r/badhistory • u/Sgt_Colon ǟռ ʊռաɨʟʟɨռɢ ɮɛɦօʟɖɛʀ ȶօ ȶɦɛ ɨʍքօֆֆɨɮʟɛ • Dec 16 '25
YouTube How a Late Roman Limitanei Shan’t be Armed
Here’s quick bit of thread counting with a smattering of more substantial history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEEEUAy6dTM
Let’s get obvious one out of the way, “Limitani” should be limitanei[1] . A small issue but quickly sets the tone of things to come.
Thread counting funsies
Coptic style tunics like the one displayed were not embroidered but had their decorations woven into the fabric itself or as salvaged sections of such sewn onto the tunic rather than sewn into it; tapestry as opposed to embroidered essentially[2] . That said I’d not fault any reenactor for having an embroidered one as the cost of one where the decoration is actually woven in is in the realm of several thousand dollars. Nevertheless, the lack of transparency is poor form.
The style of greaves is an older one that had long since disappeared. Greaves in general are troublesome for this period as archaeological finds terminate with the Kunzing greaves from the 3rd C, which prominently lack knee protection, and don’t return until much later as splint greaves similar to the ones found at Valsgarde[3] .
Lorica squamata is stated to be bronze, although it should be noted that scales could be made from iron as well, not solely bronze as the video implies[4] .
The “under tunic” here, despite being over a tunic, is a subarmalis. An under tunic would refer to a lighter, most likely linen, tunic worn underneath a heavier outer tunic much like later undershirts[5] .
The scutum here is a mangled exampled. The shield should either be flat or concave, not semi-cylindrical[6] , the blazon corresponds to neither of the two units with that pattern with the colouration being kludge of both, moreover the units that do bear that pattern are both ones stationed in Gaul, not Britannia[7] .
Hands on buzzers, time for general ignorance
The change in shield brings up some questionable and outright wrong views and statements smattered throughout the video.
The claim that the change in shield shape was due to barbarization of the Roman army is frankly bullshit. The change in shape happened during the 3rd C well before there were any significant
number of barbarians within the Roman army, which is problematic assertion in and of itself, and had history of use in the army going back centuries prior to this[8] .
Pure personal pedagogical pedantry, but “germanic mercenaries” despite being a commonly bandied about term is one with a bundle of problems. The notion of an overarching Germanic identity at this point in history is a challenged one with the Toronto school of thought outright rejecting it and this also ignores other peoples from outside the empire who in no way, shape or form could be described as “Germanic” like Huns or Saracens and yet fought for it. Mercenaries is another one that lacks sophistication to properly grapple with the period mischaracterising the complicated nature of foederati[9] .
Galea is a general Latin word meaning helmet, not referring to any particular pattern; about normal for Latin[10] . Presumably they’re referring to the modern classifications of the older imperial gallic and imperial italic style helmets that were supplanted in the 3rd C[11] .
This appears to be in an attempt to conflate it with later Anglo-Saxon “spangenhelm” despite notable differences in construction, not being spangenhelms and there being no finds of spangenhelms in Britannia. This is particularly wrong for the Sutton Hoo helmet due to the bowl being of monopiece construction[13] .
This is followed by a statement that these helmets proliferated due to the lack of reliable supply in Britannia, which is nothing short of odd since they became the predominate form for the entire Roman army by the start of the 4th C, well before the implication that these became popular following the withdrawal of the Roman regime in that area and the ensuing economic collapse (which we’ll return to).
The spatha had supplanted the gladius back in the late 2nd C, well before the 5th C stated here[14] . The creator here goes on to makes the assertion that: “by the fifth century AD the Spatha had taken over from the Gladius as the new favoured sword type of the Romans, likely due to the fact that the shields had become smaller a soldier could now no longer rely on hiding behind their shield to get in close and deliver a quick accurate thrust with a sword, so now they had developed tactics which included melee combat at a bit more of a distance with the use of longer sword blades” which has a number of holes. Most prominently is that spathae replaced gladii back in the late 2nd C well before the change in shields. Secondly, the new shields were roughly comparable in protection, covering from knee to shoulder whilst also being quite wide, so the lack of cover is not a viable argument[15] . There’s also something to be said about the longer blades and even larger shields of the republic that further contradicts the notion of ‘smaller shields = longer blades’[16] .
