The Representation of the Roman Army c.363-425AD in

Rome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion

Daniel McDevitt

Senior Sophister

Trinity College Dublin

Word Count: 11,539 McDevitt i

Acknowledgments

An enormous thank you to Dr. Hazel Dodge for all her help with this paper, for not laughing too much when I suggested the idea of analyzing a video game, and for her speedy and timely responses to my many frantic emails. A thank you to my mom and grandmom for encouraging me to pursue my education and supporting me in my moving to a foreign country for university. A thank you to my muse who inspires me to be a better person and has supported me in my many moments of self­doubt. And finally a thank you to my father for always giving me the motivation to succeed. McDevitt ii

Table of Contents

Abbreviations………………………………………………………….pg iii

Introduction…………………………………………………………….pg 1

Chapter 1: Military Unit Types and Titles …………………….…....pg 4

Chapter 2: Army Recruitment, Training, and Upkeep………….. pg 21

Chapter 3: Arms and Armor ……………………………………….pg 36

Conclusion………………………………………………………….. pg 49

Appendix ………………………………………………………….... pg 51

Bibliography……………………………………………………...…. pg 65 McDevitt iii

Abbreviations

Amm. ­ Ammianus Marcellinus

Barbarian Invasion ​­ ​Rome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion

C.Th. ­ C​ odex Theodosianus

Not. Dig. ­ N​ otitia Dignitatum

Veg. ­ Vegetius

Zos. ­ Zosimus

McDevitt 1

Introduction

The working objective of this dissertation is to examine the manner in which the video game R​ ome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion represents the realities of the Roman army between 363 and 425 AD.

Before getting into format and layout, a few notes first on the relevance of the objective of this paper, the time period under study, and the video game itself. The majority of people who do not study classical civilizations academically usually first encounter the subject through artistic mediums, that is to say movies, fictitious books, and, more commonly in the past decade, video games. From blockbuster movies such as G​ ladiator (2000) to tv series such as H.B.O.’s R​ ome

(2005­2007) the classical world is a frequent subject of artistic representation in a modern world. R​ ome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion is just one game in a series of strategy games produced by the C​ reative Assembly.​ This same team sold

1.13 million copies of their most recent strategy game R​ ome 2:Total War as of

March, 2014.

A large number of people then are interacting with classically based media without academic education on the topic first. It is important then that scholarship be aware of how these increasingly popular mediums are representing the historical realities of the classical world. Thus, this dissertation aims to do exactly McDevitt 2

that. It’s important to note that this paper is not simply looking for ‘correct’ or

‘incorrect’ information in the game, but rather it will examine how the game developers are interacting with the classical material and how they are representing the historical realities.

The time period under discussion (363­425AD) is a tumultuous one. The

Roman Empire had been administratively split between East and West with and emperor ruling each independently, followed by the official final split in 395 after the death of Theodosius. Various Germanic and Steppe hordes were migrating across Europe, pursued by the Hunnic tribes, leading to militaristic problems for the empires. If the invading foreign armies weren’t enough, plague, corruption, and a weakening economy threatened many parts of the empires. Ultimately it was a difficult time in Roman history, just as it is a difficult time period for historians due to a shortage of surviving evidence from the time period.

Rome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion is a Windows game released in

September of 2005 as a stand­alone companion to the critically acclaimed R​ ome:

Total War game (released in Sept. 2004). Developed by The Creative Assembly and produced by the companies Activision and Sega.​ The game received critical acclaim from numerous game reviewers such as Metacritic and IGN (two of the largest independent game review companies in Europe and North America) with an average rating of 8.8 out of a possible 10. McDevitt 3

Set in the greater Mediterranean world, the game begins in 363 AD and ends in 476 AD and features a series of playable 'factions' where the player has to successfully administer a contemporary nation (i.e. The Western Roman

Empire, The Eastern Roman Empire, the Huns, the Franks, etc). This administration includes warfare, taxation, diplomatic relations, and the upgrading of infrastructure for ones own nation. Warfare is conducted on a battlefield where the player is tasked with commanding an army with the objective of defeating an enemy army. The rest of the game (the imposition of taxes, recruitment of new units, etc.) occurs on a large topographical map which uses figures to represent features such as armies and settlements. The primary objective of the game is expansion through the conquest of neighbors.

The paper will break down into three categories, with each chapter featuring one of these categories. The first category will be military unit types and titles, the second will be the recruitment, training, and upkeep of the army, and the third will be the arms and armor of Roman infantry. Each chapter will follow a basic format: it will open with a reconstruction of the Roman army from primary and secondary sources regarding the topic of the chapter, then there will be an outline the features of B​ arbarian Invasion relevant to the same chapter, then an analysis of B​ arbarian Invasion’​s representation of the history will be conducted.

McDevitt 4

Chapter 1: Military Unit Types and Titles

This chapter aims first to reconstruct the specific types of military units in use by the Eastern and Western Roman Empires in the time period of discussion

(c.363­425). This chapter is not intended to provide a full description of the various types of soldiers employed by the Romans, as such research has already been compiled (that information which is available) and is unrealistic given the restrictions of the paper, but rather it will be restricted to a short summary of the military units and relevant information to the reconstruction of such units for the purposes of comparison and analysis to R​ ome Total War: Barbarian Invasion.​

Sections 1.1­1.4 will address the divisions among the standing army regarding a regiment’s individual role in the army as a whole. Sections 2.1­2.2 will then look at the specific types of troops employed. The subsequent sections will outline the troop titles of B​ arbarian Invasion and then analyze the representation of the history in B​ arbarian Invasion.​

The primary sources used in the reconstruction of the army and its units and subdivisions are the writings of Ammianus Marcellinus, Vegetius, the N​ otitia

Dignitatum,​ and the C​ odex Theodosianus.​ This period of time is a difficult one regarding the reconstruction of military units however due to the blurring of roles of units and divisions from previous generations and the adoption of newer military practices and applications of the army. This will result in a broad yet McDevitt 5

selective reconstruction, but do note that situational variances which alter the realities of these terms were not uncommon.

1. Military Unit Categories:

1.1 Comitatenses

The first category a Roman standing army might fall into is the

‘C​ omitatenses’.​ The C​ omitatenses represented the standing field army of the

Romans. The term c​omitatenses included both infantry and cavalry regiments, with the regiment being the basic unit of the army.1 All types of units were included under the umbrella term of c​omitatenses,​ but the army could then be subdivided by unit types such as l​egiones,​ a​uxilia,​ and p​alatina (See sections

1.6­1.7).​ The title p​seudocomitatenses was given to units who had been promoted to the field army from the l​imitanei [Veg. 1.17]. Such troops were considered a subdivision of the c​omitatenses army (similar to palatina section

1.6). P​ seudocomitatenses filled the same role as the standard c​omitatenses,​ however they were seen as a less prestigious group, often being viewed as having the same status as l​imitanei.​2

1 Sabin, Philip A. G., Hans Van. Wees, and Michael Whitby. T​he Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare.​ Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007 pgs 273­274 2 Dixon and Southern T​he Late Roman Army p​g 37 for status differences and C.Th 8.1.10 for differences in pay scale McDevitt 6

Comitatenses were the ‘workhorses’ of the Roman army. They were usually not based on the frontiers, but rather in central locations from which they could respond to military threats in nearby regions.3 They made up the bulk of any military force on campaign and acted as reserve forces for the region in which they were stationed in the event of an invasion or attack. Ammianus

Marcellinus’ writings place the ratio of infantry to cavalry units as two to one with the number of infantry being double that of cavalry with the average infantry unit size at c.800­1200 and the average cavalry unit size at c.400­600.4 However the size and composition of the c​omitatenses army varied from one situation to another and as such the listed numbers and responsibilities of the troops are subject to situational alterations made by leaders of the time.

1.2 Limitanei

Limitanei were the frontier units of the Roman army. Much like comitatenses the title l​imitanei could be applied to any unit within the division, from infantry to cavalry. Later primary sources refer to some l​imitanei as ripenses,​ a term which arose due to their primarily being based by rivers, but for content purposes both groups served similar functions if they weren’t entirely

3 Sabin, T​he Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare ​pg 273 4 Zosimus 6.8.2 as the source for the higher numbers for both infantry and cavalry whereas Ammianus Marcellinus records much lower numbers at 300 per unit of cavalry: ​A​ mmianus Marcellinus: In Three Volumes.​ Cambridge, MA: Harvard U Pr., 1986. ​18.8.2, and 300­500 per unit of infantry: Amm 20.4.2 (300 infantry) Amm 31.10.13 (500 infantry) McDevitt 7

identical.5 L​imitanei units of both infantry and cavalry were often smaller than their c​omitatenses c​ounterparts however, and though exact numbers are difficult to reconstruct, Elton places both infantry and cavalry units at c.600 men strong citing the Codex Theodosianus.6 L​imitanei were often sedentary regiments, affixed to regional bases or areas, primarily along the borders of the Empire.

