Slitherine

Hi guys,

I'am new here and would like to play a historical game Foederate Romans against Western Hunnic (Battle of the Catalaunian Plains) and found an illogical point in the following list:

Book: Legions Triumphant
List: Foederate Roman
Foederati cavalry (Barbarians) -> only possible to field as ‘Protected’!?

Barbarian Armies in this period (AD 451) like Early Ostrogothic, Later Visigothic and Gepides can already field 'armored' Cavalry!
The Question is, doesn't make it sense to give the Foederate Roman List the Option, to upgrade at least some of the Foederati cavalry to 'armored' too, because they recruited troops from the peoples above?

Best Regards,
Rob

An alternative line of reasoning would be:

When Romans employed Goths etc, as Foederati, they weren't prepared to pay the cost of giving them armour. This is a period when there is not enough armour to go round to equip regular Roman units, after all. "Barbarians" were not really trusted unless fully integrated into the regular Roman units and command structure. And there was a general feeling that Foederati were there to avoid real Roman blood being shed, .c.f. the Frigidus River c. 394AD when it was alleged Theodosius was doubly happy that 10,000 Goths were killed leading his assault, because not only did they make a big dent in the strength of his opponent, but also that meant fewer Goths who might cause trouble for himself later. So why give them any more equipment than they bring with them?

Gothic etc. nobles who are already wealthy and manage to equip themselves with armour might well not be choosing to fight as mercenaries for Rome. They don't need the money, and they can get their kicks lording it over their less wealthy and influential kinsman back home. And possibly leading them on much more worthwhile plundering expeditions across the border when the opportunity arises.

Where you have a powerful Gothic etc, leader who for wahtever reason enlists a large band of his followers (which might well include armoured nobles doing what they are told by someone with more and fancier armour) into the service of the Romans, arguably they would be best represented as an allied contingent rather than Foederati. Alaric during his later career as a leader of large numbers of troops nominally in the service of Roma/Constantinople, but in practice loyal to him personally, would fit into this category.

And the Visigothic contingent at Chalons/Catalaunian Plains would do so too. Aetius had to persuade the Visigoths to combine with his army, not order them. The inercession of a Goth-friendly Roman (Avitus?) was said to be crucial to persuading them. And after Theoderic's death, his son took over and was distinctly less firendly with the Romans. Aetius couldn't call on their assistance in 452 when the Huns invaded Italy instead, and it's not long before we find the Visigoths extending their kingdom into Spain on their own behalf.

(Maybe the allied lists don't allowed armoured cav either, which would blow that last point out of the water? but that would be a slightly different issue then)

There may be armoured men in there, just not enough to justify classing the BG as armoured maybe.

The separate list of their own have very few armoured lancers in them. And you don't get armoured lancers as allies in the period for at least the Goths (and probably the rest). So why should any men supplied to Rome be better equipped than those serving as allies, and, by proportion, better equipped than those serving their own nation.

philqw78 wrote:There may be armoured men in there, just not enough to justify classing the BG as armoured maybe.

The separate list of their own have very few armoured lancers in them. And you don't get armoured lancers as allies in the period for at least the Goths (and probably the rest). So why should any men supplied to Rome be better equipped than those serving as allies, and, by proportion, better equipped than those serving their own nation.

Because they would have had access to Roman fabricae just like other Roman units. As Elton states in Warfare in Roman Europe 350-425 AD(pg 92) "During the late 4th and early 5th centuries foederati regiments were permanently established units of the Roman army, paid and equipped by the government."

zocco wrote:

philqw78 wrote:There may be armoured men in there, just not enough to justify classing the BG as armoured maybe.

The separate list of their own have very few armoured lancers in them. And you don't get armoured lancers as allies in the period for at least the Goths (and probably the rest). So why should any men supplied to Rome be better equipped than those serving as allies, and, by proportion, better equipped than those serving their own nation.

