branch of a Legion. Equites I expect to have its shield patterns distinct from Pedytes. In a given field army Legion would all the auxilia in that legion share the same pattern or would sub units of auxilia have their own pattern?
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jun 15, 2020 20:03:33 GMT
I'm interested in within a particular branch of a Legion. Equites I expect to have its shield patterns distinct from Pedytes. In a given field army Legion would all the auxilia in that legion share the same pattern or would sub units of auxilia have their own pattern? You are referring to the old legions and auxilia? These are separate units and some are depicted in the Notitia Dignitatum tracing their lineage to the previous century.
But their shield patterns look nothing like earlier designs; thunderbolts and wings of the legion have been replaced by multiple concentric circles and the auxilia have in addition heads on spikes or wolves.
For DBA purposes, each element could represent a different legion or auxiliary unit.
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Jun 16, 2020 11:34:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Jun 16, 2020 12:11:19 GMT
Actually, the Notitia Dignitatum has been one of my principle resources ( as well as the source notes that I've found to go with it) My interest here is whether a given unit of pedytes in a late Roman field army would share a common shield design. There are some 300 shield designs in the Dignitatum covering Equites, Pedytes, even Numeri I do believe. I'm curious to know how small a unit size was entitled to its own shield. I'm quite certain that the Foederati had some influence in the change of shield styles but I'm unaware that there was any equivalence to tribal or unit markings in their shield patterns. By contrast, I'm working from the assumption that the roman armies did divide patterns by units as suggested by the Dignitatum. Popular artwork takes the liberty very often of mixing a variety of late roman shield motifs together when depicting roman 'shield walls'. I'm just interested to know if this is in any way accurate. In DBA scale , modeling terms, it means do I mix different patterns on the same base, have all the patterns on a base match but vary the patterns of similar troop types by the bases, or do I render all the same troop types in the army with the same shield pattern. That's the question which I'm looking to answer.
|
|
|
Post by kaiphranos on Jun 16, 2020 13:06:59 GMT
Option 2 (all shields on a base match; vary pattern from base to base) seems like it would give the right visual effect: an army organized out of smaller distinct units.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jun 16, 2020 15:20:55 GMT
Common shield designs There was the theory that similar shield patterns for both eastern and western units differed only by colour. This theory lost ground in the aftermath of the frequent civil wars as units did not return to their original location. Foederati Information is very sketchy about the tribes that fought for Rome during the Late Imperial period (307 AD – 408 AD), of these the Franks (West) and Goths (East) are best known.
The Goths gained the better prize by clearing the field of Adrianople of Roman litter. On a side note, Roman shield patterns were influenced by ‘tribal’ symbols before the arrival of Foederati; note the draco, crescent moon and star symbols. Mixing shield motifs I tend to view the Late Imperial period of 307 – 408 in two halves; the first half – shields patterns are neat and tidy and the last half – less tidy. The latter is a result of frequent civil wars with the victor replenishing troop losses from prisoners captured or the arrival of recruits supplied with serviceable equipment My Foederati carry shields that reflect their barbarian origin but wear Roman styled tunics. Regarding the popular artwork, I see it as a depiction of a Roman rout making a last ditch effort of survival, however,
if you want to mix shield patterns you might consider the hierarchy of palatini, comitatenses and limitanei reflecting a spectrum from ‘top-notch’ to ‘hand me down’.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 18, 2020 11:51:52 GMT
If you use the search term "notitia shield bodleian" on the wikimedia.org site you will find many of the shield patterns.
The smaller size of the later Roman legions came about because of the practice of sending vexillations from the bigger earlier legions. The later legions are thought to be around 1,000 to 1,200 men strong, so an element could represent multiple legions/vexillations.
We do not know what the rumps of the earlier legions had in the way of kit. It seems likely the Imperial factories that produced military equipment would make similar shields for all (according to purpose) and the old rectangular scutum would be no more after a transition period. Its possible some earlier legions might have maintained their own kit, particularly those relegated to the fringes of the Empire and its logistics. I see no reason why an element of four legionaries should not have different shield patterns when representing larger armies, such as that found at Adrinople. However, I would not mix any rectangular shields with oval shields on the same base. By this time and if still in use, the rectangular shield would identify a low standing and potentially militia-style unit.