Limitanei were in fact less of a local militia of farmers than they were a regimented and capable fighting force.7 L​imitanei were both capable of being, and regularly were, recruited into the field army as p​seudocomitatenses for the purposes of military campaigns and defense and in some instances could be promoted to the c​omitatenses.​8

There are few practical differences in troop types between l​imitanei and comitatenses.​9 However, the former often consisted of those who either did not meet the physical requirements of the latter, thus implying that the l​imitanei were not as powerful of a fighting force as the c​omitatenses due to both their physical

5 C​ oulston, J.C.N. "Arms and Armour of the Late Roman Army." A​ Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour.​ Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 2002. 3­24. ​on the name pg 5 and E​ lton, Hugh. W​ arfare in Rom​ an Europe, AD 350­425.​ Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. pgs 99­100 for commentary on the use of r​ipenses ​and J​ones, Arnold H. M. T​he Later Roman Empire Volumes 1­3.​ Oxford: Blackwell, 1964. p​g 649 for their almost identical nature. 6 Elton W​ arfare in Rom​ an Europe ​pg 99­100 cites l​imitanei ​units of various sizes hovering between 480 and 700. 7 This debate over the effectiveness and ability of the l​imitanei ​features in Dixon and Southern T​he Late Roman Army ​pgs 36­37. LRE pgs 649­51 cites various sources of evidence which suggest that the limitanei received individuals from drafts and recruitments, that their lands were not undeniably hereditary, and that the only evidence supporting such a claim is largely fictitious. 8 Renatus, Flavius Vegetius, ​Epitome of Military Science.​ Liverpool: Liverpool UP, 1996. ​1.17 In this section Vegetius describes a unit which some scholars consider to have been a​uxilia ​before being promoted to l​egiones ​of the field army. 9 Sabin T​he Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare ​pg 274 notes that the only significant differences are physical standards, tax benefits on retirement, and service length. McDevitt 8

differences and their unit size. The requirement of the placing of ‘inferior’ recruits into the l​imitanei and the ‘better’ into the c​omitatenses was evidently codified in

375 AD [C.Th 7.22.8 and Veg. 1.7].

1.3 Protectores/Domestici and Scholae

The final major division of the army at the time is perhaps the most fluid and changing division yet, and that is the p​rotectores o​r the d​omestici.​ While these two titles are not in fact identical with regards to their implications and history, Ammianus Marcellinus uses the terms synonymously in his writings and so for simplicity this paper will refer to both groups collectively as p​rotectores.​10

Protectores were the imperial bodyguard, and though in the late third and early fourth centuries they had served in combat, they became increasingly ornamental and static in the palaces of the emperors, serving in combat rarely if at all.11 In prior years both titles had been earned ideally through merit and served as places of honor, but over time increasing amounts of decadence and decline in the form of absenteeism occurred until eventually Theodosius II codified graduated punishments to curb the absenteeism which varied in severity according to the number of years spent away without leave.12

10 P​ rotectores ​and ​domestici ​are acknowledged by the C.Th as being separate divisions and likely under different commanders (C.Th 6.24.5.392 and 6.395.8 and 9.416) but for the purposes of this paper and its restrictions the two will hold the same title as they serve similar purposes. For synonymous use Amm 14.10.2 11 Sabin T​he Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare ​pg 74 describes their prestigious role but pg 252 shows their transition into a more ceremonial role 12 Jones T​he Later Roman Empire ​pg 640 details the punishments McDevitt 9

The title s​cholae is perhaps even more difficult to address than that of protectores/domestici.​ S​ cholae w​ ere, in Constantine’s time, an imperial guard unit. Composed entirely of cavalry, the s​cholae served as the Imperial Guard numbering upwards of 500 men in Justinian’s day, among whom traditionally 40 were selected as c​andidati to form the emperor’s personal bodyguard [Amm

15.5.16].13 In the late fourth and early fifth centuries the s​cholae were in a transitional period. Ammianus describes them as elite combat troops, but as time passes, although they do retain some military function in the East for several centuries, they see less and less action as they, like the p​rotectores, become increasingly ornamental [Amm 25.3.6].14 Thus, during the late fourth century the scholae were elite troops, but towards the middle of the fifth century they had largely been removed from combat.15

1.4 Foederati

Perhaps the most confusing term for scholarship of this period is the term foederati.​ Prior to the late fourth century, f​oederati loosely referred to barbarian tribes who were allies of Rome in the militaristic sense of the word, fighting only in specific regions with few exceptions. Between 363 and 425 AD however, specifically after the battle of Adrianople, a change was occurring regarding the

13 For numbers of s​cholae ​Dixon and Southern pgs 56­70. for their existence as solely cavalry see Not.Dig. 9.4­8 14 Sabin T​he Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare p​g 252 15 Dixon and Southern T​he Late Roman Army ​pg 56 discuss this transition. McDevitt 10

use of barbarian soldiers in the Roman military. During the late 4th and early 5th centuries both the prior system of barbarian units fighting on their own as Roman allies, as well as the formal adoption of entire groups of barbarian warriors into the army, functioning as their own unit under Roman command are present

[Amm 31.16.5­6 for units fighting on their own and Amm 29.4.7 for their adoption into the army]. Additionally, evidence suggests that Germanic warriors were present among the s​cholae,​ and thus could in fact be promoted up the Roman ranks.16 Over time f​oederati fell under the blanket terms c​omitatenses and limitanei dependant on their deployment and various roles.17 F​oederati are noted by scholars such as Elton as having taken over more and more responsibility in the Roman East and West, with ethnically barbarian soldiers taking up permanent positions and receiving pay for their services, though the Western

Empire is assumed to have relied more on such troops than the Eastern Empire.

18 Therefore, while barbarians in the military retained their ethnic identity, they were in many cases fully incorporated into the Roman army in their own way.

2. Troop Types Within the Categories:

16 Sabin T​he Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare ​pg 301­302 cites the promotion of Gaulish and German men. 17 Elton ​Warfare in Roman Europe ​pg 91 discusses terminology and LRE pg 621 for incorporation 18 Elton W​ arfare in Roman Europe ​pg 92­93 discusses governmental pay and has a table showing barbarian soldiers in Roman provinces. McDevitt 11

The next section of this chapter will examine the individual types of troops employed by the Roman army, with a troop type determined by its role, status, and how it is identified in official record. Aside from factors such as increased troop diversity among the l​imitanei and an overall physically superior recruit basis for the c​omitatenses,​ there is little discrepancy between the types of troops present in armies of both l​imitanei and comitatenses.​19 For more information regarding the equipment of these units and the differences between types of equipment see Chapter 3.

2.1 Infantry

2.1.1 L​egiones ​and A​ uxilia

With the majority of any Roman army made of infantry, ground troops were critical to the military machine. The primary subdivision of any c​omitatenses or l​imitanei army was by the regimental title of the units. L​egiones and a​uxilia were the two categories most infantry fell into. L​egiones refers to the members of the standard legion, the term remaining largely similar to those of previous generations, excepting that it was no longer the term for the army as a whole, but a subset of the comitatenses or l​imitanei.​ A​ uxilia w​ ere a relatively new type of soldier, only having been around since the reforms of Constantine, but they slowly inched their way into standard armies, eventually pushing out the c​ohortes

19 Sabin T​he Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare ​pg 274 notes that the only significant differences are physical standards, tax benefits on retirement, and service length. McDevitt 12

of the l​imitanei and by the period being studied they were present in a majority of both types of armies.20 Both a​uxilia and l​egiones l​ikely fought in close­quartered, hand­to­hand combat, though since there are pay discrepancies between the two it would not be unfair to assume that the higher paid l​egiones were considered better and more effective troops than their lesser paid a​uxilia counterparts.21 The name of any regiment would be dependent on its type and which army it served in, for example a regiment of legionaries in the field army would be referred to as legiones comitatenses.​22

2.1.2 Palatina

Palatina is a title which, in the second and third centuries, had been given to the ‘palace guard’ (hence the name), but by the late fourth and early fifth centuries the guard had been largely incorporated into the c​omitatenses army, and when referring to the army as a whole, c​omitatenses o​r l​imitanei would be used.23 P​ alatina however were still individually identified within the army. Palatine regiments were considered of a higher status than the standard l​egiones comitatenses,​ with higher pay grades and therefore more prestige [C.Th 8.1.10].

20 Dixon and Southern T​he Late Roman Army ​pg 19, 36, and 37 all discuss the auxillia as being a significant feature in the army since the reforms of Constantine 21 Dixon and Southern T​he Late Roman Army ​pgs 57­59. 22 At numerous points in both Elton’s W​ arfare in Roman Europe ​chapter 3 and Jones’ L​ater Roman Empire ​Chapter 17 both scholars refer to units in this way. 23 LRE pg 608­610 on the evolution of the p​alatini McDevitt 13

Palatinae comitatenses and v​exillationes palatinae (​cavalry) would be examples of titles of p​alatina ​regiments within the army.24

2.1.3 Specialist Infantry

Some l​egiones and a​uxilia infantry were not armed with the standard weapons of a legionary and can therefore be referred to as specialist troops.

