Please add specific helmets for generals and officers.

[KLAssurbanipal]

In Rome 2 generals and officers look like standard soldiers. They wear the same helmets, armors, clothes as normal units. Only a few Roman helmets and horned Briton helmets distinguished generals of standard soldiers. Other factions, that is - Hellenistics, Gauls, Germans, Iberians, Carthaginians, eastern, steppe haveare generals who look like normal units. They wear helmets and armor the same as hoplites, cataphracts, oathsworn etc.

I noticed that Attila has the same mistake. Roman generals look like standard infantry / cavalry. They wear helmets, which were the standard Roman equipment used by infantry, and Germanic units.

There are examples:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Blue helmets - use by Roman infantry and generals
Green helmets - use by Germanic units and Roman generals




Roman emperor and Alan, Ostrogoth soldiers have the same helmets (green one from portraits):





The blue ones (3 styles of one type) used by standard infantry:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXrX...B-c1NDYPHiznWQ

However, in reality the Roman generals and officers had other, richer helmets than standard soldiers.
There are examples of 2 types helmets which could be good inspiration to making generals helmets.

The 1st one:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The 2nd one:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There are excellent late Roman generals' helmets by tallented modder Razor.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I think I am not only one who want to see specific looking generals. I hope it will be more difference between generals and soldiers than Rome 2.

[Doe3000]

When I saw the thread title I was about to suggest that if you like unique generals you should get KLA's Mods for Rome II, then I realised the username. Ha Ha!

...But yes, I agree, generals should be a bit like Vercingetorix and Julius Caesar in CiG, or Octavian and Mark Antony in IA, they ought to all look unique - or at the very least look a bit more like generals and leaders rather than your average footsoldier.

[KLAssurbanipal]

Thank you. If they won't fix it, it will once again be the demand for 'Generals Mods'.

However, I hope that this time we will see the specific generals and we won't need to improve.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

Hmmmm those with jewels, aren't they more for the Higher nobility?
And "normal" officers could get better looking crest, and gilded helmets?
But yeah you got a really good point, and they should get some Crest on those helmets.

Well presented and very reasonable.
great work, I really hope CA. sees this.

[RedGuard]

agree on this. the officers in BI had special helmets didn't they? so why not its spiritual successor nine years later?

[Le_Swede]

The ideal would be that the "standard" general would be distinguished by wearing special fancy versions if not outright unique armours and helmets than the usual soldiers/captains while your Faction Leader and Heir would be even more extravagantly equiped. Would be lovely if your Roman Emperor took the field wearing one of those jewel encrusted helmets that KLA linked.

[RedGuard]

The ideal would be that the "standard" general would be distinguished by wearing special fancy versions if not outright unique armours and helmets than the usual soldiers/captains while your Faction Leader and Heir would be even more extravagantly equiped. Would be lovely if your Roman Emperor took the field wearing one of those jewel encrusted helmets that KLA linked.

did the roman emperors even take to the field by this time? just wondering not a criticism.

[Le_Swede]

did the roman emperors even take to the field by this time? just wondering not a criticism.

The norm was that they didn't so that they couldn't be blamed for a failed campaign or lost battle (That didn't stop them from taking credit for the successes tho! ) But seeing as this is a sandbox-game we could want to go back to the older way in which the emperor was at the frontlines. I for one am more than likely to take that route with some of my emperors.

[Imperator of Rome]

did the roman emperors even take to the field by this time? just wondering not a criticism.

In the 4th Century, frequently. In the 5th, rarely.
"During the withdrawal, Julian's forces suffered several attacks from Sassanid forces.[76] In one such engagement on 26 June 363, the indecisive Battle of Samarra near Maranga, Julian was wounded when the Sassanid army raided his column. In the haste of pursuing the retreating enemy, Julian chose speed rather than caution, taking only his sword and leaving his coat of mail.[77] He received a wound from a spear that reportedly pierced the lower lobe of his liver, the peritoneum and intestines. "

" Finally, Valentinian fought the Alamanni in the Battle of Solicinium; the Romans were victorious[30] but suffered heavy casualties.[31] A temporary peace was reached and Valentinian returned to Trier for the winter"

[wis]

did the roman emperors even take to the field by this time? just wondering not a criticism.