Because they would have had access to Roman fabricae just like other Roman units. As Elton states in Warfare in Roman Europe 350-425 AD(pg 92) "During the late 4th and early 5th centuries foederati regiments were permanently established units of the Roman army, paid and equipped by the government."

Does it mention what they are equipped with?

--Does it mention what they are equipped with?

Probably the same as the majority army. Not metal armour

As I recall there are some armored lancers in the list (Alans ?). You could use these as armored Foederati cavalry. I really doubt if there was much difference in their appearance.

Delbruck wrote:As I recall there are some armored lancers in the list (Alans ?). You could use these as armored Foederati cavalry. I really doubt if there was much difference in their appearance.

I thought the Equites Alani were a Palatina unit of the Roman field army. A bit different to a Foederate unit.

philqw78 wrote:--Does it mention what they are equipped with?

Probably the same as the majority army. Not metal armour

Not metal armour ? Really - says who ?

I think you might find that Elton (who has at least reviewed the evidence) comes down on the side that the Roman army was still well equipped with metallic armours. And I have to say that FOG lists to the contrary a substantial proportion of the MF and HF in the army should be Armoured as well. If only to emphasise the substantial advantage that Roman foot had over barbarian foot in that regard (again per Elton).

zocco wrote:Not metal armour ? Really - says who ?
........<>.....
And I have to say that FOG lists to the contrary a substantial proportion of the MF and HF in the army should be Armoured .

Answered your own question methinks

Zocco, are you actually familiar with the history of this period? The Roman state (or states actually, if you want to be picky) weren't exactly at the top of their game.

ShrubMiK wrote:Zocco, are you actually familiar with the history of this period? The Roman state (or states actually, if you want to be picky) weren't exactly at the top of their game.

Hi ShrubMik,

Am I familiar with the period ? I would say moderately so. I actually think that question would be better asked of the FOG list writer - since his opinions on foederati and Roman infantry armour seem to fly in the face of respected opinion. Regarding Roman infantry for example the list implies that Roman infantry at that time were no more armoured than western barbarian foot (ie minimal). What justification is there for that ? Vegetius makes a comment but it is highly contentious and has generally been dismissed as incorrect (it may have referred to a temporary period of shortage after Adrianople) and to use his one liner as justification for lack of any armoured foot is astonishing (note Veg also states in the same para that helmets were abolished which is certainly incorrect). True the empire was certainly past its prime but that is represented in the list by the 2/3 average/poor requirement.

This is my opinion of course, which I offer as a counterpoint to your own. This is the period which I find most fascinating.

Quoting one author as "respected opinion" may be true, but that's still just an opinion of one person.

The FoG list writers aren't the only ones who think that metal armour became much less common amongst Roman foot well before this period. In that respect, FoG is perhaps relatively lenient in allowing everything to be armoured up to 425AD, long after the crisis has really hit (which I would put at 408 rather than 378). I don't think there is by any means a clear consensus either way, but that certainly indicates that the evidence is not so one sided as you believe (or claim).

>Regarding Roman infantry for example the list implies that Roman infantry at that time were no more armoured than western barbarian foot (ie minimal)

I'll quibble with this point. Roman foot may well have been better protected than "minimal", but without it being enough to qualify as "Armoured". For what it is worth, my Auxilia are unarmoured (unless you choose to assume they have something slimline under their tunic), my legionaries have a bulky cuirass but non-metallic. That of course is an interpretation dating back to the 1980s and "Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome", and the figure range I bought at the time and still buy today to expand the army in consistent fashion.

From what I have seen, e.g. when I used to spend a lot of time reading www.romanarmytalk.com, a lot of the arguments in favour of continued use of armour were of the "well they had it before, they know how to make it, why would they stop using it?" variety, which kind of misses the point. and the fact that a lot of those who particupate there are hard-core re-enactors made me wonder if there wasn't an element of wishful thinking intruding - I'm sure they would much rather be wearing metallic mail (and in the real hard-core cases, experimenting with how to make it using realistic historical materials and processes) than something lesser.