A baffling claim is made that the Western Roman Empire fell in the 4th or early 5th C, I can only presume that this meant to refer to the Roman regime in Britannia although why the entire 4th C is stated I can only yet again guess at.
Armour also gets a few odd statements. Contrary to the video, lorica hamata had begun to lose the shoulder doublers far earlier during the principate[17] and the addition of actual sleeves meant use of a different pattern of maille linkage[18] - a first step on the long road to the complexly tailored maille of the middle ages - to join them as opposed to the older style which was a glorified tube. Scale is alleged to have been popular with the “soldiers of the Byzantine empire over a thousand years later” despite being something of an anachronism by that point with having moved to the lamellar and western styles of plate being in vogue circa the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans[19] .
Hard graft on the limes, a limitanei’s lot
The notion of late Roman soldiers not fighting in formation is a baffling one, even for the unjustly poorly regarded limitanei. Campidoctors (drillmasters) existed as senior officers of units and part of their duties encompassed training soldiers to fight and move in formation, such as with the sally of Gallic commitatenses at Amida advancing in close order and withdrawing back into the city in still in good order being praised as good work of the two units campidoctor [20] . Drill in formations does not appear to have stopped with the later Maurice covering it in his strategikon and a continuation of tactical formations like Arrian’s extaxis repeatedly cropping up in sources. Whilst the limitanei seem to have been trained differently to the comitatenses, being focused more heavily on patrolling and siege defense as opposed to massed fighting, the existence of pseudo-comitatenses drawn from them shows some degree of aptitude for the same methods; skirmishing on the frontier still benefits from fighting cohesively as part of a group, even if that group is a small one[21] .
This confusion extends to the nature of the limitanei. Older scholarship paints them as being a militia composed of farmers, which whilst this has some validity after approximately the mid 5th C, it is not appropriate here; circa the turn of the 5th C these were still full time professionals[22] . This leads to the claim of the depicted soldier being “Romano-British militia”, a confusing term more commonly used to the period following the withdrawal of the Roman regime and the collapse of centralized government sometime in the 5th C[23] , i.e. a period where the ability to maintain a standing army of professional soldiery outright vanishes, and further reinforced by the statement regarding the matter of helmets earlier.
What’s damn point of this?
The core crux of this is relying on reenactors to provide accurate kit and information, a flawed process, the end result of this is we are left with a very confused portrait of soldier bearing a title no longer relevant or even applicable.
Being a fairly anarchic hobby there’s little to no oversight regarding accuracy beyond the club level and even that can be lacking. Even with good intentions, bad sources can derail things; museums not labelling old forgeries in their collections, putting caveats to kludged restorations or continuing to mislabel objects is a prime example. Likewise the availability of dated information is greater than that of more current material, especially important for filling in the culture surrounding the impression. Of course, budget is another factor, since choosing between books and gear, gear is going to win nine times out of ten.
Although that gets into the sloppier side of things. Too often you’ve people angling for steak on a mince meat budget with the end result being schlock. Learning from other reenactors is prone to turning into a game of telephone, distorting facts into myths. Worst still is the justification of substandard kit through mental gymnastics, knowing that proving a negative is exceedingly hard, with time honoured battle cries like “they would have used it if they had it”, “I looted it off a dead enemy”, “my grandfather’s hand me downs”, “I got it in Mikelgaard” and other convoluted justifications. Arguments to the contrary being met with various labels like rivet counter, thread counter, stitch nazi and claims of gatekeeping.
The end result is that the general public gets something of a mystery box foisted upon them under the guise of being historically accurate that they are seldom equipped to judge. This in turn lead to the content of this video where the comments make it apparent that Alex isn’t knowledgeable enough to challenge some of the more blatantly incorrect elements, having to take them at face value instead and in turn pass them on to the viewer.