Eastern Roman Emperor Valens died at the battle of Adrianople against the Goths during the Gothic War in 378

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople

I think it really depends on the background of the Emperor.

A lot of the Roman Pannonian/Moesian/Illyrian born Emperors did take to the field with the armies. They were also called the barracks Emperors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_emperors


Also Julian the Apostate was a soldiers soldier and had battlefield experience fighting Germanic tribes when he was the Caesar in the west.

[Lionheart11]

Dont mess with CA's clone system, there is no money to be made if you have to invest in a game!.

[JackDionne]

It is an excellent thread you started if only CA would actually do something that we ask for and want.

[Imperator of Rome]

The Late 3rd and most of the 4th Century are basically filled by a succession of warrior emperors.

[GussieFinkNottle]

Hate to rain on the parade but there is one major flaw in giving officers such garb (particularly the jewel-encrusted first one). Such richly decorated objects were, by and large, ceremonial. Gold is extremely heavy and jewels by their value would just single you out as a target, you wouldn't want to risk such a valuable object as this on the field of battle. Slightly fancier decoration (or better, obviously superior craftsmanship) on helmets and armour for officers and particularly generals would indeed be nice but going as far as in your examples wouldn't be realistic, since in history that was impractical.

In fact, CA makes this mistake too: in Rome 2 they included highly decorative cavalry helmets in the legatus bodyguard based on archaological examples that in reality were almost certainly for ceremonial purposes only. In Attila screens, we've already seen an example without needing to play the game. The Sutton Hoo helmet (second pic a replica of the original helmet for comparison) is included for Saxons:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is amusing firstly that such a unique, rare and expensive item is used right across a unit rather than just for the commander, but it is also universally acknowledged to be a ceremonial helmet since you don't lavish that kind of money and ornamentation on something that might get hit front-on by an axe. On its Wikipedia page it is even mentioned as a 'ceremonial helmet' rather than just a helmet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton_Hoo

This battlefield/pomp and ceremony distinction is an occurrence found across archaeology, in all sorts of eras, one obvious example is the more aesthetic but less practical jousting suits of armour of the late middle ages as opposed to battle armour. Put yourself in the warrior's shoes: battlefield stuff that will have to survive severe strain from the elements and weapons is uglier and more practical. You want to keep the expensive stuff looking good so you can show it off and keep it pristine indefinitely. It would just be a waste otherwise.

So, a possible compromise: have generals looking as gaudy as you like on their profiles, but on the battlefield they can tone down the gold and jewellery a bit. Over and out.

[sumskilz]

Hate to rain on the parade but there is one major flaw in giving officers such garb (particularly the jewel-encrusted first one). Such richly decorated objects were, by and large, ceremonial. Gold is extremely heavy and jewels by their value would just single you out as a target, you wouldn't want to risk such a valuable object as this on the field of battle.

Do we actually know that? This is often repeated, and I understand the rational you've given, but I'm skeptical. Is there any explicit textual evidence that separate equipment existed only for ceremonial purposes, because I can't see how that can be ascertained from archaeology alone. The seemingly pragmatic arguments are potentially countered by conspicuous consumption (I'm so wealthy and prestigious I can afford to risk precious objects) and expensive signalling (I'm so fit and brave, I have no reason to fear the enemy, they should fear me and you should be inspired by me).

[GussieFinkNottle]

Do we actually know that? This is often repeated, and I understand the rational you've given, but I'm skeptical. Is there any explicit textual evidence that separate equipment existed only for ceremonial purposes, because I can't see how that can be ascertained from archaeology alone. The seemingly pragmatic arguments are potentially countered by conspicuous consumption (I'm so wealthy and prestigious I can afford to risk precious objects) and expensive signalling (I'm so fit and brave, I have no reason to fear the enemy, they should fear me and you should be inspired by me).