Some examples of specialist troops would be l​anciarii,​ a troop armed primarily with a spear and shield in contrast to the standard spear, sword, and shield, and ballistarii ​which will be discussed more in the next section.25

2.1.4 Missile Troops

Ammianus Marcellinus implies that most infantry units were capable of engaging their enemies with missile fire, usually with javelins or p​lumbata (see chapter 3) before fighting hand to hand [Amm 26.7.15]. There were also individual units called s​agittarii which were composed entirely of archers (cavalry sagittarii existed as well as infantry s​agittarii)​. Such units were employed and highly effective against barbarian enemies, some of whom wore little to no armor.

26

24 Dixon and Southern T​he Late Roman Army ​pgs 57­59 25 C​ oulston, "Arms and Armour of the Late Roman Army." pg ​5 acknowledges specifically lanciarii as a specialist unit 26 Elton W​ arfare in Roman Europe ​pg 104 gives a brief but efficient summary of sagittarii McDevitt 14

The b​alistarii units were responsible for the b​allistae,​ an early artillery weapon of which there were many modifications (such as those mounted on carriages for mobility).27 The b​allistarii unit was equally employed by the l​imitanei and c​omitatenses.​28

2.2 Cavalry

Cavalry regiments in any army were usually titled v​exillationes

(v​exillationes comitatenses,​ v​exillationes palatinae,​ etc.). On the frontier the more common reference for the cavalry regiments was e​quites,​ a titled used in the

Notitia Dignitatum,​ which replaced the older title of a​lae.​29 The ratio of c​avalry to infantry was much higher in favor of the cavalry on the frontier than it was in the comitatenses,​ likely due to military patrols along the borders.30 There was much more diversity among the titles of cavalry troops than infantry, though the majority of the cavalry employed by the c​omitatenses seem to be heavy ‘shock’ cavalry armed with lances or spears intended for charges and hand­to­hand combat rather than the missile cavalry which characterized the main armies of so

27 Amm 16.2.5 shows use of a b​allistae ​and the title of the unit as b​allistarii 28 Elton W​ arfare in Roman Europe ​pg 105 names individual b​allistarii ​units within both the l​imitanei and c​omitatenses 29Jones T​he Late Roman Empire ​pg 610­611 discusses the replacement of the name. 30 Elton W​ arfare in Roman Europe ​pg 106 cites the titles of individual units and their ratios as proof of this claim McDevitt 15

many steppe tribes and eastern empires, while the l​imitanei usually hosted more lightly armed and missile cavalry.31

3. Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion

The next section of this chapter will detail the unit titles given in B​ arbarian

Invasion.​ For a quick reference, see the Appendix, Figures 25 and 26 for screenshots of the available units and the names given for the units by the game.

3.1 Unit composition

Each unit type available in B​ arbarian Invasion consists of only one troop type. So, a unit would be universally armed with the same weapons (the specific unit type would determine which weapons), and would be either an infantry, a cavalry, or an artillery unit (manned by infantry who are inseparable from the artillery).

3.2 The Names of Units

The names of the units available for recruitment in B​ arbarian Invasion are applied sporadically. In the Eastern Empire, most cavalry have their troop type

31 Elton W​ arfare in Roman Europe ​pg 106­107 again uses unit titles to support this claim McDevitt 16

preceded by the term ‘E​ quites’ (i.e. Equites Cataphracti, Equites Clibanarii, etc) except for a few cavalry units such as the S​ cholae Palatinae and the

Hippo­toxotai.​ In both the Eastern and Western empires, some infantry are named after their weapons such as the P​ lumbatarii (see chapter 3 for more on equipment and P​ lumbatarii)​, whereas two standard units are called

‘C​ omitatenses’​ and ‘L​imitanei’ and some infantry are named simply ‘peasants’ or

‘town watch’.

There is no use of s​agittarii for either Empire, rather archers are simply called ‘Eastern Archers’ or ‘Roman Archers’ (with one small exception made for a missile cavalry unit recruitable by the Western Empire).

There are two units which seem to be almost appropriately named, the

Legio Lanciarii and A​ uxilia Palatina (available to the Eastern and Western

Empires respectively) are in fact close to perfect. All that would remain is the distinction between the c​omitatenses and the l​imitanei,​ but since the troops are not specifically assigned to either army in the game we can say they are appropriately named.

McDevitt 17

3.3 Eastern Empire v. Western Empire

In B​ arbarian Invasion there are differences between the types of troops recruitable in the Eastern Roman Empire and those available in the Western

Roman Empire.32

In the Eastern Empire the most immediate difference is the availability of heavily armed and armored cavalry. Heavy cavalry (such as the c​ataphractii and clibanarii offered) compose about a third of the types of troops available for recruitment. The f​oederati a​re entirely absent from the available troop list in the

Eastern Empire. The infantry diversity and quality available to the Eastern

Roman Empire is equal to that of the Western Empire.

In the Western Empire, f​oederati are either infantry or cavalry, and they are universally equipped in the same way (Figures 22 and 23). The infantry selection available to the Western Empire is substantial, but the cavalry selection is limited.

3.4 Comitatenses v. Limitanei

32 For more on unit recruitment and supply see chapter 2. For more on equipment see chapter 3. McDevitt 18

The game takes two ‘standard’ troop types (so called because they form the majority of any Roman army in the game, see chapter 3 for more information) and names them ‘C​ omitatenses’​ and ‘L​imitanei.’​

4. Analysis

Before approaching the issue of unit titles, a note should be made on unit composition. Section 3.1 of this chapter details how individual units in B​ arbarian

Invasion only consist of one type of universally armed and armored unit. This contrasts then with the reality of infantry units in the Roman army which had men capable of using bows in addition to fighting hand to hand. The game also separates the artillery (such as b​allistae) and the men manning such artillery into their own units, rather than attaching them to a regiment of c​omitatenses o​r limitanei as would have been the case historically. This simplification is likely for the game player’s benefit as having a universally armed and armored unit eliminates a great deal of tactical variables and streamlines the strategic nature of the game due to its straightforwardness. That said, the game does properly represent the division of regiments in the Roman armies between infantry and cavalry units as the historical divisions would have existed, this time merging the historical elements with the tactical elements.

The developers of B​ arbarian Invasion alter almost every unit title from its historical origins, though likely for different purposes. Some unit titles are McDevitt 19

self­explanatory in their nature, such as the existence of ‘town watch’ or ‘peasant’ units. These units provide the player an element of escalation in the sense that they begin the game with these ‘weaker’ units and over time are able to recruit better, stronger units (see Chapter 2 for unit training and recruitment). Most units however have their titles reduced from two words to one, such as the l​egiones comitatenses becoming simply c​omitatenses.​ This simplification doubtlessly aids the player in making sense of the varieties of troop types available to them, but it poorly portrays the confusing and shifting nature of troop titles of the late fourth and early fifth centuries. ‘E​ quites’​, which is used so extensively in troop titles for the Eastern Empire in the game, was a title in use for cavalry regiments, but only on the borders and usually only in Europe.33 This divergence from the history seems to be an aesthetic decision as the title serves no practical purpose, nor is it imitated in the Western Empire, thus ruling out the possibility of simplicity for the player. Additionally, although the discrepancy between the availability of cavalry in the East and West described in section 3.3 is somewhat rooted in fact, the degree of the discrepancy in the game is a bit excessive.34

The historical foederati becoming standardized and simplified in the game is an undoubtedly poor representation of the ‘b​arbarization’​ which was occurring in both the Western and Eastern empires, and the decision by the game

33 Elton W​ arfare in Roman Europe ​pg 106 as proof 34 Comparing the numbers of cavalry units between the East and West shows a weaker West, but not to the point of an inability to obtain high quality cavalry, see Elton W​ arfare in Roman Europe ​pgs 105­108 for a breakdown of cavalry units by region. McDevitt 20

developers seems to have been to simplify the history for the player. Similarly, the c​omitatenses and l​imitanei categories of troops are both reduced and simplified to single units presumably for practical purposes as well.

Ultimately, the game developers appropriately convey one major historical element of troop titles and inappropriately convey another. By titling units according the the role they are likely to play, the game represents the same ideology behind the division of units into c​omitatenses and l​imitanei regiments.

The idea that certain units are designed and used for certain roles and that their names are representative of these roles was a reality of the historical Roman army just as it is represented in the game. On the other hand, the titling of troops in the game is not as efficient as the historical titles, with the proper names of units being edited, discarded, or replaced with a different, and sometimes anachronistic, title all together.

