Roman Military Equipment Discussion

[Lavrentivs]

Hi guys,

I created this thread to discuss our theories on any Roman military equipment, and also to discuss how it is portrayed in Rome II.


So the first discussion, I suppose, is how accurately Roman arms and armour were portrayed in classical sculpture? There has been a lot of debate in particular over the helmets worn by legionaries.

Here, however, is a historical example which is very similar to what the legionaries are wearing:





Also, as a point of reference, he is the fake Toledo helmet:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Concerning the legionaries on the Adamklissi metopes, an interesting theory is that the helmets portrayed on the 'legionaries' (some noticably conical in shape), are perhaps supposed to represent a more Eastern-style helmet, as worn by Syrians:



Here is a more recent historical interpretation included in Ancient Warfare Magazine's issue on the Dacian Wars:




I have been particularly pleased with Rome II's portrayal of Roman legionaries. In the following screenshot, we have a good view of a nice variation of legionary helmets:



Including the Weisenau-Guttman:



The Coolus type C



and Imperial Italic type B:




Not to mention, a variation of chain mail and segmentata

[PunitorMaximus]

great, so i got a question:
what is/was this ring for? the legionnaires used to carry it with leather stripes around the neck when on the march...
probably this little hat up there has that ring, becasue you cant press it properly against your chest because of the neck protection, so you would have to attach it to your backpack

[Lavrentivs]

A way that our group use to carry our helmet is like so:



We take the lacing from the cheek-guards, so it is just fastened from the neck-gaurd, we tie the laces round our necks like the above picture, but we place it higher at chest height, so that we can place the cheek-guards beneath the shoulder plates of our seg or the 'flaps' of our hamata, thus securing the helmet and making it a lot more comfortable.

As you said, using the ring on the bowl of the helmet would be impractical, so I guess it had a similar function to the knob on the bowl of the montefortino (below), to strengthen the bowl of the helm and also provide an attachment for a crest:



I think we'd have a better idea of how it was carried if we could take a look into the helmet's interior, and see if it has the loops on the inside of the neck-guard.

[alex_shields]

that's a great picture! I've often wondered how accurate reenactors really are. Wouldn't it be funny if the old '60s 'Sword 'n Sandals' epics were more authentic with their leather segmentata and classical helms than modern groups with their polished armor and use of the Gallic/Italic helmets? I would suppose the Roman army was far less uniform in appearance than many of us would ever care to imagine. There was probably a lot of 'ethnic flavor' to be seen at legion posts across the empire, especially further to the East and/or Egypt where it was so hot and the military gear had a decidedly different aesthetic. Suffice to say, most legions from the same area were probably very similarly equipped, as their issued gear was taken from smiths and armories in the same locale. Trajan's column therefore may actually be accurate, as it shows legionaries wearing this type of easily mass-produced helmet - which makes sense as he raised some new units for his Dacian invasion. On the other hand, the Adamaclissi monument shows an eastern-style legionary fighting a Dacian. Trajan's column therefore may actually be accurate, as it shows legionaries wearing this type of easily mass-produced helmet - which makes sense as he raised some new units for his Dacian invasion. On the other hand, the Adamaclissi monument shows an eastern-style legionary fighting a Dacian. I guess one needs to take into account that as a campaign continued the quartermasters would repair some equipment and draw from waning supplies of older, less appealing gear for quick replacements too.

[Lavrentivs]

that's a great picture! I've often wondered how accurate reenactors really are. Wouldn't it be funny if the old '60s 'Sword 'n Sandals' epics were more authentic with their leather segmentata and classical helms than modern groups with their polished armor and use of the Gallic/Italic helmets? I would suppose the Roman army was far less uniform in appearance than many of us would ever care to imagine. There was probably a lot of 'ethnic flavor' to be seen at legion posts across the empire, especially further to the East and/or Egypt where it was so hot and the military gear had a decidedly different aesthetic. Suffice to say, most legions from the same area were probably very similarly equipped, as their issued gear was taken from smiths and armories in the same locale.

Yes it appears we are on the same lines here.

Obviously, I do not want to dismiss reenactors because some put in a lot of effort and meticulous research into their impressions, but lets not forget here that Roman artists would have seen a lot more military equipment than we could ever hope to see, so I think its actually quite arrogant of some modern historians to scoff and dismiss it all as fantasy armour. Of course, the images have been highly stylised, but lets not forget here that the artists would have had an accurate base from which to build their work upon.

I'm going to quote the introduction of D'Amato's book "Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier", because he made a very good point. I give this man a lot of praise, and I'm a great admirer of what he's done, but this is not without basis. D'Amato attempts to look outside the box, outside of this stereotypical modernised image we now have of the Roman soldier, in his Ermine Street Guard-esque pink-red tunic and shiny segmentata. I will praise D'Amato 'til I am blue in the face, gentlemen:

"This work will also emphasise the fact that Roman equipment was never standardised, although there were attempts at uniformity in fittings, weapons making, metallurgy techniques and manufacture, even of items such as boots and clothing. All the same this was a pre-industrial age and in military life just as the civil one, the tastes of each individual and the necessity to supply equipment according to the needs of the moment introduced many personalised military items, as we can clearly see from soldiers' own tombstones.