Artistic representations apparently not showing metallic armour are one thing (you can choose to explain these away as artistic convention if you like).

Contemporary accounts are another. Unfortunately, they are a bit thin on the ground. And it is unclear when Vegetius wrote - the earliest possible being 383, so I'm not sure that a "temporary" shortage after Adrianople is particularly plausible. At 383 most of the empire is still in pristine state, a relatively small proportion of the army has been destroyed, and in any case 5 years should be time enough to make some new equipment.

And if Adrionople should cause significant difficulties in supplying the troops with armour, how much more so the many serious defeats of later years?

I'm not sure what archeology tells us, but I have the impression that relatively little armour turns up at later-dated sites.

And then there's the circumstantial/speculative evidence...

By 425 large chunks of the empire have been lost or temporarily regained after being fought over and plundered for years. Large numbers of Roman units attested in the ND seem to have mysteriously vanished from sight - e.g. where were the Roman forces in Gaul and Spain as the Vandals and pals seem to have effortlessly marauded over a large area at will for several years? Destroyed in numerous small scale battles that were not recorded? Already gathered into Stilicho's forces in Italy by this time as an emergency measure? Pulled forward to the Rhine frontier and destroyed at the inital crossing? Or remaining scattered in their barracks and unable to put up co-ordinated resistance simply because of the political disarray at the time?

Move over to Stilicho. He manages to defeat Radagaisus, but then seems only able to achieve a stand-off against Alaric with the help of large numbers of Foederati, impressed into the army having been captured in the earlier battle. And when they desert to Alaric after Stilicho''s execution, the Romans can do very little to defend Italy other than hiding in Ravenna. Even the Eastern Empire at this time seems unable to provide much assistance, a few thousand reinforcements arrive at Ravenna by sea and that's about it. "Proper" Roman units seem to be hard to find, reasons disputed but losses of men and equipement in battle must be a major part of it, probably combined with financial difficulties making it hard to replace, train, and re-equip troops at the necessary rate.

Obviously the Eastern Empire did recover, but perhaps not fully until around AD500.

Let's just say that the Roman army had a very patchy record in engagements fought after 408, victories tended to have short-lived effects, and were often achieved in any case with the assistance of large numbers of "barbarian" *allies*. And by 425 the empire is much reduced, and it's only another 5 years before he beginning of the loss of western North Africa, a very serious economic blow. There's not much in the historical record that would cause me leap to the conclusion that at this time Roman troops were still significantly superior to those of their opponents, either in training or equipment. And quantityof troops had greatly reduced too. The FoG list does, as you say, reflect this by reducing numbers available and forcing quality to be reduced on average. I also think it is a reasonable interpretation for the list to insist that not enough of the infantry would have metallic armour, and those that did would not be concentrated enough, to qualify as armoured in game terms.

This is why the Foederati list is my favourite - you have to adopt different tactics if you want to be successful, and rely on different troops. Winning at FoG with very few armoured troops is an interesting challenge. Sometimes I even manage to do it!

So the flaw here in FoG, again in my opinion, is not that the list is inaccurate; it's that armour is over-powered/under-priced. But that's a wider problem than just this list!

ShrubMiK summarises the arguments against lots of armour.

We could of course have allowed both interpretations (and we did discuss it), but we felt that with the tendency of wargamers to optimise their armies this would destroy the zeitgeist of the list for this period (which I would summarise as "emergency expediency"). So we chose not to tempt them.

It would turn the Foederate Roman list into one of the very best Roman lists (as it was in DBM) which in our opinion would not be a good thing, nor very historical.

Of course, between consenting adults in private, there is no reason why you have to use our lists anyway, so you can give them as much armour as you feel appropriate.

