Metal Field Repairs and standardization of ammunition

[Onasander]

Two questions:

 

1) Did the Romans maintain replacement metal parts for its equipment? Say some barbarian smashed up your helmet to the point it is impossible to wear, and instead of returning back to Rome to buy a new one, your great and fearless commander decides to press to reward, WITH YOU. Do you get a new helmet, and if so, where? Or is there a mobile blacksmith? If so..... how does he do this mobile? The logistics of this isn't so simple....

 

or in my probable case in such a situation, told to stop being a woose and fight without a helmet, sword and shield from now on, just bite them, it's all about will power.

 

Second question, I don't think the artillery could manage to build all its heavy ammunition. I'm guessing the infantry got drafted into this, it's a no brainer..... but how standardize was it? Did these machines vary in size, and each squad was left looking for different sized trunks for each machine, or different sized rocks? Was there a infantry NCO giving his men bad geology classes, on how to know if your rock was quality or hollow geo rocks that crumble on impact.

 

I get this image of new recruits grunting, carrying rocks for miles, only to be rejected upon inspection. Or worst, they make a giant arrow, only to find it doesn't fit their machine, making them run machine to machine to find one it fits, looking like messed up ass in the process.

[GhostOfClayton]

Simple answer. Yes. A cache of armour parts were unearthed at Corbridge.

[Onasander]

I ask this because even though its common sense, a book I downloaded on Gustavus Adolphous claims the ancients made no attempts to make munition bases before gunpowder.... which I dont believe, but have no proof of.

[caldrail]

It is true that the Romans wouldn't have stored much in the way of armour, mostly because the creation of it took so much effort so they made it to order, and if it wasn't needed, they weren't going to fill whole warehouses with unused metal armour that needed careful maintenance to prevent corrosion and so forth. Besides, you might need the expensive raw material for something else.

 

In the field, there was little you could do except retrieve spares from the fallen where possible. A fort, if large enough, would have a smithy where basic repairs could be undertaken, or in the main bases, a fabricae where a new set could be manufactured if required. However, bear in mind the ability of the legion to reapir or replace often depended on how many artisans they had on strength. The legion did not have a armoury unit, nor were armourers recruited specifically, so note the priority such men received when they volunteered. It is remotely plausible that legion might not have the necessary skill set at all at any given time (though given the extent of tradesmanship this might be unlikely), especially on campaign, bearing in mind that soldiers were all duty bound to line and fight irrespective of trade.

 

Calatpultae and ballistae were more or less standard in sizes, though you would expect some variety according to who made them and what they were intended for. Bear in mind that the larger artillery were oelty made and used at the scene, not carted around. Rocks would be obtained locally, transported by animals, wagons, sometimes with civilian contractors, and broken to size at the source. If time permitted, some shaping might have taken place before delivery.

 

The Romans would have quickly sorted which rocks were suitable.

[Onasander]

When you say in a short amount of time, I get this image of me as a half naked legionaire spending days on end, dirty with my back nearly thrown out, pushing half broken carts along the edge of a swamp, with virgil sitting on a log, smacking a mosquito from his cheek, a little sweaty...... looking at my miserable state, rejecting my rocks as not being the right kind..... and just then it begins to rain.

 

Your talking about collecting a bunch of rocks in a combat zone, extra to normal food scavenging duties.

 

This being said, I am mostly in agreement with you, and I failed to take the breakdown of the armor into account. Ive seen 50 cal. rusted bad in Iraq, yet have seen muskets recovered here in impossible conditions in good shape, not to mention all the mediaeval armor still around.

 

I recall vegetius calling for recruiting guys like leather workers and cobblers, but they are a much simpler craft, and easier to supply, than a blacksmith.

 

Blacksmiths leave a obvious mark in the archeological record. Do we have any legionary finds of field blacksmithing?

[caldrail]

Ammunition for ballistae, the large and heavy bolts, would be transported by animal or cart along with the weapon itself - that's only common sense. Where larger siege artillery is built, the rocks aren't necessarily gathered from the immediate area, but locally where sources of rock can be found. Since these machines are built at the site of sieges, there is plenty of time to seek suitable rocks and the legionaries would necessarily have been given plenty of advice of what to look for, if not created specifically for their use on the spot. Since standing rocks and swamps aren't usually found together, this isn't a likely scenario, and whilst some legioanries may well have sufferd the attentions of cruel centurions, bear in mind that the centurion who wasted effort in gathering munitions is not going to do his reputation or career any favours if he's caught acting in that way.

 

The antique items in good condition have had the fortune of being stored where they can be looked after.

 

As for field blacksmithing, I'm sure there is, though I can't think of anything specific. There was however a work camp set up by legionaries in my own area for the purpose of building a road from Calleva Atrebatum to Corinium Dobinnorum. It was abandoned, presumabnly with everything useful carted away, when the road section was complete, and the local Britons took the site over as a settlement, later to develop a mansio and a small town.called Durocornovium. However I would point out that smithing requires a certain amount of equipment to be present and that mitiagtes against casual use.

