The popular image of the Roman military is one in which it is cast as an ordered, and in many ways ͚ modern,͛ organization. That is to say that it is often presented as a uniform entity: unmatched in regulation and order, and supplied with identical pieces of equipment. This can be seen quite clearly in the 2000 movie Gladiator. In it the main character, Maximus, is a general in the armies of Marcus Aurelius, fighting against the Germans. One of the opening scenes is of the Roman battle lines: row upon row of legionaries who are armed and equipped identically, like little toy soldiers; they wear the same lorica segmentata armour, carry the same curved scutum, and wield exactly the same weapons. This first scene is designed to show the Roman ͚military machine͛ in all its grandeur. It is a great example of the popular understanding of how uniform the equipment of the Roman army was and how it prosecuted battles. The tendency to see Roman military equipment and the Roman army in general as extremely uniform, however, is not limited to Hollywood. Scholars and students of Roman history are just as likely to portray Roman military equipment in the same uniform, homogeneous manner. This tendency is, in fact, the traditional or received view of Roman military equipment. Graham Webster, who will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter, was one of the fathers of Roman equipment studies. In his 1969 book The Roman Imperial army of the first and second centuries A.D., he wrote ͞[t]he equipment issued to legionaries was remarkably uniform throughout the Empire…͟ (Webster, 1969: 122). In order to account for this uniformity Webster went on to say that there must have been large scale production centres at the heart of the Roman Empire. Peter Connolly, who followed after Webster and will also be discussed in more depth in the next chapter, insisted upon the same equipment homogeny. More recent scholars of Roman equipment, such as Simon James, M.C. Bishop and Jon Coulston, have disagreed with the centralized production models set forth by Webster et al, and have put forth their own models of localized production. As of yet they have not fully explored the repercussions on equipment uniformity that their local production models suggest. The continued use of strict typology by these recent authors points to the fact that they still have not decided to challenge the traditional ideas about equipment uniformity.

Proceedings from the 18th RoMEC conference in 2013 in Copenhagen

The paper analyses the findings of Roman weapons and military equipment from Singidunum (modern Belgrade in Serbia), one of the most important legionary camps on the Danube and one of the most important civilian centers in the Roman province Moesia Superior. A rather small but very interesting group of findings provides valuable information on the character, significance and history of Roman garrison in Singidunum, consisted mostly of Legio IIII Flavia members for over four centuries. Parts of defensive and offensive weapons, artillery projectiles, military belts and cavalry equipment dated to the period between 1st and 4th centuries AD have been found within several locations on the territory of modern Belgrade (Legionary camp, canabae, civilian settlement, necropolis).

The paper explores the cultural components of Late Roman military equipment through the examination of specific categories: waist belts, helmets, shields and weaponry. Hellenistic, Roman, Iron Age European, Mesopotamian-Iranian and Asiatic steppe nomad elements all played a part. The conclusion is that the whole history of Roman military equipment involved cultural inclusivity, and specifically that Late Roman equipment development was not some new form of ‘degeneration’ or ‘barbarization’, but a positive acculturation.