McDevitt 21

Chapter 2: Army Recruitment, Training, and Upkeep

This chapter examines army recruitment, training, and upkeep which took place in the Roman Empire between 363 and 425 AD. This will be followed by an examination of B​ arbarian Invasion’​s representation of such aspects of the

Roman army and an analysis of how the game interprets the historical evidence.

1. Recruitment, Training, and Upkeep in the Roman Army

The following sections will examine the Roman army of the late fourth and early fifth centuries AD and its several sources of new recruits to fill its ranks, primarily: volunteers, veteran’s sons who were obligated by law to take over their father’s careers, annual levies taken from allied nations of Rome, and barbarian prisoners of war. This will be followed by an examination of the training of new recruits and an analysis of the economic system of the empire, specifically where it pertains to the army.

1.1 Volunteers

Volunteers formed a portion of the individuals recruited to the army.

Unfortunately very little evidence exists regarding the ratio of volunteers to McDevitt 22

conscripts (those who were obligated i.e. levies, the sons of veterans, barbarian prisoners of war, etc.) so it is hard to guess as to how the numbers of volunteers in this time period compare to those of the 2nd and 3rd centuries.35 The evidence showing that people did volunteer is mostly in anecdotes or folktales, such as the future Emperor Justin I joining in the late fifth century, showing that there were volunteers, but an accurate analysis of the group’s size and ratio is not currently possible.

1.2 The Sons of Veterans

A major source of manpower used to fill the ranks of the army was the sons of those who had served in the military. It was not uncommon for contemporary writers, both in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries as well as the late 4th and early 5th centuries such as Ammianus Marcellinus, to identify individual soldiers by naming their fathers, showing then that the practice of patrilineal job heredity was common.36 During the period under study, as a precautionary measure to ensure there were enough recruits for the army, this practice was made into law, and is noted in the C​ odex Theodosianus as a form of conscription.37 In the C​ odex Theodosianus sections 7.1.8, and 22 both allude to the fact that the practice of the evasion of duties was, if not commonplace,

35 For a discussion on the difficulty of the estimation of numbers in the period under study see E​ lton, Hugh. W​ arfare in Roman Europe, AD 350­425.​ Oxford: Clarendon, 1996 ​pgs 128­129 36 Ammianus M​ arcellinus 1​4.10.2 refers to an individual as the son of another, presumably well­known soldier from the manner in which Ammianus talks about him. 37 Codex Theodosianus 7.1.5, 8, 18.10, 20.12, 22.1 all point to both the process and logistics of the law in addition to also proving the need for conscripts by its existence. McDevitt 23

than at the very least prevalent enough that it threatened the stability of the army due to a lack of recruits.

1.3 Levies

Another source of recruits for the army came in the form of levies imposed upon tribes and nations allied with Rome as well as Roman provincial conscripts.

These levies were not always imposed, but were regularly enforced annually.38

These levies were intended to consist of able­bodied men; however levies of men could be, and often were, commuted into levies of coin instead [C.Th.

7.13.2, 13, 14].39 Levies on the more aristocratic classes were highly infrequent, as well as more occasional in nature, and were almost always commuted into funds for the government.40

1.4 Barbarian Prisoners of War

The final group of recruits available to the Roman army were those individuals captured in battle against the various barbarian tribes and settled within the Roman Empire [Amm. 17.13.3]. Most settled barbarian tribes were

38 D​ ixon, Karen R., and Pat Southern. L​ate Roman Army.​ Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2014 pgs 67­68 and Jones, Arnold H. M. T​he Later Roman Empire Volumes 1­3.​ Oxford: Blackwell, 1964. ​pg 615 for the imposition of provincial levies. Jones cites specific examples of this imposition, but does not give a primary source to support his claims. Dixon and Southern however cite Amm 31.4.4 as evidence of this imposition. 39 D​ ixon and Southern. L​ate Roman Army ​pgs 67­68 discuss the methodology and frequency of commuting levies to gold, again citing specific numbers gleaned from C. Th. 7.13.7. 40 C.Th. 6.23.2 and 7.13.15 are two of many references made in the C.Th. regarding the commutation of levies into gold. For a more extensive list see Elton, W​ arfare in Roman Europe ​pg 129 reference 6 McDevitt 24

required to provide soldiers to a levy for the army when asked [Zos. 3.8.1,

4.12.1].41 In some instances, settled peoples were given a few years of a ‘grace period’ to bring back up their numbers and provide more agricultural support, but in time every subject people would have been subject to a request for levies from.42

1.5 Manpower

A brief note should be made on the issue of manpower in the Roman

Army during the time period under observation (363­425AD). Most modern scholars postulate that there was a severe shortage of recruits during the time period and that led to ineffective armies and a weakening of the military with regard to previous generations. Scholars such as Crump and and Boak claim that the army did not have sufficient access to an adequate number of recruits, citing, in addition to historiographical research, the writings of Ammianus

Marcellinus and other contemporary writers.43 Others such as Elton and Finley hold that there is no historical evidence for such a claim and that the focus of the ancient sources such as Ammianus Marcellinus is on the ineffectiveness of the

41 Ridley, Ronald T. Z​osimus: New History.​ Canberra: Central Printing, 1982. Zos. 3.8.1, 4.12.1 and Amm. 17.13.3 both reference the recruitment of settled barbarians into the army. 42 Elton uses the titles of settled barbarian tribes in the C.Th. as a means by which to explain the grace period. Unfortunately the argument is too long to squeeze into this dissertation so instead I recommend reading his argument. Elton, W​ arfare in Roman Europe ​pgs 129­134. 43 C​ rump, Gary A. A​ mmian​us Marcellinus as a Military Historian.​ Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1975. pgs 50­51 and Boak, Arthur E. R. M​ anpower Shortage and the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West.​ Ann Arbor: U of Michigan, 1955 McDevitt 25

army, not its limited recruitment capabilities.44 The arguments made by Crump and Boak are compelling, and the issue deserves further inquiry, but ultimately while the Western Empire seems to have had more difficulty recruiting than the

Eastern Empire, both empires seem to have had the recruits readily available.

1.6 Training

Our primary source for the training of army recruits is the D​ e Re Militari or the E​ pitoma Rei Militaris written by Vegetius. Vegetius’ text details the ideal training scenarios for new recruits. While there is always a gap between the

‘ideal’ and the ‘reality’, it is the best source for the time so we are forced to focus primarily on it.

Vegetius’ divides new soldiers into the strong and the not­so­strong recruits. V​ egetius 1.7 displays those not­so­strong as being marked for the limitanei division of the army where the strong are sought by the c​omitatenses.​

Troops are then all trained in an almost universal way. They are all taught the same basic fighting techniques, then those who show aptitude for specializations such as the bow or the sling are trained in the use of such weapons as well.45

These specialized troops would be a portion of the overall unit and would aid in

44 Finley, M. I. "Review of Boak, Arthur E. R. Manpower Shortage and the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West." J​ournal of Roman Studies ​48.1­2 (1958): 156­64 and Elton, W​ arfare in Roman Europe pg 152­154 . 45 Veg. 1.8­28 all deal with military training and in these sections the specialization of training is detailed McDevitt 26

their respective manner during combat.46 It is significant then to note that while individual troops received additional training in the use of auxiliary weaponry such as bows and slings, the majority of the troops received the same training, with those who were physically stronger standing out from the rest and being acknowledged for it.

1.7 Finance and Upkeep

The Eastern and Western Roman empires of the time period under study

(with various divisions and reunifications of the two occurring between 363 and

425 AD) received the bulk of their economic income via taxation of the imperial provinces. While exact numbers and figures regarding taxation are unknown, scholars such as Jones postulate that while the money made through taxation was substantial, a significant amount of the taxation was commuted in some places to other forms of payment such as grain.47 Coin however formed the primary means of maintaining the single largest drain on the imperial treasury, the army.

As expected, there is a direct correlation between the manpower of the army and its annual price tag.48 Money for the army went to armor for the troops,

46 See section 2.1.4 for a discussion about archers among infantry 47 Jones, L​ater Roman Empire p​gs 462­465 uses what few numbers are available to paint a picture of taxation. 48 Elton, W​ arfare in Roman Europe p​g 120 McDevitt 27

fresh equipment, and the always present need for more horses. Any new recruits had to be provided with all of this equipment in addition to the regular replacement and upkeep of material for veterans. Meals were also provided by the state.49 The annual pay of the soldiers is noted by Elton as being minimum, likely due to the already enormous strain the army put on the imperial budget, however the retirement benefits were more substantial, with veterans being given oxen, land, a modest sum of money, and seed corn.50 Cavalry units were notably expensive for the army to maintain, so much so that should a recruit be able to bring a horse with him upon enlisting he was assigned to a cavalry regiment.

Ultimately, the recruitment and upkeep of the army placed a huge strain on both the Eastern and Western empires financially. Emperors who wished to campaign or raise an adequately sized army for military conquest had to, in some cases, first save up for years to gather the finances required.51 The army served as the single most expensive entity in the imperial budget every year, and that financial strain cannot be overstated.