Ok, there is actually plenty of evidence, but I get where you're coming from. A leader's armour would certainly be more outlandish than that of the regular solfier e.g. the black prince wearing armour into battle that had been heat-treated to make the steel dark green and yes there is potential for decoration, but there is a firm distinction between the battlefield and ceremonial that is backed up by textual evidence (which I can't be arsed to track down now but may look into tomorrow if you're interested and I have the time). Several key requirements of practicality must be met for battlefield items and there are many factors for the expensive stuff too. (*see minor medieval digression at the bottom)

With regard to archaeology being a legitimate source for considering something ceremonial, mull this over: finds such as Sutton Hoo and other Saxon or European discoveries from prehistory to the dark ages to the early middle ages show a marked pattern. These fine, decorative items are always found in graves (accompanying a body), in hoards as a precious item to be hidden from danger (a particularly Roman practice), or in places like swamps as a votive offering to a deity. They are not found on dead bodies at battle sites, or ever showing battle damage, only damage from the passage of time. We can find many examples of less decorative items that have been heavily damaged e.g. this Greek one:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

and I even remember some I have seen that were patched up to be reused in battle. Indeed battle damage is so common (though not on the decorative stuff) that archaeologists can usually identify the weapons made to inflict damage, either to armour or skeletons (see the extensive analysis of Richard III's wounds, if interested). This you never see with garb dubbed 'ceremonial'. Often religious connotations, makers marks or obvious purpose in an object (e.g. to honour a cult god in religious ceremonies) mark it out as not for the battlefield. Most frequently ceremonial stuff survives because more care was taken of it, in manufacture, maintenance, storage and disposal (frequently they are deliberately buried). Common sense comes into it too, can you imagine riding in to battle wearing this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

or this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Some other eras have better documented and even more widespread practices with regard to armour purposes. In the late middle ages, armour for jousting was clearly adapted for a different purpose, with a tiny shield inappropriate for combat, unusual leg armour, and a 'cradle' on the right breast to hold a lance that would be an impediment in battle and deny the usual armpit protection of battlefield armour. It is also often decoratively engraved and fluted, where battle suits of armour are designed to slide weapons off the surface or deny arrows purchase to dig in. Non-battle armour was expensive and genuinely seen in a different light, no matter how rich you were (kings included) you didn't want to have your most prized possessions wrecked by rust or a warhammer.

Sorry for moderately incoherent reply, I'm tired and didn't think through the post structuring. Maybe I'll add more points later with edit.

[sumskilz]

Ok, there is actually plenty of evidence, but I get where you're coming from. A leader's armour would certainly be more outlandish than that of the regular solfier e.g. the black prince wearing armour into battle that had been heat-treated to make the steel dark green and yes there is potential for decoration, but there is a firm distinction between the battlefield and ceremonial that is backed up by textual evidence (which I can't be arsed to track down now but may look into tomorrow if you're interested and I have the time).

Sure, if you can, that'd be cool.

With regard to archaeology being a legitimate source for considering something ceremonial, mull this over: finds such as Sutton Hoo and other Saxon or European discoveries from prehistory to the dark ages to the early middle ages show a marked pattern. These fine, decorative items are always found in graves (accompanying a body), in hoards as a precious item to be hidden from danger (a particularly Roman practice), or in places like swamps as a votive offering to a deity. They are not found on dead bodies at battle sites, or ever showing battle damage, only damage from the passage of time. We can find many examples of less decorative items that have been heavily damaged e.g. this Greek one:

and I even remember some I have seen that were patched up to be reused in battle. Indeed battle damage is so common (though not on the decorative stuff) that archaeologists can usually identify the weapons made to inflict damage, either to armour or skeletons (see the extensive analysis of Richard III's wounds, if interested). This you never see with garb dubbed 'ceremonial'. Often religious connotations, makers marks or obvious purpose in an object (e.g. to honour a cult god in religious ceremonies) mark it out as not for the battlefield. Most frequently ceremonial stuff survives because more care was taken of it, in manufacture, maintenance, storage and disposal (frequently they are deliberately buried).

I should mention that I am also an archaeologist, but I've only excavated in the Levant. The relevance is that it's sort of where my skepticism comes from, because there is a tendency in the field to make statements that are a bit stronger than the evidence calls for, which everyone then seems to use as an interpretative model.