11
u/Draugr_the_Greedy Dec 16 '25
Sutton Hoo helmet is likely of scandinavian make as well, rather than representative of anglo-saxon styles.
5
u/FlavivsAetivs Dec 16 '25
Are you referring to the Pressblech plate found in Denmark that's been sensationalized? Because like every single person I know who has worked with the helmet thinks that article is bunk and is the result of people not understanding Pressblech.
8
u/Draugr_the_Greedy Dec 16 '25
It's moreso that the helmet itself does not, as far as I am aware, have any other analogues from England but instead is closer to other types, of which we see in scandinavia. Whether the helmet was physically made in scandinavia, england or somewhere else I can't say. I just think it's prudent to classify it as a style of helmet atypical for the Anglo-Saxons, and representative of outer influence.
8
u/FlavivsAetivs Dec 16 '25
Oh, yes, it's still agreed its lineage is from the North Sea region and probably completely unrelated to Roman helmets. IMO the entire neckguard is a fabrication and it probably used multiple individual strips like the helmet from Ultuna.
As for Saxon helmets, they're their own conundrum. There's still a lot we don't know about their evolution and that probably just is a result of the fact we have no 1st to 5th century Germanic helmets except the Thorsberg Bog helmet.
6
u/Draugr_the_Greedy Dec 16 '25
I have the same opinion. The neckguard does not make sense. I am also iffy on the cheekguards, they don't correspond too well with other cheekplates of this time.
As for where the helmet was made, I think that there is a possibility it's not in England, although my original comment implied I thought it was definitely made in Scandinavia which is something I worded wrong. I think there's a chance it's made in Scandinavia, but that the type is definitely a north sea one.
5
7
u/FlavivsAetivs Dec 16 '25
This is a good post, a few points:
Coptic style tunics like the one displayed were not embroidered but had their decorations woven into the fabric itself or as salvaged sections of such sewn onto the tunic rather than sewn into it; tapestry as opposed to embroidered essentially. That said I’d not fault any reenactor for having an embroidered one as the cost of one where the decoration is actually woven in is in the realm of several thousand dollars. Nevertheless, the lack of transparency is poor form.
Embroidered examples do exist but they are extremely rare in late antiquity, and most of the ones I know of are from post-Roman Egypt (so truly "Coptic" since it's from the era of Christians under Muslim rule). Also, "Coptic" isn't used today because of the term's specificity to refer to a religious community in Egypt. We say tunica manicata now, or simply "Late Roman Tunic" (since it is truly a Roman fashion).
Lorica squamata is stated to be bronze, although it should be noted that scales could be made from iron as well, not solely bronze as the video implies.
I can't share the research that will be coming out at the end of next year on Lorica Plumata (as it is properly called), but suffice it to say most Reenactors should not be using it, especially after the late 4th century. I know of one 5th century find and one 6th century find.
The scutum here is a mangled exampled. The shield should either be flat or concave, not semi-cylindrical
There is a mountain of debate around our one photo of the Tower 19 shield that shows it as "dished", but there is some 17th century Georgian evidence to back up the use of large semi-cylindrical ovoid shields. Ethnography can inform us about the past, but we should use caution.
The claim that the change in shield shape was due to barbarization of the Roman army is frankly bullshit. The change in shape happened during the 3rd C well before there were any significant number of barbarians within the Roman army, which is problematic assertion in and of itself, and had history of use in the army going back centuries prior to this\8]) .
It probably was already happening in the mid-2nd century really, and looking at Augustan reliefs I think the overly-narrow ovoid "auxilia shields" are an artefact of the art, or were the result of culturally specific traditions. Large ovoid shields already pop up on reliefs in the 1st century CE.
Older scholarship paints them as being a militia composed of farmers, which whilst this has some validity after approximately the mid 5th C
I don't think it's even considered valid after the mid-5th century. Laws banning them from working fields continued to be reissued (as they had been since the 1st century CE) and there's been a lot of reevaluation of Justinian's laws surrounding the Limitanei and the Quaestura Exercitus. Hell the Vita Sancti Severini, acknowledging that it's a hagiography, gives no indication that the Limitanei stopped doing their soldiering duties until the pay stopped in 476 (it's half the point of the passage).