2. Recruitment, Training, and Upkeep in B​arbarian Invasion

49 Jones, L​ater Roman Empire p​g 463 discusses that which is provided by the state and that which is not. 50 Elton, W​ arfare in Roman Europe ​pgs 121­125 references the works of several primary sources to illustrate this point 51 Elton, W​ arfare in Roman Europe p​gs 118­127 details the extensive procedure of campaigning and its costs and the requirement to save up for expeditions by various emperors. McDevitt 28

The creators of B​ arbarian Invasion take more creative liberties and simplifications of the history regarding the recruitment, training, and upkeep of the Roman Army than the other aspects under study. However they do so in ways which are both appropriate for a videogame as well as suitable for conveying key features of the army of the time period 363­425AD.

2.1 Recruitment

In the game, the player must meet three requirements before recruiting a unit of men to active duty; they must possess the infrastructure necessary, they must have the financial resources available to support such a unit, and the unit must be recruited in a city. Regarding the first requirement, the player must have the necessary infrastructure, meaning both that they have the required buildings in the city where they are training the unit (i.e. an adequate barracks) and that they have a suitable population from which to levy their recruits. The second requirement is that they have enough start­up money (primarily garnered through taxes) to recruit such a unit of men. The third and final requirement is that the unit must be recruited in a city.

2.2 Training

McDevitt 29

The training of new units takes time. One ‘turn’ in game per unit is the normal rate at which troops are trained in a city (with one turn being six months in historical time). More expensive and highly­trained troops such as heavy cavalry or heavy siege equipment might take two turns to finish their ‘training’, but no units take more than two turns (or one year) to train.

2.3 Upkeep and Finance

Every unit has an ‘upkeep cost’, or the amount of money deducted from the annual treasury to sustain it. The cheaper and ‘weaker’ units generally have lower upkeep costs than the heavier troops (for more on the differences between troop types refer to Chapter 1, section 2). While the initial cost of a new unit must be put down up front for it to be recruited, it is entirely possible to have more active military units than the player can financially maintain annually, leading to the player into debt and being unable to recruit new units or build better infrastructure.

As a quick note on financial income in B​ arbarian Invasion,​ subjugated factions which retain their unique identities become a ‘Client State’ are in fact required to pay tribute to those who rule over them (i.e. a defeated Frankish nation could be subjugated and would then be required to send half their annual income to the faction which conquered them). McDevitt 30

3. Analysis

Barbarian Invasion simplifies many complex aspects of Late Roman recruitment, training and upkeep, but it manages to convey many significant aspects of the army in its methodology.

First, the actual methods of conscription employed by the contemporary army are not significant factors regarding gameplay and recruitment. However what the game does do is portray the idea that conscription was the primary means of recruitment. Again, while we have no idea what the ratio of volunteers to conscripts was in reality, few would disagree with the argument that because conscription did occur and was codified into law it was likely a major source of recruits for the army. The game displays this reliance on conscription in its very method of recruiting new units. The player does not have to wait until enough volunteers are present in a city; instead the player only has to find a settlement with enough people in it, and then they can conscript a new unit. This gives the player the impression that at the time as long as there were enough people in a settlement, the Empires could continue to raise more units of fighting men, an appropriate representation then of the policies at the time.

McDevitt 31

Another important point of discussion is the manpower debate. While scholars debate about whether or not a shortage of manpower was in fact an issue for Roman recruitment in the time period 363­425AD, B​ arbarian Invasion could be seen as supporting both sides of the argument.52 On the one hand, the sheer population size of the cities in B​ arbarian Invasion ensure that there is never a shortage of potential men to conscript into new units. In the game, cities with populations in the tens of thousands have the potential to raise virtually limitless units provided the player has adequate finances and the growth of the city maintains a regular pace. Cities in B​ arbarian Invasion grow over time based on their food surpluses, the amount of taxation in a region (more taxes means slower growth) and the level of public health. So, a city which is rich in food, clean, and taxed minimally would grow at its highest rate and vice versa. On the other hand, the game also portrays the manpower shortage in the actual mechanics of recruiting, which allow the player only one unit of men to be trained per city per turn (see section 2.2 of this chapter for a discussion on recruitment times). In this way, the player is restricted by the availability of men as it takes several turns (and therefore years) to train a substantially sized army. This can be all the more frustrating when an enemy army is quickly descending on a player’s cities and the empire cannot muster new troops fast enough. Through both this and the aforementioned limitless recruitment in cities with sufficient population sizes, the game then portrays both the availability of sources of

52 See section 1.5 for manpower debate McDevitt 32

recruits to draw on for the army, but also shows the limitations of such sources, arguably representing the annual levy/conscription/volunteer situation which defined historical army recruitment as appropriately as possible.

The training of new troops is another example of how B​ arbarian Invasion takes creative liberties, but still manages to represent core ideas and concepts of the historical Roman army. As mentioned in section 1.6 of this chapter, according to Vegetius, troops would be separated by ability, but trained in almost identical ways. While there are aspects of the history which B​ arbarian Invasion does not include, such as the training of some troops in a unit in the use of the bow, it portrays Vegetius’ ideal by its universal one­turn­per­unit training method. In having the majority of troops being trained in the same amount of time in addition to them being trained with similar weaponry and in similar tactics the game appropriately represents Vegetius’ ideal of proper training for soldiers (see chapter 3 section 1 for an examination of weaponry and chapter 1 for a discussion on unit types and tactics). In other words, in having an almost universal training time and similar training in tactics and weaponry, B​ arbarian

Invasion ​appropriately portrays the ideas of Vegetius in its own creative way.

The economics of warfare in B​ arbarian Invasion are an excellent representation of the economics of warfare in the Roman world during the period under study, albeit a simplified representation. In the game, when planning a McDevitt 33

military campaign or venture the player must think ahead if they want to be successful. Should a player over extend themselves and launch a war against an enemy faction without having the income to support the army they have raised, the resulting financial stress on the Imperial treasury will likely be significant and may lead to the player being in debt or having a significantly reduced annual income. The player then has to plan campaigns in advance, consider the economic burden an enlarged army would impart, and then decide the best method for recruiting such an army. There is also the added option of hiring mercenaries to join the army, which has its own set of benefits and costs.53 Just like emperors who would save for years to finance campaigns, players too must be aware of the costs and benefits of military ventures.

The idea of taxation and tribute as the primary sources of income for the

Imperial government is present in the historical record, and is represented in

Barbarian Invasion.​ In the Roman economic system, not only were annual taxes imposed upon many of the provinces of Rome, but so too were the allies of

Rome required to provide a levy to the Roman Empire (see section 1.3 of this chapter for specifics). As this levy and these taxes often came in the form of cash

53 A note on the process of hiring mercenaries: The player can instantly hire several units of mercenaries to any standing army (provided of course they have the money required to pay for them and mercenaries are available in the region the army is occupying). The main benefit to hiring mercenaries is an instant increase in military might. However, mercenaries are also more expensive to maintain than standard troops and as a result factor heavily into ‘cost/benefit’ debate. This mechanism for hiring mercenaries factors greatly into the economic considerations of the player, providing an additional layer of immersion and accuracy to the economic issues faced by the historical rulers. McDevitt 34

or other such non­monetary support, both could be considered to be relevant to the upkeep and maintenance of the army. B​ arbarian Invasion simplifies this process by turning all forms of income into monetary value. In the game any taxes imposed regionally are only payable by coin. Additionally, any upkeep for the army also centers around finances. The issues of fresh horses, clothing, and food, which were all significant issues for the Roman military logisticians, are removed from the game and are instead replaced with straightforward monetary costs. This creative decision is undoubtedly a simplification for gameplay as taxation is already a complex enough system in­game, and while on the one hand the game does stray from the history regarding this key element of income for the contemporary Roman Army, it still manages to convey the ideas of taxation as a major form of economic income, of the army as the largest economic burden, and the requirement of continuous income to maintain an army.54 Client states and peoples also serve as a form of monetary income in the game, which although it contrasts the history in which clients likely provided troops and grain rather than coin, it still manages to portray the same type of relationship.

54 A note on taxation in the game: Taxation is the primary form of income for a player. The amount of money earned by taxation is determined by two factors: The wealth of the settlement (i.e. the amount of money flowing through it either through the trading of goods or sale of agricultural products) and the level of taxation (determined by the player as either ‘Low’, ‘Normal’, ‘High’, or ‘Very High.’ The higher the taxation, the more money is made, but the slower the city grows both economically and populously and vice versa for a lower tax rate. Thus, this system is a highly appropriate representation of the timeline as the player is forced to balance economic growth throughout the empire with the economic income for the imperial treasury. This financial burden placed on the player forces the player to figure a way to both gain more money but encourage financial growth in order to support the always present requirement of a large standing army. McDevitt 35

An interesting feature of B​ arbarian Invasion is just how interconnected the army’s recruitment, training, and upkeep and the economics of the Eastern and

Western Roman empires are. There is a cyclical relationship of sorts within

Barbarian Invasion which is an incredibly appropriate representation of the historical Roman empire. The income for the Imperial treasury is directly related to the condition of the land which is under its control, mainly the amount of cities and peoples under Roman rule. One method of increasing the income of taxation is to expand the lands under the player’s control by military conquest, but the act of raising, training, and maintaining an army places a burden on the economy.