After the Scholae (the guard units), the Palatine troops were the elites then followed by the Comitatenses grade and these were all regular field army units. Psuedo-Comitantenses units were Limitani, Riparenses and Milites troops temporarily drafted into a field army. All were supported by the Roman state and could be expected to have roughly standard equipment to a greater or lesser degree. Foederati and similar would have come with their own equipment whether made by themselves or picked from the battlefield. Some my even have subsequently been logistically supported by the state factories if they were around for long enough.
When the Empire was divided, field army units were split into "senior" and "junior" formations, so each Empire could have its own. The Notitia Dignitatum identifies this split and a few clerical errors even show some of the split formations in both Empires. The Notitia is a combination of lists from the two halves of the original Empire and the Western section is earlier than the Eastern.
Anyway, the upshot is there is no reason why Legion, Auxilia or Equite elements should not contain the same troops with different shield patterns to better reflect the mixed nature of their field armies. Even in today's armies 100% standardisation is a myth. Its really all down to personal preference. Just don't mix your Palatini with your Limitani, lol!
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Jun 19, 2020 0:13:06 GMT
I like Luke Ueda Sarson's site for information on the Notitia - he has some analysis of some patterns that he considers to be mislabeled along with a breakdown of unit locations. lukeuedasarson.com/NotitiaPatterns.htmlAs to variation in shields within an element, when I built my Eastern LIR BBDBA I did two elements each for the units I included in the army. In my view the Romans would have been building armies out of larger units than centuries or maniples. At the very least I would expect more uniformity with a Roman Army than in most later armies. City/guild militia, HYW English armies with the Cross of St. George, or late Burgundian would have reasonably large contingents of similarly attired/equipped troops. Interestingly in Sarson's notes on his HYW DBM armies he noted that he had mixed liveries in his elements due to the fact that historically contingents of liveried retainers were not that large.
|
|
nikg
Munifex
Posts: 13
|
Post by nikg on Jun 19, 2020 8:40:31 GMT
When the Empire was divided, field army units were split into "senior" and "junior" formations, so each Empire could have its own. The Notitia Dignitatum identifies this split and a few clerical errors even show some of the split formations in both Empires. The Notitia is a combination of lists from the two halves of the original Empire and the Western section is earlier than the Eastern. Other way around. The eastern section is dated earlier than the western - the most commonly accepted view is that the eastern section is from 394/5 CE and the western from about 420 CE, however, the western almost certainly contains out of date information that is from earlier in the C5th but that has not been updated.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 19, 2020 15:28:27 GMT
When the Empire was divided, field army units were split into "senior" and "junior" formations, so each Empire could have its own. The Notitia Dignitatum identifies this split and a few clerical errors even show some of the split formations in both Empires. The Notitia is a combination of lists from the two halves of the original Empire and the Western section is earlier than the Eastern. Other way around. The eastern section is dated earlier than the western - the most commonly accepted view is that the eastern section is from 394/5 CE and the western from about 420 CE, however, the western almost certainly contains out of date information that is from earlier in the C5th but that has not been updated. Thanks for correcting this, I must dig out my compass next time or turn the map the right way up, lol
|
|
nikg
Munifex
Posts: 13
|
Post by nikg on Jun 20, 2020 7:18:33 GMT
Confusion is easy when the Notitia is looked at :-) It is at the same time one of the most useful and most useless resources on the late Roman army - especially for the west.
|
|
|
Post by sonic on Jun 20, 2020 7:31:46 GMT
And yet it is used by many as THE document to recreate the Roman army of the fifth century! For myself, I'd tend to use 20mm-deep bases for both legions and auxilia, differentiating with shield patterns - one shield pattern per base. It's up to the opponent to work out what is what, just as in reality!
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 20, 2020 12:13:35 GMT
And yet it is used by many as THE document to recreate the Roman army of the fifth century! For myself, I'd tend to use 20mm-deep bases for both legions and auxilia, differentiating with shield patterns - one shield pattern per base. It's up to the opponent to work out what is what, just as in reality! Actually, it might not be wide of the mark historically. It is my view legionaries fought in close order, as could auxilia. However, auxilia also had the ability to use a looser formation when circumstances advised it. Ammianus is very tanalising in some of his descriptions! Its like a Napoleonic light company being able to form up in line or skirmish. With Auxilia, I sometimes wonder whether they are better represented by two elements, one of blades and the other as psiloi (taking a move to switch from one to the other). Under WRG Ancients rules, I often fielded light infantry sub-units of bows or javelins to the main body (which were LMI or LHI).
|
|