Faction Reveals Thread - Eastern Roman Empire

[AnthoniusII]

This is the only mask that i've found that looks similar to the ones the cataphracts are wearing.

That mask does indeed belong to Middle Ages Roman "cataphract" (many of you still call it false as Byzantine).
But that mask is from middle 10th century (Nikephorean Army reforms) and is heavily influenced by those masks of Khazar equipment!!!
10th century "cataphract" equipment evolution.
East Roman empire in Attila era, DID have helmet masks though but they were much more decorated but also much more rare!
The sassanid infuence could be full head chain cover for anly few soldiers and definatly not archers!!!
Roman cataphracts of that era!


Eastern Roman cataphract from 3-4th century (in this point his helmet sugests eastern influence)


Compare the Roman Cataphracts (all in the east part of the empire) with the Armenian one of the same era!

This guy has more Roman than Sassanid influences in his equipment!
But this Armenian in the same era have almost only Sassanid influences in his equipment!
LINK
Roman Infantry:

German allied troops (Allemani) 4th century:


Actually masks used mostly by eastern cataphracts like this Sassanid


This is HOW cataphacts used their lances (mostly made from imported baboo)

For last this is the most famous picture of Roman Cataphracts!



EDIT: IF CA 3d modelers are not capable to create accurate Roman equipment i sugest them to seak HELP from that mod !!!!

Razor with the help of Leif Erikson provided material that this mod's team made an exelent result!

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

Very intresting

[Markas]

East Roman empire in Attila era, DID have helmet masks though but they were much more decorated but also much more rare!

Source for this? Ammianus simply states they 'wore masks' in his description, which is a rather dull compared to his description of their 'shining breatplates casting a dazzling light'. It hardly suggests they were rare for the Clibanarii either.

This is HOW cataphacts used their lances (mostly made from imported baboo)

What evidence do you have to make such a certain claim? holding a lance with two hands does not mean you are using it overarm. For any sort of armour penetration using it horizontally and partially couched is far more effective. I doubt they were are tactically stolid as you seem to think.

[AnthoniusII]

Source for this? Ammianus simply states they 'wore masks' in his description, which is a rather dull compared to his description of their 'shining breatplates casting a dazzling light'. It hardly suggests they were rare for the Clibanarii either.



What evidence do you have to make such a certain claim? holding a lance with two hands does not mean you are using it overarm. For any sort of armour penetration using it horizontally and partially couched is far more effective. I doubt they were are tactically stolid as you seem to think.

My source is the military manuals of Romans them selves!
For masked helmets:


Osprey image removed due to copyright issues - Maximinus Thrax

[Anna_Gein]

^ I believe the last two pictures show at best third century mask. They don't belong to the game time.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

What evidence do you have to make such a certain claim? holding a lance with two hands does not mean you are using it overarm. For any sort of armour penetration using it horizontally and partially couched is far more effective. I doubt they were are tactically stolid as you seem to think.

The Strategikon of Maurice confirms the Romans were using couched lance techniques, and their art also confirms this practice. The Stratigikon suggests they adopted it from the East Germanics or Sarmatians, both of which are often called "Fair Haired Peoples"

By the way, for better depictions of Late Romans than the old Osprey books, which aren't very good (although the newer ones, like 2010 onwards, aren't bad) check out Pavel Simak:



That's one he did for a book cover on the Battle of Adrianople. He's really a great artist. Really accurate depictions.



This is a good one ^^

[Cope]

That mask does indeed belong to Middle Ages Roman "cataphract" (many of you still call it false as Byzantine).

It's not a false name lol, its simply a way of distinguishing the geopolitical entity from that which existed in antiquity and that which existed in the late medieval period. Calling them the "Romans" is simply too vague for most contexts.

On another note, has anyone else noticed that the Chi Rho is mysteriously missing from all of the media we have seen regarding the ERE and WRE? I read on the other forums that symbol they've gone for (double headed eagle) is actually a byzantine symbol from the 10th century. lol.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

It's not a false name lol, its simply a way of distinguishing the geopolitical entity from that which existed in antiquity and that which existed in the late medieval period. Calling them the "Romans" is simply too vague for most contexts.

On another note, has anyone else noticed that the Chi Rho is mysteriously missing from all of the media we have seen regarding the ERE and WRE? I read on the other forums that symbol they've gone for (double headed eagle) is actually a byzantine symbol from the 10th century. lol.