This then leads to the need to use the army to conquer more lands and bring in more money from taxes. More lands however means both more enemies and a larger area to control, which leads to an increased demand for a stronger (i.e. bigger) army. This larger army puts even more of a drain on the economy and the cycle continues. This sort of relationship, this economic balancing act in the game perfectly conveys the relationship between taxation and the size of the army of the Roman empires as described in section 1.7 of this chapter.

In summation, while B​ arbarian Invasion does take creative liberties regarding army recruitment, training, upkeep, and financing, most liberties taken regarding the representation of the historical Roman army still manage to appropriately convey key ideas, themes, and realities of the Roman army of the late fourth and early fifth centuries. McDevitt 36

Chapter 3: Arms and Armor

This final chapter will offer a succinct overview of the typical arms and armor in use by the Roman army from 363 to 425 AD. A summary will only be made of the weaponry and armor which would have been the most widely used and universal among the contemporary army, especially but not exclusively that which was employed by infantry. Due to the chaotic nature of the time period under study, arms and armor were not, during the late 4th and early 5th centuries, as universal as they had been in previous centuries. Many different variations of standard equipment would have been found all throughout the

Roman Empires, a challenge for academics studying the time period.55 The simplification and condensing of material and exclusion of exceptional cases is a result of both this papers limitations and the comparative and analytical nature of this paper. Analysis will be restricted to specifically infantry due to the superior numbers of infantry and the traditional Roman focus on the importance of strong infantry units.

1. Weaponry and Armor of the Roman Army Infantry

55 Bishop, M. C., and J. C. Coulston. ​Roman Military Equipment.​ N.p.: Shire, 1989 pgs 55­56 comment on various types of armor from various sources, implying that armor was not as universal as the l​orica segmentata h​ad been centuries before. This non­uniformity is also discussed in detail in D​ ixon, Karen R., and Pat Southern. L​ate Roman Army.​ Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2014 in chapter 6. McDevitt 37

The majority of infantry employed by the Roman army in the late 4th and early 5th centuries were armed and armored in a similar manner to their counterparts in earlier centuries as well as their counterparts in later centuries.

Infantry were usually armed with a spear for thrusting, various javelins or darts for throwing, and a sword for when the spear became ineffective in close quarters. They held a large shield for protection from weapons and arrow­fire and were armored with mail, scale, or leather armor.56

1.1 Weapons

A staple of Roman military tactics since Republican times was the throwing of a heavy javelin or throwing spear immediately before contact with the enemy. This practice continued into the late 4th and early 5th centuries, though with some slight differences to the legions of Julius Caesar and the early emperors [V​ egetius 1​.17]. The contemporary throwing spear of the army was called the spiculum,​ a spear almost identical to the p​ilum as it had been referred to in earlier centuries. The s​piculum was a heavy javelin about 1.5 meters long. It was designed to be thrown over short distances and easily pierce enemy armor and shields. According to Vegetius the ideal soldier was armed with one

56 A good introductory and comprehensive equipment survey is K​ olias, Taxiarchis G. B​ yzantinische Waffen: Ein Beitrag Zur Byzantinischen Waffenkunde Von Den Anfängen Bis Zur Lateinischen Eroberung. ​Wien: Verlag Der Österreichischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften, 1988 McDevitt 38

spiculum and one v​erutum,​ a shorter javelin about 1 meter long, formerly called a vericulum ​[V​ eg. ​2.15].57

In addition to s​piculum a​nd v​erutum,​ the use of lead­weighted darts called plumbata became more prevalent during the time period under study than in the preceding centuries.58 The p​lumbata was a lighter, smaller thrown weapon used at a slightly longer range, estimated from 30 to 65 meters. Vegetius recommends that each infantryman carry around five of these darts for use in combat, either attached to their shield or held in the shield hand [V​ eg.​ 2.15].

In regards to melee weapons, the thrusting spear most widely used by the

Roman infantry was between 2­2.5 meters long and would have been used as the primary weapon by infantry excepting in very close quarters combat where the sword would have been used [Amm. 31.13.5]. The sword primarily used during the late fourth and early fifth centuries was the s​patha.​ At 0.65­0.8 meters long, the sword was a straight, double­edged weapon which could be used for slashing and cutting, however it was more likely used as a thrusting weapon with

57 D​ ixon and Southern. T​he Late Roman Army ​pg 1​12­115 and Bishop and Coulston ​Roman Military Equipment ​pg 63 for a description and information on the spiculum, its similarity to pilum, the verutum, its similarity to the vericulum. 58 Bishop and Coulston ​Roman Military Equipment ​pg 63­64 provides a commentary and description of these darts and their development in the 4th century. McDevitt 39

its sharpened point.59 At this point, the iconic g​ladius of Republican times had been superseded in favor of the s​patha ​by the military for over two centuries.60

1.2 Armor

At this point in history, the l​orica segmentata h​ad all but been phased out of regular use in the army, but no one standard armor had universally replaced it.

Armor of the time period under study usually consisted of a cuirass (breastplate) or corselet, with greaves, p​teruges (the decorative skirt, usually leather, worn around the waist), and a helmet.61 However issues arise as soon as such claims are made. The corselet could have been made of mailed metal (the l​orica hamata),​ scaled metal (the l​orica squamata)​, or leather. Cuirasses could have be iron or bronze and differed greatly in style, though they were usually only worn by officers or soldiers of note.62 Helmets were not universal, but rather they were usually regionally discrepant.63 In short, while claims can be made about infantry armor usually being made from scaled metal or mailed metal, few other claims can be made regarding the universality of armor without requiring numerous annotations for exceptions and irregularities.

59 On the design, structure, and length of the weapon see Bishop and Coulston ​Roman Military Equipment p​g 63 on the s​patha’​s use as a thrusting weapon see Veg 1.12 and Amm 24.6.11 60 Bishop and Coulston ​Roman Military Equipment p​gs 43­44 state that this shift and change occurred in the second century and the gladius­like style had been completely phased out by the third. 61 D​ ixon and Southern. T​he Late Roman Army ​C​ hapter 6 and K​ olias. B​ yzantinische Waffen ​both display this 62 Elton, Hugh. W​ arfare in Rom​ an Europe, AD 350­425.​ Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. pg 111 63 Bishop and Coulston ​Roman Military Equipment ​pg 65 figure 53 shows helmets of similar style, but each is uniquely designed and all are found in different regions of the empire. McDevitt 40

The one claim which can be asserted with relative certainty is the claim that a majority of infantry would have worn heavy armor. It is generally accepted by scholars such as Milner, Coulston, Dixon, and Southern that in the face of the increasing amounts of bow­proficient enemies, such as the Goths, the Huns, and the Sassanids, that heavy armor was essential for protection and would only have been unnecessary for troops whose purpose was to function as a ‘lighter’ troop, such as light cavalry.64 Coulston claims that in V​ egetius 1.20 (which is the primary source for the claim that heavy­armor was discarded by troops),

Vegetius was simply following a common writing motif dating back to the time of the Julio­Claudians regarding ‘work­shy soldiers.’65

Shields, in contrast to armor, can be generalized for the purpose of analysis and contrast. The majority of shields of the time period had become large and ovular, foregoing the rectangular shields of Caesar’s legions. Indeed, the rectangular shield had been, by this point, almost entirely phased out and the ovular shield was as close to universal as contemporary issues allowed.66

64 Milner, Nicholas Peter. Vegetius and the Anonymus De Rebus Bellicis. Oxford: n.p., 1991., Coulston, J.C.N. "Arms and Armour of the Late Roman Army." A Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 2002: 3­24. pg 8’, and D​ ixon and Southern. T​he Late Roman Army ​pg 98 all argue against the claims such as those asserted by L​iebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. Barbarians and Bishops: Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom.​ Oxford: Clarendon, 1990 pg 25 ​regarding the desertion of traditional drill and armor. 65 Coulston "Arms and Armour of the Late Roman Army.” pg 8 66 D​ ixon and Southern. T​he Late Roman Army ​pgs 99­103 McDevitt 41

In summation, the weaponry employed by the Roman army was quite universal for infantry. Most, if not all infantry were armed with a spear, a sword, and a javelin or two, with throwing darts as an alternative. It is likely specialist units were armed with bows, siege engines, or other auxiliary weapons, but the majority of infantry were armed universally. Armor however is another factor entirely. Armor usually followed a standard of scale or mail corselets, but there were often instances in which armor was altered or just different enough that it was categorically different to other armor commonly used. The one claim that can be made however is that armor was almost universally heavy among infantry units unless such armor interfered with that unit’s combat proficiency. Shields, like weapons, were almost universal in their structure and usage.