Foederate cavalry would have initially been hired on an 'as you are' basis i.e. what ever the 'barbarians' turned up with they used. The assumption by many is that the 'barbarians' tended to have little armour and what there was tended to be restricted just to Kings, Chieftens and their retinue. However, after 376AD the Goth's had access to large amounts of, at first, captured Roman armour (either stripped from the bodies of the fallen or from when they stormed various unprotected towns) and then later actually supplied from the Roman state factories when Theodosius the Great started hiring Goths in large numbers (however, Valens had been hiring Goth's in large numbers for his proposed invasion of Sasanid Persia before his death at Adrianopolis and it may be presumed they had access to Roman arms and armour as well). When Alaric, Gainas and various other Gothic Chieftens were made Roman military commanders during the early 5th century they had full access to not only Roman arms and equipment but the Roman logistics system as well. It may well be the case that the Goths during the 5th Century were either as well equiped as their 'Roman' counterparts, or even better armed and armoured!

And for those who believe that metallic armour fell out of use by Roman infantry during the 5th/6th Centuries AD then they may not be aware of various Ivory Diptyches and artistic works that clearly show both cavalry and infantry wearing armour, even in out of the way places such as Egypt.

Wondered when you would turn up Adrian I'll repeat myself from earlier.

This assumption that foederati were "hired" is a bit misleading. There was generally, as I understand it, a large degree of compulsion in the arrangement, "we'll give you some land to farm and you'll provide us with troops" (e.g. Franks) , or "we'll stop ravaging your homeland and you'll stop raiding us, and while we're at it, you provide us with troops" (Goths c. 3350) and the tribes involved often resented it and kicked up trouble to try to rewrite the arangements.

Don't forget theat a large proportion of the "regular" Roman troops were by this stage Germanic in origin, and receiving training and equipment as normal Roman soldiers. If you assume that Foederati were treated as near-equals in the same way you should perhaps ask why they are distincguished as a different category of troops, and (in FoG list terms) are not drilled. My assumption is that Foederati were fundamentally different and were not paid, trained, and equipped in the same way. Their main attractiveness was precisely that they could be used as a cheap way to bulk up a dwindling army, they had always been present to some degree but by this period the gradually cam to dominate the army.

Alaric is not really a good example - he was dead before this period started after all. And I would say he's a special case anyway, as the leader of an independent grouping of Goths (and others) who was nominally at times a Roman general (a status extracted from the Roman state under threat), but not really in practice leading a Roman army. By 425 we find his people and successors in SW Gaul, just about to awallow up large chunks of Iberia. And represented as Later Visigothic Allies in the Foederati list, who can have some armoured cav. I'm not 100% sure how you are intended to represent his army in FoG in the early 400s, but presumably as an Early Visigothic army with possibly Dominate Roman allies. Which can't have armoured noble cav!

There's also a bit of circularity in your logic - if you start from the assumption that Romans were well equipped with armour, and so much so that unprotected towns (note: the Goths unlike the Huns later were not very good at sieges) just happened to have large supplies of spare armour lying around, then it makes sense to assume that the Goths would acquire it. Or you might start from the opposite assumption, and reach a slightly different conclusion.

Interestingly. I've just been back to Roman Army Talk for the first time in ages. There's a question there recently about what somebody on Trajan's Column is depicted as wearing. It doesn't look like the usual depictions of hamata or squamata...it does look quite a bit like it might be some sort of linen or padded armour...but no it obviously can't be because everybody knows the Romans all had metallic armour and therefore any evidence to the contrary must be flawed, or interpreted as some sort of artistic thing. QED.

There are a number of accounts of where Goths were hired for a specific campaign and then returned home afterwards, one has to presume those Goths were only armed in their native arms and armour. However, when they were being recruited for several years they do appear then to have been brigaded into 'units' and may have then received training to make them 'drilled', such as those who were recruited under Valens, Theodosius, Honorius & Arcadius and later Emperors/Patricians.