I think it did look different from before? not sure?

[Cope]

I think it did look different from before? not sure?

Historically speaking, I think that the Labarum (Roman vexillum which displayed the Chi Rho and was first adopted by Constantine) would be more accurate for Attila's time frame. My reaction to its omission was that CA don't want Attila to bear similarities to Barbarian Invasion so they went for another emblem. Others have since pointed out that since you can change religions in Attila, it wouldn't have made much sense for the ERE to have the Chi Rho as an emblem if they choose to select another religion for their Empire. Whilst this is a fair point, I don't see why it would be so hard for CA to include a flag changing system in the case that the religion of the Empire changes away from Christianity. I seem to remember in Empire you could change your factions flag when changing government types, though these flags were attached to emergent factions.

In any event I'm not really bothered about it since modders will fix it within a few months of the game's release anyway.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

Historically speaking, I think that the Labarum (Roman vexillum which displayed the Chi Rho and was first adopted by Constantine) would be more accurate for Attila's time frame. My reaction to its omission was that CA don't want Attila to bear similarities to Barbarian Invasion so they went for another emblem. Others have since pointed out that since you can change religions in Attila, it wouldn't have made much sense for the ERE to have the Chi Rho as an emblem if they choose to select another religion for their Empire. Whilst this is a fair point, I don't see why it would be so hard for CA to include a flag changing system in the case that the religion of the Empire changes away from Christianity. I seem to remember in Empire you could change your factions flag when changing government types, though these flags were attached to emergent factions.

In any event I'm not really bothered about it since modders will fix it within a few months of the game's release anyway.

Yeah changing flags is really easy and I like the dual headed eagle...

But what would they use else as emblem?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

It's not a false name lol, its simply a way of distinguishing the geopolitical entity from that which existed in antiquity and that which existed in the late medieval period. Calling them the "Romans" is simply too vague for most contexts.

On another note, has anyone else noticed that the Chi Rho is mysteriously missing from all of the media we have seen regarding the ERE and WRE? I read on the other forums that symbol they've gone for (double headed eagle) is actually a byzantine symbol from the 10th century. lol.

Actually it doesn't appear until the 11th century. And yes, the Labarum would be far more accurate, it is often seen on imperial regalia.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

Okey Now that I know what the Labarum is (I think, no wait google made me even more confused), would it not make sense to use a non religious icon instead, since religion is chosen by the player?

Chi ro== Px
the Labarum == ????? a icon of a holy person?

[Cope]

Chi Rho = px (aka Chr)
Labarum = military standard used by the Romans (called a vexillum) which had the chi rho on it.

[Linke]

The reason there is no Chi ro symbol is because you can change your religion but not your faction symbol. It would be weird to have a Zoroastrian Empire with a Christian symbol for example.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

Wait wasn't the double headed eagle a family sign? And will west roman not get the same treatment, they just had the normal standing eagle. right?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The Double Headed Eagle was a the emblem of the Palaiologoi, yes, and again it wasn't around at this time. Russia, Austria, etc. copied it from the Medieval Romans.

As for the Labarum, unfortunately for CA by this point Christianity was the only religion that was legal in the Roman Empire, because Theodosius Magnus had basically banned all others in 392. The Empire at this point had many symbols, including the Imago (Image of the Emperor), the Labarum (The Chi-Rho, Tau-Rho, or Iota-Rho), and still a few Aquilae (Eagles).

[Beregond]

For masked helmets:

There is hardly any evidence for these helmets being actually used in battle. More likely, they were actually worn during sport exercises - Hippica gimnasia

[Patricius]

Yes, jewelled and gilded helmets, and those masks, were not meant for the battlefield. The place for them was the parade ground and for drill. I suspect any reconstruction that shows them in battle.

[Son of Horus]

With all of these images from Osprey or other history books showing images of ancient soldiers etc, how accurate are they? After all, they're pretty ahistorical themselves, and using them as "proof" is pretty ridiculous, as not only are those likely taking artistic license from the source, if any visual source actually exists, but that visual source is usually taken from a second, or even third hand material (a crafter making a piece of pottery or masonry from the reports of wealthy person/historian, commissioned to praise some victory, with information gathered on the reports of those who fought there - and said crafter maybe applying not only his own artistic license, but the desire to portray the patron/customer in a flattering light).