It will also not be a surprise to discover that many generations of soldiers used the same helmets, armour and other items of equipment until they became unserviceable. So it is perfectly possible that at any one time arms and armour even two or three centuries old were still in use. Therefore in all periods of Roman history we can expect to find a mixture of brand-new equipment alongside quite battered pieces of armour, not only within the same theatre of operations but often within the same unit! this can help to explain why the soldiers represented in the monuments are sometimes differently dressed and equipped, even when a certain degree of uniformity seems to be stronger, as in the imperial propaganda monuments such as the columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius.

....(the following is something a hell of a lot of people will probably debate)

Archaeologists often find high-quality ancient armour arms and weapons that they classify as parade or ceremonial objects, not used for battle. However, the evidence tells us a different story. The concept of parade armour or helmets did not exist in the ancient world, even in Napoleonic times soldiers wore their best armour into battle. Of course, the best pieces were displayed in parades and ceremonies, but at the same time they were displayed in front of their enemies and used on the battlefield, to show the richness and the glorious aspect of the wearer, who was protected by the gods whose likeness were incised or chiselled into the armour and weapons. This custom continued into the Christian era.

For those of you who are interested in seeing a different, fresh, and less stereotypical view of the Roman army, do please look at the work of D'Amato. He has produced some great stuff recently, including two osprey titles on Roman centurions.

Here are some of his best works, in my opinion (great art to go along with it too):

Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier: From Marius to Commodus
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arms-Armour-...d+armour+roman

Roman Centurions: 31 BC - AD 500
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Roman-Centur...oman+centurion


Roman Centurions: 753 - 31 BC
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Roman-Centur...oman+centurion

[Lavrentivs]

I would suppose the Roman army was far less uniform in appearance than many of us would ever care to imagine. There was probably a lot of 'ethnic flavor' to be seen at legion posts across the empire

I firmly believe this statement to be true, since ethnic influences have had great effects on military dress, even in the years of supposed strict uniform regulations. For example, during the mid to late stages of the French and Indian War, we see a lot of British regulars adopting colonial/native dress/tactics, particularly in the light infantry and ranger companies.

I have actually drawn a legionary of the Marcomannic wars based on the figures on the column of Aurelius, and I portrayed him wearing the Hamburg specimen. However, I remember giving him long-sleeves and Germanic-style trousers and leg-wrappings along with his Roman attire. I might try and dig it out from somewhere.


EDIT: I found one of the rough sketches I did, an auxiliary Centurion of the 1st Century. Still need to find the legionary. Apologies, the drawing isn't exactly great, I'm hardly Peter Connolly or Angus McBride , but it gets the idea across.

[PunitorMaximus]

i agree, especially during the dacian wars of traian 15-16 legions plus lots of auxiliary troops from the entire empire were in dacia!
the conic helmet type was in the beginning only used by the eastern legions (as you mentioned). also the armour the legionnaires at the monument wear is eastern (lorica plumata or squamata, i can't tell cuz its just a ing rock )
this is a dacian/sarmathian example of scale armour:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

but the arm protection, the shin guards on BOTH legs (quite uncommon) and the bars reinforcing the conic helmet suggest that the entire armour was modified for dacian warfare!
it's not difficult to notice that the romans designed everything to make the dacian falxes slip off.
for this the conic shape is simply the best design thats why the dacian nobles themselves used preferably conic helmets.

dacian falx (medium version for combination with shield) and weapons and armour as war booty:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

ofcourse the auxilia did not get that much new equipment they still used the "old" stuff mostly.
the depictions that show roman legionnaires with conic helmets, shin guards, lorica plumata and arm protection are almost all from the ____ war monument. this monument was most probably built by miles themselves that were in service during both dacian wars and before. this means that they had couple of years to modify their armour for dacian warfare. the depictions of the early dacian wars, f.e. in 85/86 show roman soldiers with lorica segmentata and weisenau or even montefortino () helmets. funny is, that the lorica segmentata was introduced recently, but had to be removed in dacia, because the falxes (40-50% of dacian warriors used different variations of it) were/are the perfect can openers.
while the moesian legions already had modified armour in traians first dacian war of 101/102, the fresh troops still used their regionally typical equipment. so the dacians still inflicted many casualties and even managed to defend the biggest mountain pass in 101 AD. also they were very successful in guerilla warfare, until more and more tribes defected to the romans.
however, the dacian culture vanished and the romans gained some experience. as always

here are some early and late depictions of roman armour during the dacian wars:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

EDIT: i completely agree with your quotes

[Lavrentivs]

I would like to make a further investigation about the Hamburg helmet, as its authenticity has been a matter of debate for a number of years. As members of the RomanArmyTalk forum have pointed out, it appears the helmet has been welded together from two pieces, which is apparently a valid reason for the piece to be fake. I do wonder if any carbon-dating was carried out on the helm.



(From "Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier", D'Amato, R., p. 114)

Bronze and iron helmet of a legionary, attic type, second century AD (Hamburg Museum). This is for the moment the only known helmet of Attic shape preserved in bronze with a ring on the top like those on the Marcus Aurelius column, to which it is identical in shape. The helmet has been found in an unspecified place in Germany in the twentieth century. With its similarity to the helmets on the Marcus Aurelius age it could be dared to the second half of the second century ad.

