Talk:Roman military personal equipment

message: Deleted this portion "segmented armor." This is incorrect, since lorica segmenta was only commonly worn between the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE. After the Marian Reforms to the mid Imperial timeframe, the common armor of the Roman legionary was lorica hamata - chainmail. After the late  4rd century, the Romans reverted back to using a (less effective version) of the lorica hamata.
Intranetusa 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman armor "lorica segementa"

message: This article is an example of how an article should not be. Wandalstouring 15:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No sense getting insulting or insulted. The article needs a great deal of work of course. At the current time most of the work is in putting most of the write-ups in the main articles. Most of them now have main articles. However, the main article authors did not consult the write-ups in this article. Consequently the write-ups here are mostly outdated and wrong and mainly need to be removed. As I see it only a bare introduction to each item need be here, unless by chance there is no main article. The pictures seem OK. A good pictorial intro is nice. Ciao. Let's get on with it, shall we?Dave 20:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How an article should not be

message: The article concerns mainly Roman equipment. What more tactics are discussed besides the Testudo formation and the use of ballistae for sieges? Wandalstouring 19:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is missing here: 

message: I have an interest in the Late Roman army (say C4th-6th)and would like some further details on the later equipment  to go up hereabouts (and organisation perhaps on another page again).  
As a new contributer, I do not wish to charge in adding repetitive little chunks all over this page & think the best way to do this is via a new page, linked at the top & bottom of this page.
I would probably base it mostly on points from Bishop & Coulston 2006 (The Dominate chapter), plus Southern & Dixon 1996, perhaps Stephenson's books, with illustrations of reenactment equipment from Comitatus, my Late Roman reenactment group.
Any thoughts? Anyone wish to draft or help draft such a page?
Salvianus 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Late Roman Military Equipment - New Page? 

message: Since this page already contains non-weapons (eg armour) and I will be adding more, I am going to move this page to Roman military personal equipment. I will also restructuring contents since they are chaotic, make no distinction between weaponry of army at different periods, or weaponry of eg legions vs cavalry, is no mention of javelins, bows, etc. - its a mess at the moment basically PocklingtonDan 13:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving page 

message: * We need more material on Late Roman equipment. I was inclined to create a seperate combined page on the Late Roman Army but can see the virtues of expanding this page.
* We need some description of the existing evidence and its limitations. This page probably shouldn't discuss individual finds, but the basic types of evidence (representational, physical, literary, etc.) and their limitations (inaccurate representations, for whatever reason; biased deposition, especially with weapon burials; and all sorts of problems with literary references) are all relevant.
* I suggest grouping all sword types together, all spear types together, etc. Jacob Haller 05:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections to add or expand 

message: IMHO the differences between different spathae are as great as the differences between most spathae and most gladii - perhaps greater than the differences between some simple Spathae without fullers and the early long gladii like Delos. And the spathae are not speciallized slashing swords (scimitars are specialized slashing swords!); the double-edged straight blade indicates that the swords could stab as well as cut. These are all dual-puspose swords though some emphasize stabbing more and others emphasize cutting more. Bishop & Coulston 2006 pp. 78-79 refer to the dual use of the older swords; p. 268 they note that the wider Lauriacum-type blades were better for cutting (they are also very narrow flat to flat and have fullers) while the narrower Straubing/Nydam types were not so specialized. Jacob Haller 05:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On swords 

message: If so, I suggest (1) moving the article from Roman military personal equipment to Roman military equipment and (2) consolidating the artillery, etc. in a new Crewed weapons section. Also correcting all the old links, of course. Jacob Haller 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too was thinking that there should be another page on Roman Artillery or at least a section to itself. (BrutusCirrus 17:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article cover crewed weapons? 

message: Presumably this article is attempting to cover the whole life of the Roman army with reference to its equipment.  At present it is dominated, ironically not by the Dominate, but by the Principate.
Any section on armour should include pectorals from the Early Republic and the muscle cuirass used by senior officers throughout the history of Rome.
What about thumb-rings for late period archers? the Mongolian draw is attested in use through Hunnic influence.
No limb armour - used by infantry shown on the Metopes of Adamklissi, cataphracts used the same armour type in the late period. Solid greaves were also used from time to time.
Horse armour?  Chanfrons have been dug up as have scale trappers.  Other horse furniture - Roman cavalry did exist throughout the whole history of Rome.
Urselius 14:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some omissions 

message: *Added this section:
"The earliest evidence of the lorica segmenta being worn is around 9 BCE, but the armor did not become common until the 2nd century CE.Even during the 2nd century CE, the segmenta never replaced the lorica hamata chainmail for both heavy infantry and auxiliaries like."
*Also edited to include the fact that both auxiliaries and legionaries wore the hamata chainmail, and segmenta only supplemented, not replaced, the hamata chainmail.
*Edited the hamata information - it was used from the Republic onwards to the Empire, and it was used by both heavy legionaries and auxiliaries.
Intranetusa (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edited this section regarding segmenta and hamata

message: This smells rather like graffiti, though I am not sure (?):
Second paragraph:
According to Justus BoboRoman equipment (especially armor) gave them "a distinct advantage over their barbarian enemies."
--Divya da animal lvr (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Justus Bobo"?! 

message: I think this should be renamed to 'Roman infantry equipment' to match with Roman infantry tactics and also since not all of the weapons covered are personal. Anyone? Green547 (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename? 

message: This article originally referred to the infantry carrying "missiles" until this was removed here. Is there some sense in which this was correct? bd2412 T 14:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Pila, plumbata, other javelins, plus the slings that Vegetius recommends - all missiles. This needs checking against the original translation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missiles? 

message: Right now, if I forget the word "sudis" but I want to look up its name, I would think that it would be categorized alongside things with a similar function in making fortifications. But it's currently listed as part of a Roman legionnaire's pack. This also makes sense given the text here. But I think perhaps it's worth splitting off items in the sarcina and listing them as appropriate in other sections for ease of finding them, while still preserving the description and contents of a sarcina. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand "entrenching tools" to cover fortification equipment more broadly