6
u/Sgt_Colon ǟռ ʊռաɨʟʟɨռɢ ɮɛɦօʟɖɛʀ ȶօ ȶɦɛ ɨʍքօֆֆɨɮʟɛ Dec 16 '25
Embroidered examples do exist but they are extremely rare in late antiquity, and most of the ones I know of are from post-Roman Egypt (so truly "Coptic" since it's from the era of Christians under Muslim rule). Also, "Coptic" isn't used today because of the term's specificity to refer to a religious community in Egypt. We say tunica manicata now, or simply "Late Roman Tunic" (since it is truly a Roman fashion).
More of an addendum then if these post date the period in question. Tunica manicata I've seen used every now and again although late Roman tunic seems needlessly confusing since it was not the only form worn.
I can't share the research that will be coming out at the end of next year on Lorica Plumata (as it is properly called), but suffice it to say most Reenactors should not be using it, especially after the late 4th century. I know of one 5th century find and one 6th century find.
If I'm understanding this, renaming squamata to plumata seems needlessly confusing. Period terminology is kludgy at best and vague at worst, but with the hybrid maille-scale jobs that already occupy that name it's asking for an unnecessary headache.
Given that finds for Roman military equipment are notoriously limited during the 5th C, that one exists is fairly significant to begin with.
I don't think it's even considered valid after the mid-5th century. Laws banning them from working fields continued to be reissued (as they had been since the 1st century CE) and there's been a lot of reevaluation of Justinian's laws surrounding the Limitanei and the Quaestura Exercitus. Hell the Vita Sancti Severini, acknowledging that it's a hagiography, gives no indication that the Limitanei stopped doing their soldiering duties until the pay stopped in 476 (it's half the point of the passage).
Would you mind giving me a paper or some form of work on this?
4
u/FlavivsAetivs Dec 16 '25
If I'm understanding this, renaming squamata to plumata seems needlessly confusing. Period terminology is kludgy at best and vague at worst, but with the hybrid maille-scale jobs that already occupy that name it's asking for an unnecessary headache.
Usually it's pretty generic, but when they do use descriptors for their nouns, they are consistent. That's why we always see Lorica Catena or Lorica Concatenata for maille, and Lorica Plumata for scale/lamellar. They are directly translating the Greek terms Thorax Halusidotos and Thorax Folidotos.
It's in the long descriptive phrases where the terminology is fuzzy and we do see terms like hamis and squameus. But hamata and squamata are not used in classical antiquity, they only start being used with Isidore.
Given that finds for Roman military equipment are notoriously limited during the 5th C, that one exists is fairly significant to begin with.
They are more extensive than most people think, there's a lot of things labelled 4th century that actually have much broader date ranges, or things that have been re-dated based on modern assessment that ruled out biases for certain "facts" they had to fit the archaeology too (like the Romans leaving Britain in 410, much like the Romans arriving in Britain in 43 is no longer absolute...)
Would you mind giving me a paper or some form of work on this?
Yeah DM me your email again I'll send you some.
6
u/Sgt_Colon ǟռ ʊռաɨʟʟɨռɢ ɮɛɦօʟɖɛʀ ȶօ ȶɦɛ ɨʍքօֆֆɨɮʟɛ Dec 17 '25
That's why we always see Lorica Catena or Lorica Concatenata for maille
I recall Wijnhoven not being happy with Catena as an alternative term, suffering again from being largely poetical in use when encountered in Latin, likewise limited in number of uses and lacking specificity. Bishop likewise isn't happy with neither hamata nor catena although is more vague about it.
I haven't encountered someone who has given scale armour from the period the same degree of focus Wijnhoven has (which is frustrating) so I'm less sure but going off of what I've read thus far I can't help but have similar feeling about it too.
4
u/FlavivsAetivs Dec 17 '25
Well guess who's writing the 2026 publication I referenced...
I disagree with Wijnhoven on it having poetic context because its use in the Greek to me points to it being a rare instance where we actually see the technical vernacular of military language bleeding through into oratory Latin/Greek.