Link to image location: http://www.maicar.com/GML/000Iconogr...ets/index.html (there are some pretty neat looking helms)


EDIT: I really can not find anything satisfying on this helmet at all, I have also checked through google.de have not come across any useful links. Re-reading the thread on R.A.T., (kindly pointed out by Pinarius) the members never came to any solid conclusion about the helmet, and deviated onto questioning the authenticity of the Toledo specimen instead: http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roma...art=0&start=15

I am going to get onto RAT using my old account there and will bring up the topic again and see if anyone knows anything. I don't expect to find out much, nor for the members to take the specimen seriously. In my experience a lot of the users are set in their own ways, and have tended to be rather off-hand about specimens/theories that are 'outside the box', as it were.

For me, our modern visualisation of the Roman legionary has gone stale, and I think its about time to start looking at the evidence again, to question, to look at things we have previously been unsure about.

Now, my opinion on the helmet itself: it is certainly possible that this helmet is a fake copy fabricated by a 20th Century Roman enthusiast. But other than the strange line in the center of the bowl (a sign that it may have been welded together from two parts - very uncommon with Roman helmets), the helmet seems genuine in appearance, and it corresponds with sculptural evidence. Whether the helmet is a genuine specimen or a fabrication, is entirely (and equally) up for debate.

[TheTank]

Please check this link to an online preview of a book about Romans of NW Europe.
It contain many high quality pictures of Roman re-en-actors with historical accurate(of course not 100%) clothing and weapons.

http://issuu.com/vantilt/docs/romans_preview?e=0

[Lavrentivs]

Great stuff! Thanks for the link

I actually know a lot of these men in these pictures from my group, the RMRS

My impression as a Batavian auxiliary at Cardiff in 2011:




The seg is disputable, but there is evidence to suggest it was used by the Batavi.

EDIT:

Also, here is a good link from my favourite re-enactment group, Legio I Italica, showing some great equipment variation of the republican period. What I love about this vid is that it is filmed from a helmet cam! an unusual perspective for re-enactments!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFsutpmUV5k

[Biggus Splenus]

So the first discussion, I suppose, is how accurately Roman arms and armour were portrayed in classical sculpture?

Not concerning the Imperial era, like this thread seems to be focused on, but I'm throwing some stuff in

I've also wondered this, because the Etrusco-Corinthian helmet appears in sculpture work far later than archaeology of the actual helmet does. So I've wondered if we just haven't found these helmets as late as the sculptures suggest they were in use for, or if the helmet had some type of cultural link with war and sculpture, or something like that ? Mars is commonly illustrated with this helmet.

I think we'd have a better idea of how it was carried if we could take a look into the helmet's interior, and see if it has the loops on the inside of the neck-guard.

That loop was used for securing the helmet to the head more firmly with the chinstrap, no?

EDIT: I found one of the rough sketches I did, an auxiliary Centurion of the 1st Century. Still need to find the legionary. Apologies, the drawing isn't exactly great, I'm hardly Peter Connolly or Angus McBride , but it gets the idea across.

I love it I would have liked to see some more classy greaves though, seems as that appears to have been one of the Centurions trademarks of the era. It's crazy that you'd call the a rough sketch though it's very good.

I can see you're a fan of Raffaele D'Amato work, as am I

[Lavrentivs]

Thanks for the compliment about my drawing mate

On Etrusco-Corinthian helmets: I think they must have been in use by Roman officers in particular for a very long time, as the style was symbolic of social status because of its association with hoplites. I actually have a database somewhere which has catalogued and dates all the Etrusco-Corinthian finds, I'll have a look round for it.

The loops: yes they were indeed, but you can also take the lacing from the cheek-guards, leave it on the neck-guard and hang your helmet from your neck while you are on the march, as portrayed on Trajan's Column. Peter Connolly did a great drawing of this.

And yes I am a great fan of his work, he re-invigorated my passion for the Roman military. After a few years of always being around clones in red tunics and segmentata, its really encouraging to come across someone who dismisses that idea and provides us with a nice, fresh interpretation. Doubtless, many historians have covered this matter (for example, Graham Sumner, Peter Connolly, Ross Cowan, to name a few), but, for me, D'Amato puts the theory forward so convincingly. Coupled with G. Sumner's and G. Rava's fantastic artwork, you just can't go wrong, its brilliant.

[Biggus Splenus]

I have a thesis on bronze Italian helmets, which also includes all finds of the models, which is perhaps the same thing you have? Its by J.M. Paddock.

I completely share the same view of D'Amato's work, it certainly is something fresh, and I believe more accurate Sumner is just as good.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 4

[Lavrentivs]

I don't know if its the one you know of, but here is the one I found a while back:

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dpd/italica/apcor/apcor.html

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dpd/italica/

I'll have a scour for Paddock's thesis, it sounds interesting

[Biggus Splenus]

That's definitely something different.

If you can't find it online, I'm sure ill be able to send it to you.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 4