2. Arms and Armor in R​ome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion

Barbarian invasion features 60+ unique units, all with different identities, classifications, and descriptions. For the purposes of comparison only three units from the game will be reviewed, but these three units are significant as they form the majority of the Roman armies in both the East and West. Theses three units are titled ‘L​imitanei,’​ ‘C​ omitatenses,​’ and the ‘P​ lumbatarii,​’ and they are the main infantry in the Roman armies in the early game, mid­game, and late­game respectively. Pictures of each unit are available for viewing in the appendix McDevitt 42

(Figures 8, 9, and 10 respectively). Each will be analyzed in relation to its arms and armor, then compared and contrasted in the next section of the chapter.

2.1 The Limitanei

The in­game unit titled ‘L​imitanei’​ is a unit easily recruitable to the army early in the game. The unit serves as a ‘cannon­fodder’ of sorts, it is armed and armored heavily enough to hold its own in warfare, but against most enemies it would quickly fall. The L​imitanei is armed with a spear, a javelin, and a shield.

The spear in question is about as long as, if not a little longer than the figure wielding it. The javelin is not shown in the photo of the unit in the appendix

(Figure 8), but the unit is armed with two to three javelins which are thrown at the enemy when they are less than twenty meters away (Figure 15). The shield itself is large and ovular, covering about one half of the soldier. The L​imitanei is armored in what looks like a leather, or even simply heavy cloth, corselet. The figure is wearing a metallic helmet, and long pants (Figures 8, 14, 15, and 16).

2.2 The Comitatenses

The ‘C​ omitatenses’​ unit is a core mid­game unit, a heavy infantry unit which forms the main troop type of any imperial army in both the East and the

West. The unit is armed with a sword, slightly less than a meter in length, several javelins in the same hand as the shield, and a larger ovular shield. The unit is McDevitt 43

armored with a scaled metal corselet. The unit, unlike the L​imitanei,​ has the pteruges,​ or the decorative skirt. Similar to the L​imitanei however, the

Comitatenses are armored with a helmet, armed with two or three javelins and use said javelins when the enemy comes within twenty meters of their front line.

The C​ omitatenses are not armed with a spear, but solely a sword (Figures 9, 17, and 19).

2.3 The Plumbatarii

The final unit which will be analyzed is the unit titled ‘P​ lumbatarii.’​ The

Plumbatarii fill the same role as the C​ omitatenses in the late­game (i.e. the

‘work­horse’ unit of the army). They are heavily armed and armored troops, equipped with the same sword, the same scale mail corselet as the

Comitatenses,​ as well as the same helmet and p​teruges.​ Their shield is identical to those used by the C​ omitatenses in its ovular shape, size, and its decorative design. Unlike the C​ omitatenses and L​imitanei t​he P​ lumbatarii,​ much like their name implies, are armed with seven or eight weighted throwing darts, about the same size as the historical p​lumbata.​ These can be thrown three times farther than the javelins used by the C​ omitatenses and L​imitanei at a range of 60 meters. Similar to the C​ omitatenses these P​ lumbatarii units fight with their swords in hand­to­hand combat and do not carry spears (Figures 10, 19, and

20).

McDevitt 44

In short, the troop types in B​ arbarian Invasion are not universally armed and armored. The C​ omitatenses and Plumbatarii are not equipped with spears at all. The L​imitanei do not have swords of any kind, and the P​ lumbatarii are the only unit of the three armed with p​lumbata.​ The units all do have identical helmets and ovular shields, but the L​imitanei d​o not have metallic armor whereas the C​ omitatenses a​nd P​ lumbatarii have identical armor. None of the troop types have greaves nor do any feature cuirasses. While this selection of three units does not perfectly represent the different types of units available in Barbarian

Invasion,​ the three units form the bulwark of the early, mid, and late game armies of both Eastern and Western empires and thus represent a group by which comparison with the historical army can be performed.

3. Analysis

As with most other aspects of the game, the creators of R​ ome: Total War:

Barbarian Invasion simultaneously displayed their knowledge of the historical realities of the Roman army as well as portrayed such realities in such a way that the video game would still be an aesthetically and tactically enjoyable game.

The approximate measurements of the weaponry portrayed in the game are surprisingly close to those weapons historically used. The thrusting spear is a little more than the figure’s height in the game, fitting in with the 2­2.5 meter McDevitt 45

measurements. The thrown javelin is slightly smaller (and is seen on the

Comitatenses unit photo as being held behind the shield) than the thrusting spear but still roughly within the 1­1.5 meter length of the historically thrown javelin. The shorter range of the javelin and its use right before a charge is portrayed as closely in the game to the historical reality of the weapon as is possible. The sword used by the C​ omitatenses a​nd Plumbatarii is almost identical in length to the prevalent s​patha and is designed in similar fashion (i.e. double­edged, straight, thrusting or cutting sword). The p​lumbata is used at a range which correlates to its historical usage and its size and effectiveness are just as similar to the history.

With regards to the arming of different unit types, the historical army would have been almost universally armed with spears, swords, javelins, and occasionally p​lumbata,​ again disregarding specialist troops for purposes of analysis. Regarding roles in combat, the majority of infantry then would have played a similar role in combat, that of heavy infantry in close­quarters combat.

This universality of roles for infantry is represented in B​ arbarian Invasion.​ Each of the troop types analyzed, L​imitanei, Comitatenses, a​nd Plumbatarii,​ all serve, in the game, as heavy, front­line infantry. They are, in the same order, each improvements upon the one which preceded them, that is to say that the

Limitanei are phased out and replaced when a player has the money and means to recruit C​ omitatenses,​ as the heavier C​ omitatenses are stronger and perform McDevitt 46

better on the battlefield than the L​imitanei. The C​ omitatenses in turn are phased out where possible when the player can recruit P​ lumbatarii,​ due to the latter unit’s increased missile range and damage which is accompanied by an identical strength in close­quarters combat to the C​ omitatenses.​ Thus, each unit is, just as the majority of historical infantry were, designed and arranged to fill the role of heavy, front­line infantry who fought in close­quarters settings. The game takes it a step further however and introduces an element of escalation in terms of the quality of the soldiers, motivating the player to increase his infrastructure and strengthen his economy in order to afford the ‘better’ C​ omitatenses and then the

‘best’ P​ lumbatarii.​

With respects to weaponry, the game’s exclusion of spears from the

Comitatenses a​nd P​ lumbatarii units is doubtlessly a tactical choice more than a historical one. Here the game developers exclude the spear from the heavy infantry’s armament for tactical reasons. It’s important to know that B​ arbarian

Invasion features a hierarchy of weaponry. Spear­armed units for example excel at fighting cavalry units. A lightly armored unit of cavalry charging into a wall of spearmen will never end well in the game just as it never ended well historically.

Sword­armed heavy infantry form a counter to spearmen and excel against them.

Heavy infantry suffer against archers, who in turn are defeated by cavalry who are in turn defeated by spearmen and the cycle continues in a sort of

‘rock­paper­scissors’ analog. Arming heavy melee infantry like the C​ omitatenses McDevitt 47

and P​ lumbatarii with both swords and spears would tip the tactical balance of the game and make the troops significantly stronger than is appropriate to maintain the games tactical balance. The player then needs to recruit different types of units to respond to different situations. This is one aspect of the history that the game diverges from almost completely, that being the arming of infantry with multiple types of melee weaponry. Though the divergence is undoubtedly a result of tactical concerns and the focus of the game on strategy as well as history, it is a noticeable split from the history.

Regarding armor, B​ arbarian Invasion equips every unit type with a universal armor throughout the unit, but the armor does change from unit type to unit type. The L​imitanei are given leather and cloth armor, likely to represent them as lower­quality troops to the heavier C​ omitatenses.​ The C​ omitatenses and

Plumbatarii however are universally clad it what appears to be a scale iron corselet, an approximation of the l​orica squamata.​ This universality of armor clashes with historical evidence which at the very least suggests that armor was not always identical. This decision to universalize the armor and simplify it by standardizing one or two types was likely a decision made to keep things simpler for the player. On the battlefield in B​ arbarian Invasion,​ thousands of tiny little figures engage in combat during which lines break, shift, merge, and blur. Having a universally clad unit makes the unit easier to distinguish among the fighting, ensuring that the player does not lose track of his or her own troops in the melee. McDevitt 48

In regards to unit armor then, B​ arbarian Invasion simplifies and universalizes armor for both the purposes of creating troop types of different qualities as well as making combat more cohesive and accessible for the player.

