Legionaries fighting "expediti"

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Ave

There seems to be some evidence that some legionaries "expediti", that is, without armour, on campaign. Does anyone know why this was? I wonder if it was just a question of no being able to afford armour or if there were tactical reasons for it. I suspect that the majority of legionaries did wear armour though.

[Lost_Warrior]

They wouldn't have done it because of the cost of armor, because, the armor was provided by the state, and paid for by deductions from the soldiers' salary.

 

I have heard of this, but I don't think it was common, and I'm not sure when/where/why it was done.

[Gaius Octavius]

Could they have been velites?

[Pertinax]

Ave

There seems to be some evidence that some legionaries "expediti", that is, without armour, on campaign. Does anyone know why this was? I wonder if it was just a question of no being able to afford armour or if there were tactical reasons for it. I suspect that the majority of legionaries did wear armour though.

This posture is known and attested, look to the Osprey title "Roman legionary 161-284 AD " for a quick reference, the suggestion is for infantry versus infantry in hot climates where heavy armour might impede combat progress, despite the possibility of heavier casualties.

II Parthica versus Praetorian troops at Immae (218 AD) being an example.(Macrinus versus Eligobalus)

[ASCLEPIADES]

Ave

There seems to be some evidence that some legionaries "expediti", that is, without armour, on campaign. Does anyone know why this was? I wonder if it was just a question of no being able to afford armour or if there were tactical reasons for it. I suspect that the majority of legionaries did wear armour though.

Salve, GH.

 

If you check out Titus Livius' Ab Urbe Condita, the adjective expediti is translated simply as "light", ie like in "light cavalry" or "light infantry". For example, at Liber XLIV, Cp. II;

 

" deinde adeo inops consilii, ut obtorpuisse uideretur, cum equitibus expeditis litore nunc Heracleum, nunc Philam percurrebat, eodem inde cursu Dium repetens.

 

And here it would almost seem as if his reasoning faculties were benumbed and he was destitute of all resource, for he used to start from his camp at Dium with an escort of light cavalry, and gallop to Heraclea or to Phila, returning at the same speed to Dium."

 

...and also at Liber XXXIII, Cp. VI, and Liber XXXVI, Cp. XV.

[caldrail]

Armour is expensive to purchase , requires maintenance and repair after battle damage, and creates noise in movement, and can easily hamper inexperienced troops. It might also be possible that purchased armour is incorrectly constructed in the first place. Any of these could give rise to a legion whose commander decides to put armour aside.

[Marcus Caelius]

It might also be possible that purchased armour is incorrectly constructed in the first place.

 

What would happen to a contractor who supplied shoddy armor to, say, Sulla?

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

[

Edited October 18, 2007 by Gladius Hispaniensis

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

If you check out Titus Livius' Ab Urbe Condita, the adjective expediti is translated simply as "light", ie like in "light cavalry" or "light infantry"

Salve Asclepiades

From that I gather the word was used in a very generic sense. What Pertinax says makes sense. One thing that always bothered me was the picture of legionaries and armoured auxiliaries fighting in the heat of, say, North Africa or the Judean desert in chain mail or lorica segmentata. It might very well be that some of them simply discarded their armour in these areas for simple convenience and comfort. Anyway I'll certainly look into that book "Roman Legionary 161-284 AD" for more details on this. It sure is fascinating.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Oops. Double post there.

[caldrail]

It might also be possible that purchased armour is incorrectly constructed in the first place.

 

What would happen to a contractor who supplied shoddy armor to, say, Sulla?

 

Depends. If Sulla had requested it he would no doubt have selected some arbitrary and unpleasant fate. If his underlings had requested the armour, then I imagine they wouldn't want Sulla knowing about it! Who knows?

[ASCLEPIADES]

If you check out Titus Livius' Ab Urbe Condita, the adjective expediti is translated simply as "light", ie like in "light cavalry" or "light infantry"

Salve Asclepiades

From that I gather the word was used in a very generic sense. What Pertinax says makes sense. One thing that always bothered me was the picture of legionaries and armoured auxiliaries fighting in the heat of, say, North Africa or the Judean desert in chain mail or lorica segmentata. It might very well be that some of them simply discarded their armour in these areas for simple convenience and comfort. Anyway I'll certainly look into that book "Roman Legionary 161-284 AD" for more details on this. It sure is fascinating.

Salve, GD

 

Maybe this will be more useful for you if you could upload the exact quotation, so its context may contribute to determine the exact meaning of expediti in your source.

 

Valete.

[alea iacta est]

Ave

There seems to be some evidence that some legionaries "expediti", that is, without armour, on campaign. Does anyone know why this was? I wonder if it was just a question of no being able to afford armour or if there were tactical reasons for it. I suspect that the majority of legionaries did wear armour though.

 

Perhaps you are refering to the pre-marian legions which often had a good deal of poorer soldiers who had poor or ineffective armor. Some histories talk of soldiers who meerley bought metal plates and tied them around their chests.

[caldrail]

It is an intersting point. Rome had progressed through a 'hoplite' army which in true greek style was as close to a citizens army as they would get. As such, the roman army equipped themselves with whatever gear they could afford, and were graded accordingly. There is a set of standards quoted from roman sources which describe the various wealth and equipment expected of roman soldiers, but this must be viewed with suspicion. The organisation reflects that of the voting assemblies, not a direct reference to how the romans organised their armies, and may well be a case of reverse engineering by a roman commentator who didn't actually know what the 'polybian' army organisation was, and had assumed that the traditional assembly setup was the same. The point however is that the soldiers back then paid for their equipment. Later, as we move into the post Marian period, the state took responsibility to supply equipment, although the soldier still paid for it via stoppages. Therefore, by this stage, a legion was expected by the state to field itself in the appropriate manner, and so the commander of this army must have been responsible to ensure that happened.

[the5500th]

I think there may have been two reasons for this. The first being that soldiers could not move as fast in armour so not wearing armour was probably done mainly in situations were speed was needed. For the second I can remember (not sure were) that men would be forced to go without their armour as a punishment. I have nothing I can point to for this but I do remember something about it.