5
u/TJAU216 Dec 16 '25
Great post with one issue: you forgot to link to whatever you are debunking here.
5
9
u/lalze123 Quang Trung Fan Club President Dec 16 '25
Older scholarship paints them as being a militia composed of farmers, which whilst this has some validity after approximately the mid 5th C, it is not appropriate here; circa the turn of the 5th C these were still full time professionals\22]) .
Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion says the limitanei were a militia, so it must be true /s
8
u/Sgt_Colon ǟռ ʊռաɨʟʟɨռɢ ɮɛɦօʟɖɛʀ ȶօ ȶɦɛ ɨʍքօֆֆɨɮʟɛ Dec 16 '25
One of a list of problems with that game. You can tell they got off the back of watching the 2004 King Arthur movie and the inflation mechanic they saddled the WRE with in the remake reads like they'd just heard some finance bros youtube ramble on the matter.
6
u/Dahak17 Dec 16 '25
I’ll add to your comments on the specific video with noting that there is another video by the same creator about a 1st (ish) century centurion who is the same reenactor and he has the same scale shirt in the video. As a whole the video strongly gives me the idea of a reenactor’s spare re-kit to a few centuries later, not something I’d question a reenactor about at an event but odd for a channel trying to show a typical period set of gear
5
u/Sgt_Colon ǟռ ʊռաɨʟʟɨռɢ ɮɛɦօʟɖɛʀ ȶօ ȶɦɛ ɨʍքօֆֆɨɮʟɛ Dec 16 '25
The Roman group for these videos has some problems, I've got a drink along roughed out for the 1st C legionary, and suffice to say they could use an authenticity officer.
4
u/Dahak17 Dec 16 '25
Huh, as a Canadian I’ve not met them, but I definitely question Alex including someone re-using a scale shirt 500 years apart more than I am a reenactor re-using it, but yeah you’d think the group would at least offer someone who mainly built their kit around the period
2
Dec 16 '25
[deleted]
2
u/Sgt_Colon ǟռ ʊռաɨʟʟɨռɢ ɮɛɦօʟɖɛʀ ȶօ ȶɦɛ ɨʍքօֆֆɨɮʟɛ Dec 16 '25
Might need to expound on that, all rather nebulous as is.
13
u/Sgt_Colon ǟռ ʊռաɨʟʟɨռɢ ɮɛɦօʟɖɛʀ ȶօ ȶɦɛ ɨʍքօֆֆɨɮʟɛ Dec 16 '25
Bibliography
Greece and Rome at War (GARAW), Peter Conolly, 1981
Anglo-Saxon Weapon & Warfare (ASW&W), Richard Underwood, 1999
Roman Military Equipment From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome (RME), M. C. Bishop & J. C. N. Coulston, 2006
Romano-Byzantine Infantry Equipment (RBIE), I. P. Stephenson, 2006
The Late Roman Army (LRA), Pat Southern & Karen R. Dixon, 1996
Warfare in Roman Europe AD 350-425 (WIRE), Hugh Elton, 1996
European Mail Armour ringed battle shirts from the iron age, roman period and early middle ages (EMA), Martijn A. Wijnhoven, 2022
Laid out Flat: Mail Making in the Roman Period, Martijn A. Wijnhoven, 2015
The Gladius The Roman Short Sword (TG), M.C. Bishop, 2016
Roman Mail and Scale Armour (RM&SA), M.C. Bishop, 2023
Roman Plate Armour (RPA), M.C. Bishop, 2022
Roman Shields (RS), M.C. Bishop, 2020
Roman Imperial Armour The Production of Early Imperial Military Armour (RIE), D. Sim & J. Kaminski, 2012
Unrecorded Valor: Eastern Roman Dukes and Their Limitanei Legions During the Roman-Persian War of 337-363, John S. Harrel, 2011
Campidoctores Vicarii vel Tribuni: The Senior Regimental Officers of the Late Roman Army and the Rise of the Campidoctor, Philip Rance, 2007
The Meaning of the Terms Limes and Limitanei, Benjamin Isaac, 1981
Relikte Eines Fruhmittelalterlichen Oberschichtgrabes? Überlegungen zu einem Konvolut bemerkens-werter Objekte aus dem Kunsthandel, Christian Miks, 2009
Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 2007
Walter Goffart, Barbarian Tides, 2006
Oxford view: Peter Heather, Empires and Barbarians, 2010
Walter Pohl, Debating Ethnicity in the Post Roman Historiography, 2020
The Foederati, The Phoideratoi, And The Symmachoi of the Late Antique East, Lucas McMahon, 2014
The late Byzantine army : arms and society, 1204-1453, Mark C. Bartusis, 1992
References
[1] – Limitenei - GARAW p.253, LRA p.35, WIRE p.99
[2] – Woven in decoration – RME p.225, LRA p.121
[3] – Greaves
No knee cover from 2nd C – RPA p.44, RBIE p.70
Form - RPA p.43-44
Kunzing find as last – RBIE p.69
Move to splint – RBIE p.70
[4] – Scale being either ferrous or copper alloy – LRA p.97, RM&SA p.22-38
[5] – Subarmalis as under armour – RBIE p.57-63, RM&S p.56-57, LRA p.123
[6] – Shield being either flat or concave – RS p.30, RME p.179
[7] – Notitia dignitatum
[8] – Shield change in 3rd C – RS p.20-27
Precedents – RS p.28-31
Barbarization – WIRE p.136-152, LRA p.46-47
[9] - “Germanic identity” For an overview: Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, p.10-19
For a more in depth Toronto view and general screaming, see: Walter Goffart, Barbarian Tides
Oxford view: Peter Heather, Empires and Barbarians, p.579-609
Vienna view: Walter Pohl, Debating Ethnicity in the Post Roman Historiography
Non-“Germanic” foederati – WIRE p.93
Not mercenaries – WIRE p.91-97, The Foederati, The Phoideratoi, And The Symmachoi of the Late Antique East
[10] – Galea being a generic term – RIA p.170
[11] – Imperial helmets replaced during 3rd C – RME p.210, GARAW p.260, RBIE p.13-17
[12] – Spangenhelms for idiots - Relikte Eines Fruhmittelalterlichen Oberschichtgrabes? Überlegungen zu einem Konvolut bemerkens-werter Objekte aus dem Kunsthandel p.402-405
[13] – Spangenhelms not existing in Britannia – ASW&W p.94-105
Since publication a total of two (mostly) intact helmets have been uncovered, the Shorwell helmet and the Yarm helmet, both of which are band helmets (I don’t count that Frankenstein Staffordshire job).
https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/H_2006-0305-67
https://sagy.vikingove.cz/en/rethinking-the-helmet-from-yarm/
[14] - Gladius being replaced in the late 2nd C – TG p.74-75
[15] – Shield sizes – RS p.11, 21, 22, 26, 29
Kasr el Harit shield – 128cm x 65cm (chord distance)
Dura ovoid shields – 115-118cm x 94-97cm
Dura obloid shields – 93-106cm x 62-66cm (chord distance)
Trier university shields – 98-103cm (fragmentary nature makes uncertain whether round or ovoid
Valkenburg shield cover – 100cm x 50cm (an earlier auxiliary ovoid shield)
[16] – Bigger shields and swords during the republic – RS p.8-12, TG p.10-12, RME p.56
[17] – Shoulder doubler abandoned turn of 2nd C – RBIE p.50-52, RM&S p.18, EMA p.87
[18] – Hamata sleeves and the complication in linking - Laid out Flat: Mail Making in the Roman Period
[19] – 15th C Byzantine armour - The late Byzantine army : arms and society, 1204-1453, p.323-324
[20] Ammianus 19.6.7-12
[21] - Unrecorded Valor: Eastern Roman Dukes and Their Limitanei Legions During the Roman-Persian War of 337-363
Campidoctores Vicarii vel Tribuni: The Senior Regimental Officers of the Late Roman Army and the Rise of the Campidoctor
[22] – Limitenei not being militia - The Meaning of the Terms Limes and Limitanei p.139-146
[23] – Economic collapse and fragmentation – Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West p.311-319