The equipment and arms of the Roman army have been the subjects of numerous books, most recently those of Webster (1969) and Robinson (1975). The core of the army until the 4th century AD was the “heavy”, that is fully-armoured, legionary infantry. Initially modelled on the Greek hoplite, their body armour consisted of a “muscle” cuirass made of a single piece of bronze. By the end of the Punic Wars, the Roman infantry had adopted the javelin instead of the pike, the large shield, and body armour of mail, probably of Celtic origin. At the same time both scale and lamellar were used, and all three forms of articulated defence are depicted on monuments. It has been suggested (Brewer, 1976) that the Roman swords must have been made of hardened steel. But their superiority would seem to reside as much in the shape of the swords and their use as in their greater hardness. During the 1st century AD body armour (lorica segmentata) of articulated plates supplemented the earlier forms, possible because it offered greater protection, but the weapons and tactics of the Imperial legions remained essentially the same as their Republican predecessors. Indeed, except for a greater use made of Gallic or German cavalry and field catapults (Eadie, 1967; Marsden, 1969) the techniques of the Roman army varied very little until its decline in the Late Empire. Notwithstanding the long period of its ascendancy, the Roman army seems to have left surprisingly few of its swords or iron armour in anycondition topermitscientificstudy, and to the best of my knowledge, no such study has been published. However, in the course of my research into armour, I was afforded the opportunities, through the cooperation of Drs Horn (Bonn) and Himmelein (Stuttgart), of examining a Roman gladius and a fragment of a Roman lorica segmentata. The results are described below. Both the sword and the lorica fragment are made of medium-carbon steels (0.5 0.7% C) but neither have been hardened by any attempt at heat-treatment. This is somewhat surprising in view of the known ability of the Romans to employ hardened steels on other occasions, e.g. a file from the 1st century BC was a quenched mediumcarbon steel (Schaaber, 1963) with a hardness of about 800 VPN. One must conclude that the Romans preferred to use an air-cooled steel of moderate, but predictable, hardness, instead of a quenched steel of higher, but perhaps variable, hardness with increased brittleness. The use of a steel for armour, unhardened, when it would apparently have lent itself so well to hardening, may be explained either by the inability to quench and temper a steel consistently, or perhaps by a preference (whether justified or not is immaterial) for soft armour. In the same way, some 7th century BC Greek bronze armour described by Smith (1972) was annealed rather than work-hardened.
Read full abstract