[AnthoniusII]

It's not a false name lol, its simply a way of distinguishing the geopolitical entity from that which existed in antiquity and that which existed in the late medieval period. Calling them the "Romans" is simply too vague for most contexts.

On another note, has anyone else noticed that the Chi Rho is mysteriously missing from all of the media we have seen regarding the ERE and WRE? I read on the other forums that symbol they've gone for (double headed eagle) is actually a byzantine symbol from the 10th century. lol.

You are quite wrong! the geopolitical identity of that state was Rome!! Never was byzantium or other stupid false names given from 16th century fake historians to please the Germans of that time! In fact from 5th to 15th century they were THE ONLY Romans on entire universe! Romans (as poilitical identity ) extinged after 1460 by the fall of Mystras!

I think it did look different from before? not sure?

Even that drawing is entirely wrong! A mistake inside a mistake! Aquilla (with or without two heads) had the globe with the cross on it on one side and the sword or the imperial sceptre on the other! It shown the Dominance of God on the Earth and Emperor's task as representative of God and Guardian of the Faith! According to Nicea Counsil!

Historically speaking, I think that the Labarum (Roman vexillum which displayed the Chi Rho and was first adopted by Constantine) would be more accurate for Attila's time frame. My reaction to its omission was that CA don't want Attila to bear similarities to Barbarian Invasion so they went for another emblem. Others have since pointed out that since you can change religions in Attila, it wouldn't have made much sense for the ERE to have the Chi Rho as an emblem if they choose to select another religion for their Empire. Whilst this is a fair point, I don't see why it would be so hard for CA to include a flag changing system in the case that the religion of the Empire changes away from Christianity. I seem to remember in Empire you could change your factions flag when changing government types, though these flags were attached to emergent factions.

In any event I'm not really bothered about it since modders will fix it within a few months of the game's release anyway.

True ..modder may fix that but what it remains is CA's insist in such foolish mistakes! One CA member in TW site wrote that I have a bias against CA and that is why i "find" and "spot"
such mistakes that according to him they may not even exist!! Don't you find bizzare their insist of either not give the same clasic Aquilla (with different color background) of XP (again with diferent color background like they did in BI) ??? It would be easy and more accurate! But CA developers insist to change history making extra trouble for their own!!

The Double Headed Eagle was a the emblem of the Palaiologoi, yes, and again it wasn't around at this time. Russia, Austria, etc. copied it from the Medieval Romans.

As for the Labarum, unfortunately for CA by this point Christianity was the only religion that was legal in the Roman Empire, because Theodosius Magnus had basically banned all others in 392. The Empire at this point had many symbols, including the Imago (Image of the Emperor), the Labarum (The Chi-Rho, Tau-Rho, or Iota-Rho), and still a few Aquilae (Eagles).

Actually the two headed Aquilla 1st apears in the myth of Basil I's birth on the farm field his mother worked! The propaganda myth "said" that when Basil I was born an Eagle was flying above the child and his mother but the eagle's shadow apeared with two heads! It is true though that such Aquilla was the new emblem of Palaeologoi as Emperors to point their will to libarate Roman lands both in the east and west!
The labarum with XP is a quite bizzare issue! Constantine (like a 2nd St.Paul) had a vision for that sign of victory! We know for sure that Constantine was in secret negosiations with Archbishops from entire the empire and those bishops gathered in order to deside if Christians should lay arms against other human beings or not! The counsil desided that a christian could fight for his faith!
Many historian assume that Constantine offered his support to christianity as reward of that desision because early christians denied to kill other persons! The hint behind that was the fact that christians were too many inside the empire and Constantine could raise much more troops than his rivals! The paradox in this point is this:
Constantine's troops were germans by majority and later christians from the west part of the empire!
XP though is a hellenic phrace that means Christ has me under his protection or Christ helps me (Christos Rosimmi)!
Many believe that a single cross could be more understandable as sign to his troops than a greek phrase!
That only after the Counsil of Niikaea that sighn added as the Empire's new symbol that ment the from that point Empire does not belong to the Emperor but belongs to God and God is its protector!! No one can be 100% sure about the truth though!
Aquilla continued to exist to show the presence of the Emperor in the army when the Emperor was realy leading the army!