Shields employed by the infantry of the Roman army during the late fourth and early fifth centuries, according to the literary, artistic, and archaeological evidence, were almost always designed, and used in similar fashion. Large and ovular, B​ arbarian Invasion perfectly represents this element of the historical reality. By making the shields infantry use universal and standardized B​ arbarian

Invasion conveys the reality that Roman infantry had phased out the use of the rectangular s​cutum in favor of the ovular one and that the ovular shield was used by troops of all origins and classes.

In summation, B​ arbarian Invasion shows that it is very much aware of the realities of the Roman army regarding the arming and armoring of its troops in its method of representing such realities. The weapons used by the Roman infantry in game are shown and used in a manner which correlates almost perfectly with the historical reality. Yes, the game does take liberties when it comes to which troops are armed with which weapons, however, such discrepancies are calculated and careful, intended to preserve the balance of gameplay, rather than simply ignore the history. The game does streamline the armor process and simplifies the issue, however that armor which it does show is not too far off of McDevitt 49

what the armor potentially could have been, and the change seems to be for the purposes of making the game more accessible for the player organizationally, both on and off the in­game battlefield. The game perfectly represents the history in its universality of a standard shield design for heavy infantry and serves the dual purpose of simplification for the player as well.

Conclusion

In short summation, the objective of this dissertation, to examine how realities of the Roman army in the late fourth and early fifth centuries are represented in this game has been accomplished. With regards to unit types and titles the game appropriately conveys the idea of giving units titles based on their role in combat, but inappropriate represents the historical names themselves in it incorrect usage of said names. When it comes to the recruitment, training, and upkeep of the army, the game developers did not adhere specifically to the history, but managed to create a scenario whereby the player understood key features of the contemporary army (such as conscription, the complexity of the taxation system, etc), but conveyed said features in a unique manner. The issues of the universality of arms and armor and what said arms and armor actually were are simultaneously appropriately conveyed in some respects, but superseded in other areas in favor of a more tactically balanced game. McDevitt 50

Rome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion is ultimately a surprisingly good interpretation of the historical Roman army, all things considered. While the game sticks precisely to the history at very few, if any, points, it still manages to convey, on numerous occasions, appropriate ideas and themes regarding the army. This game, while only one of many mediums of interaction between the classical world and the modern individual, should remain a topic of focus for classicists, and the idea of understanding modern media and its portrayal of the classical world should remain present in modern academia.

McDevitt 51 Appendix

Figure 1: The setup screen for a new campaign in which a player chooses which ‘faction’ or nation they wish to control. Factions available: Huns, Goths, Sarmatians, Vandals, Franks, Saxons, Sassanids, Alemanni, Eastern Roman Empire, Western Roman Empire.

Figure 2: Settlements in the Aegean. This is called the ‘campaign map.’ The player is controlling the Eastern Roman Empire. McDevitt 52

Figure 3: The city of Constantinople. A nearby army and fleet are portrayed by appropriate figures.

Figure 4: The ‘building browser’ shows which buildings can be built in the city. Each building has a specific purpose. Barracks allow the recruiting of new infantry, stables allow new cavalry, etc. McDevitt 53

Figure 5: Eastern Roman Empire controlled cities.

Figure 6: An Eastern Roman army has invaded Dacia, which is currently controlled by the Gothic faction. McDevitt 54

Figure 7: The Eastern Roman Army has attacked the Gothic army.

Figure 8: The Limitanei unit information sheet. Numerical values are attached to the unit to show its strength relative to other units. McDevitt 55

Figure 9: The Comitatenses unit information sheet.

Figure 10: The Plumbatarii unit information sheet. McDevitt 56

Figure 11: An Eastern Roman army gets into battle formation.

Figure 12: The same as Figure 11. McDevitt 57

Figure 13: A different Eastern Roman army faces an advancing enemy army.

Figure 14: A full unit of Limitanei wait for the enemy’s advance. McDevitt 58

Figure 15: A unit of Limitanei throw javelins.

Figure 16: A different Limitanei unit (this one under the command of the Western Roman Empire) engages foes with spears. McDevitt 59

Figure 17: A unit of Comitatenses prepares for the enemy. Note their use of swords.

Figure 18: The same unit of Comitatenses throw javelins. McDevitt 60

Figure 19: A unit of Plumbatarii wait for the enemy. Note their use of swords.

Figure 20: The same unit of Plumbatarii throw their plumbata. McDevitt 61

Figure 21: A unit of Scholae Palatina under the command of the Western Roman Empire.

Figure 22: A unit of Foederati Infantry. McDevitt 62

Figure 23: A unit of Foederati Cavalry.

Figure 24: A Ballistae unit. McDevitt 63

Figure 25: A list of units available to the Western Roman Empire.

1. Peasants 15. Imperial German Bodyguard 2. Catholic Priest 16. Equites Sagittarii 3. Praventores 17. Carriage Ballistae 4. Comitatenses 18. Ballistae 5. Limitanei 19. Scorpion 6. Plumbatarii 20. Repeating Ballistae 7. Foederati Infantry 21. Onager 8. Auxilia Palatina 22. Heavy Onager 9. Comitatenses First Cohort 10. Archers 11. Bucellarii 12. Foederati Cavalry 13. Sarmatian Auxilia 14. Scholae Palatina McDevitt 64

Figure 26: A list of units available to the Eastern Roman Empire.

23. Peasants 35. Equites Cataphractii 24. Orthodox Priest 36. Equites Clibanarii 25. Limitanei 37. Imperial Household Bodyguard 26. Comitatenses 38. Hippo-Toxotai 27. Plumbatarii 39. Carriage Ballistae 28. Comitatenses First Cohort 40. Ballistae 29. Legio Lanciarii 41. Scorpion 30. Archers 42. Repeating Ballistae 31. Eastern Archers 32. Equites Auxilia 33. Dromedarii 34. Scholae Palatinae McDevitt 65

Bibilography

1. Bishop, M. C., and J. C. Coulston. ​Roman Military Equipment.​ N.p.: Shire,

1989.

2. Boak, Arthur E. R. M​ anpower Shortage and the Fall of the Roman Empire

in the West. ​Ann Arbor: U of Michigan, 1955

3. Coello, Terence. U​ nit Sizes in the Late Roman Army.​ Oxford: Tempus

Reparatum, 1996.

4. Coulston, J.C.N. "Arms and Armour of the Late Roman Army." A

Companion to Medieval Arms and Armour. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell,

2002: 3­24.

5. Crump, G. A. "Ammianus and the Late Roman Army." Historia: Zeitschrift

Für Alte Geschichte Bd. 22.H. 1 (1973): 91­103.

6. Crump, Gary A. A​ mmianus Marcellinus as a Military Historian.​ Wiesbaden:

Steiner, 1975.

7. Dixon, Karen R., and Pat Southern. L​ate Roman Army.​ Hoboken: Taylor

and Francis, 2014.

8. Elton, Hugh. F​rontiers of the Roman Empire.​ Bloomington: Indiana UP,

1996.

9. Elton, Hugh. W​ arfare in Rom​ an Europe, AD 350­425.​ Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1996.

McDevitt 67

10.Finley, M. I. "Review of Boak, Arthur E. R. Manpower Shortage and the

Fall of the Roman Empire in the West." J​ournal of Roman Studies ​48.1­2

(1958): 156­64.

11.Jones, Arnold H. M. T​he Later Roman Emp​ire Volumes 1­3.​ Oxford:

Blackwell, 1964.

12.Kolias, Taxiarchis G. B​ yzantinische Waffen: Ein Beitrag Zur

Byzantinischen Waffenkunde Von Den Anfängen Bis Zur Lateinischen

Eroberung. ​Wien: Verlag Der Österreichischen Akademie Der

Wissenschaften, 1988.

13.Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. B​ arbarians and Bishops: Army, Church, and

State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom.​ Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.

14.Marcellinus, Ammianus. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U Pr., 1986.

15.Milner, Nicholas Peter. Vegetius and the Anonymus De Rebus Bellicis.

Oxford: n.p., 1991.

16.Nischer, E. C. "The Army Reforms of Diocletian and Constantine and

Their Modifications up to the Time of the Notitia Dignitatum." J​ournal of

Roman Studies 1​3 (1923): 1­55. JSTOR. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.

17.Pharr, Clyde. T​he Theodosian Code and Novels, and the Sirmondian

Constitutions. P​ rinceton: Princeton UP, 1952.

18.Renatus, Flavius Vegetius V​ egetius: Epitome of Military Science.​

Liverpool: Liverpool UP, 1996.

19. Ridley, Ronald T. Z​osimus: New History.​ Canberra: Central Printing, 1982 McDevitt 67

20.Sabin, Philip A. G., Hans Van. Wees, and Michael Whitby. T​he Cambridge

History of Greek and Roman Warfare.​ Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007.

21.The Creative Assembly, Rome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion, computer

game: PC, Activision, Santa Monica, California, United States, 2004.

22.Treadgold, Warren T. B​ yzantium and Its Army: 284­1081. ​Stanford, CA:

Stanford U, 1995.