[Onasander]

Are you sure the ratio of soldier to oxen to pull the carts balanced against the supplies supplies against the carts was enough to allow for a work detail to use the excess carts in conjunction with other duties that require cart pushing?

 

Factors in this question:

1) Romans had to use Oxen, not Horse, to pull the carts, due to the fact horse collars had yet been invented, and any load added to a cart pulled by the horse would be pulled by a noose around the next, choaking its windpipe. Rocks are fucking heavy.

 

2) In order to maintain mobility, especially when away in campaign, the majority of supplies would of remained in cart. This means only a faction of the carts at any time could be unloaded, such as tents, and cookware, slaver carts (assuming the army owned such things) ir empty carts dedicated for ambulances (again, assuming).

 

In order to quickly turn out, commanders in many cases would of been wary of dumping all his supplies on the ground and sending his troops out into 7 different functions prior to a more defencable position being errected:

1)Guard the Camp builders

2) Build the camp

3) Scavenge for supplies food

4) Guard the food scavengers

5) Look for rocks

6) Guard the rock gathera

7) Scouting missions, and other operations.

 

 

The rocks being in marshes isnt as unreasonable as you might thing. Many factors guide this judgment:

 

Though marshes are unhealthy, and on flood plains (flash flooding bad for camps) they sit on the end flow of water, where rocks since glacial times would build up, already rounded to a certain extent. Secondly, the wet environment makes it easier to pry them up. Thirdly, marshes tend to be near streams, along flat or gradually increasing elevation, allowing infantry to scavenge for game and move around its ranges with ease, while acting as a sort of defence against complex ambush from its environments.

 

Here in the upper ohio river valley, rocks are available in three spots:

Upper portion if the hills, but NOT the top or bottom portion of the hills. This is due to the type of rock there, as well as glaciers cutting its path. The lower portions lack it due to superior dirt erosion from above outpacing the natural tumble of rocks, covering them up quickly.

 

In marshes, because the water and flash flooding exposes them,

At the exits of creeks into rivers, especially during drought. Rocks very slowly migrate.

 

A marsh, or cross creek junction, would if been a essential supply and defensive point nany commanders of the era would of choosen lacking higher ground, especially in woodland environments, given they possess many of the camps essential needs, as well as give confused or lost, or even routed soldiers a landmark route back to camp.

 

I personally, in setting up camp, would want my big guns up and ready ASAP, not just to hold my line, but also to free up carts. But those carts are carrying lumber, game and greens, or if your lucky fruit in competition to rock gathering.

 

How well can oxen pulling a cart scale hillsides? Or travel in marsh where the easiest rocks can be pryied?

 

Yes, looking out, it seems there are rocks everywhere. And there are.... but short of a chisel, or long hours shoveling, your left with select gathering locations. Ox gave to get to it and back, but in many cases not ALL the way to it. Hence, the bitchwork if the legionaire unfit even for a slave.

 

Hence also the need for a understanding of geology. Not all rocks shape right, some break easy, or are hollow. Some are bad to light on fire.

 

Your average young soldier isnt going to know this. A rock is a fucking rock. They are everywhere. His main concern is getting camp up, his shoes off, and wondering when his first watch is going to be. Hes not going to react to kindly to the artillery officer press ganging him into a absurd duty of trying to pull rocks out of the clutches of a frosty ground. Especially if its really cold, all the pick axes are being used to build the camp, he cant use his sword, and he has numb hot dog fingers from his efforts to pry.

[caldrail]

Are you sure the ratio of soldier to oxen to pull the carts balanced against the supplies supplies against the carts was enough to allow for a work detail to use the excess carts in conjunction with other duties that require cart pushing?

The soldiers would have requisitioned or appropriated any suitable animnals in the area, or contracted to merchants for transport (I believe Josephus mentions this in his account of the Jewish War). As with any military endeavour, needs must. The soldiers would have been ordered to undertake the tasks their commanders thought most important at the time.

 

Factors in this question:

1) Romans had to use Oxen, not Horse, to pull the carts, due to the fact horse collars had yet been invented, and any load added to a cart pulled by the horse would be pulled by a noose around the next, choaking its windpipe. Rocks are fucking heavy.

Also horses were not that common, requird by cavalry, needed expensive feeding to remain at full strength, were not cheap to purchase, and not entirely suitable for these duties. In any case, the Romans would have used a shoulder yolk as they did with other draught animals, so the choking aspect doesn't come into it.

 

2) In order to maintain mobility, especially when away in campaign, the majority of supplies would of remained in cart. This means only a faction of the carts at any time could be unloaded, such as tents, and cookware, slaver carts (assuming the army owned such things) ir empty carts dedicated for ambulances (again, assuming).