I've never been an advocate of all Roman infantry wearing only metallic armour, I still think that there is a case for textile/leather armour if we do not believe the artwork/monumental works showing Late Roman infantry in muscle cuirasses are metal ones. And one can read the comment by the author of the 'De Rebus Bellicis' as suggesting that the infantry could wear the 'Thoracomachus' on its own without the armour over the top as protection.

It would be nice to see a top down argument instead of the usual bottom up one (i.e., do the current classifications give the a good overall results rather than "we see or read this" and therefore we should have troops of a certain classification). A set of rules intended to model historical battles must be seen "top down". That's different than history whereby bits of evidence are uncovered and a story / theory devised to explain those bits of evidence. A set of rules must have some linkage to history but the method is quite different.

So, let's go back to the original poster's problem which is to recreate the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains. Even if it's desirable to have the option of armoured Foederati cavalry, it might not be desirable to do so for this battle.

If you take the maximum number of bases in the lists for the Roman army, a Visigothic ally and an Alan ally you get 126 + 44 + 30 = 200 bases (or about 50,000). Similarly for the Huns, Gepid ally and Ostrogothic ally you will have 122 + 50 + 36 = 208 bases (52,000).

The Romans plus their allies have:

20 armoured lancers, 4 heavily armoured lancers (cataphracts) and 4 armoured light spear = 28 armoured cavalry
32 superior, protected lancers
32 Horse archers
84 foot

The Huns and their allies have:

8 armoured, bow/sword cavalry
42 protected lancers
108 horse archers
50 foot

Is this a reasonable mix? How does allowing the Foederati cavalry to be armoured improve this? If we allow just a portion of the Foederati to be armoured then we arguing that the majority of the cavalry (excluding horse archers) on the Roman/allied side should be armoured. The current mix is about 45-55% armoured-protected. In contrast the Huns have very little armour - just 16% of the cavalry (excluding horse archers) and that 16% is not armed with lances. The close combat cavalry battle is clearly in the Roman/allied favour. Would "gilding the lily" produce a more satisfying result - in the sense that of recreating a battle that was a close fight rather than from a parochial player viewpoint (i.e., "I want all the factors in my favour).

FYI - often when recreating a battle, I deliberately do not choose the best options for each troop type (e.g., I choose some Romans in the Battle of Cannae to be only protected although the lists allows 100% armoured). Sometimes it gives a better result. After all, real commanders had to make do with what they had and did not have the ability to optimize their army.

ValentinianVictor wrote:There are a number of accounts of where Goths were hired for a specific campaign and then returned home afterwards, one has to presume those Goths were only armed in their native arms and armour. However, when they were being recruited for several years they do appear then to have been brigaded into 'units' and may have then received training to make them 'drilled', such as those who were recruited under Valens, Theodosius, Honorius & Arcadius and later Emperors/Patricians.

Right, we agree

My idea is that the units recruited for a number of years, trained etc. would not be Foederati in the FoG list. They would be auxlia palatina (and PB at least seems to believe that Theodosius had lots of Goths organised into auxilia palatina at the Frigidus) or equites units of the appropriate type, depending on who they are and what their skills are, and might then be given armour, funds permitting. And if you assume that there was not much armour for infantry, but still plenty for cavalry but the Romans are selective about who they give it to, then the list seems to produce the right sort of effect.

I could be wrong, but I've always assumed this is where the Comites Alani came from... a bunch of Alans originally, maybe supplemented by others later, but treated as a high-status regular Roman unit and listed in the ND...not Foederati.. They get armour, no problem.

Contrast that with the Alans who fought for Aetius at Catalaunian Plains/Chalons/Campus Moriacus/whatever the heck you want to call it...they were settled in that region of France, supposed to provide troops when needed, but proved rather reluctant and had to be vigourously persuaded...and even then were stationed (allegedly) in the centre of the army to discourage them from going over to Attila. Technically these would I think be Foederati. Although given that they weren't totally obedient you might think they should actually be treated as an unreliable ally (if you were playing a different rule set!)

>It would be nice to see a top down argument instead of the usual bottom up one

Of course...very good point.