Roman legions preferred to carry goods by donkey/ass/mule than by cart. In theory one animal was allocated to each eight man contubernium, and anything the animal couldn't carry was left behind. However, there are also mentions of men going on the march leaving their weapons in a cart, so I imagine such transport was always according to the assets you had. of course the carriage of goods by animal or cart would reduce the rate of march - this was a decision for the commander - to march quickly with minimum load, or slower with everything you need. And yes - soldiers could own slaves.

 

In order to quickly turn out, commanders in many cases would of been wary of dumping all his supplies on the ground and sending his troops out into 7 different functions prior to a more defencable position being errected:

1)Guard the Camp builders

2) Build the camp

3) Scavenge for supplies food

4) Guard the food scavengers

5) Look for rocks

6) Guard the rock gathera

7) Scouting missions, and other operations.

You left out building the perimeter wall. This was standard Roman practice which was often more a psychological weapon than any practical means of containing the enemy.

 

The rocks being in marshes isnt as unreasonable as you might thing. Many factors guide this judgment:

I don't recall any anecdotes in Roman sources that mention rocks in connection with swamps. The Romans simply wouldn't look for rocks there - the terrain was too difficult.

 

Your average young soldier isnt going to know this. A rock is a fucking rock. They are everywhere. His main concern is getting camp up, his shoes off, and wondering when his first watch is going to be. Hes not going to react to kindly to the artillery officer press ganging him into a absurd duty of trying to pull rocks out of the clutches of a frosty ground. Especially if its really cold, all the pick axes are being used to build the camp, he cant use his sword, and he has numb hot dog fingers from his efforts to pry.

He obeys his orders or gets flogged, or even put to death if a serious breach of military discipline.

Edited November 27, 2013 by caldrail

[Onasander]

Romans didnt have shoulder yokes. They yoked the neck, padding it so as not to choke the animal. Tests were done back in the late 19th century to prove this, the horses pulling the loads bent their necks just like the ones on trajans column.

 

I dont think rock collecting, latrine duty, or kitchen duty were of consideration to historians period. However, you get it wrong, the consequences are. Phenomena without roots.

 

I remember having to pull a Ahkio loaded with tools up in Alaska, or the requests by a Lt. for a bunch of sandbags for a winter triathlon, in the middle of a winter, being handed pick axes and shovels. It doesnt work that way, minus dynamite in the winter up there. Its a common cruel punishment to tell guys to dig a hole a foot deep, and your finished..... it can take the whole day, and you wouldnt dent it.

 

I think historians look at the legions from the vantage of the officers. I look at it from bottom up, and I know half the tasks are much more complicated than we give credit for.... hence why they stuck so strongly to a merit based system of gradual promotion.

 

And I naturally include fortifications in my understanding of camp. I lived in a FOB for over a year, and most towns grew up around forts here.... I cant imagine setting up camp without fortification, or at the very least taking a strong natural position. Even when I was a Cynic sleeping each night outside, I took this. Its impossible for me to imagine myself doing otherwise. I cant see the Romans being any different. The camp is more the defence than the tents. I could care less if they sleep exposed to the rain, so long as its not exposed to threat.

[caldrail]

 

hence why they stuck so strongly to a merit based system of gradual promotion.

Woah there - where did you get that information from? Firstly that ignores the extremely strong Roman class system, secondly, the only source that even hints at gradual promotion is Vegetius in the late empire. Bear in mind that funerary inscriptions quite often give a summary of a mans military career, in which he is said to have served in various roles in no particular order. Those are jobs, not ranks, albeit with status and virtus attached.

 

There were official positions within the legion that carried responbsibility and status, such as standard bearers, musician. centurions right hand man, etc, which are routinely interpreted as ranks for convenience, but as I've often stated, there is no table of ranks to apply these to, and for that matter, all these titles were essentially temprorary and men moved from one to the other according to circumstance rather than career promotion. To the offciers, the men were not expected to rise above their station, and please note how little the Romans talk about promotions for the common soldier - ie, not at all. In other words, men sought positions that made their life easier or more lucrative, which got easier with experience and service. As a letter from a soldier in Egypt tells us "nothing happens around here without money".

 

The reality of a marching camp is that you're only there over night. The legion carries two stakes per man (ideally) for the purpose of encampmanrt but some quick estimates will almost certainly highlight the impossibility of carrying an entire palisade of any appreciable size with them. Whilst a ditch and rampart, of no great depth/height is known to be possible and a requirement of legion practice, it was not a formidable barrier, and the potential of finding enough suitable timer to create a solid wall is circumstantial.

 

Permanent forts are another matter of course, and I would point out that your own modern experience would quickly show how armies camp in the open when on the march - the Romans actually did more than we do.