So playing devil's advocate here, the lack of finely decorated equipment with battle damage could be for the following reasons:

1) Small sample size - very few men could afford such gear and we have very few helmets in general.

2) Anyone who could afford such gear could probably afford to have it repaired.

3) If such a helmet was damaged on the battlefield beyond repair, the valuable materials it contained would have certainly been recycled.

4) Damaged equipment might not have been considered suitable as grave-goods and/or offerings

Common sense comes into it too, can you imagine riding in to battle wearing this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

or this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I agree with you there, it seems highly unlikely, but the Sutton Hoo helmet for example seems to be functional but decorated. It seems plausible that a leader could have worn it into battle, but of course that CA image of a unit wearing them seems just as absurd to me as it probably does to you.

Some other eras have better documented and even more widespread practices with regard to armour purposes. In the late middle ages, armour for jousting was clearly adapted for a different purpose, with a tiny shield inappropriate for combat, unusual leg armour, and a 'cradle' on the right breast to hold a lance that would be an impediment in battle and deny the usual armpit protection of battlefield armour. It is also often decoratively engraved and fluted, where battle suits of armour are designed to slide weapons off the surface or deny arrows purchase to dig in. Non-battle armour was expensive and genuinely seen in a different light, no matter how rich you were (kings included) you didn't want to have your most prized possessions wrecked by rust or a warhammer.

I consider evidence from other eras to be weaker, though not irrelevant. In general, I think you make good points. I think Doe3000's point about the silvered mask from Kalkriese is also valid (though as you say, it could have just been in the baggage train).

But consider your point here:

1 Standard bearers were supposed to be kept alive at all costs, thus were unlikely to often fight themselves unless absolutely necessary, so could afford to be a bit sillier in appearance.

Could that also apply to a general? A leader may not want to risk something like a decorative helmet in battle, but if he was unlikely to be in direct combat, the prestige benefit might have out-weighed the risk.

So far, I remain agnostic with regard to functional but decorative helmets at least.

[Wintercross]

I wish they would go back to 2d portraits on the family tree and UI. I'm not a fan of the 3d head model thing.

[Doe3000]

I think it's a tendency among archaeologists to list all gaudy helmets and armour as ceremonial, or if it is Roman, for use in the Hippika Gymnasia. Still, is this necessarily true? Caesar mentions a surprise attack by Belgic tribes in his Gallic War Commentaries and he mentions that his own men didn't have enough time to fit on some of their armour, including such frivolous things as crests and other decorations. So obviously, it seems some warriors used decorations to make them stand out from their comrades in arms. Also the recovery of the silvered mask from Kalkriese shows that such ugly and gaudy decoration was worn on the battlefield, at least by cavalry units and standard bearers, and not just for use in military parades and cavalry sports.

[GussieFinkNottle]

I think it's a tendency among archaeologists to list all gaudy helmets and armour as ceremonial, or if it is Roman, for use in the Hippika Gymnasia. Still, is this necessarily true? Caesar mentions a surprise attack by Belgic tribes in his Gallic War Commentaries and he mentions that his own men didn't have enough time to fit on some of their armour, including such frivolous things as crests and other decorations. So obviously, it seems some warriors used decorations to make them stand out from their comrades in arms. Also the recovery of the silvered mask from Kalkriese shows that such ugly and gaudy decoration was worn on the battlefield, at least by cavalry units and standard bearers, and not just for use in military parades and cavalry sports.

Crests for the Romans weren't frivolous, they were thought through in terms of military strategy: rank was denoted quickly and easily by giving centurions distinctive transverse crests, the same as an optio's cross or a tribune's thin stripe and elaborate crest. In the time of Caesar they were dying out as ordinary soldiers' equipment but were useful in giving Romans a psychological advantage by adding height to their silhouette, remember Italians of the period were comparatively short. By 'other decorations' I assume you mean centurion's medal harnesses, which weren't really an impediment in battle and offered some protection, so can't be seen as impractical to the same extent as expensive or restrictive ceremonial armour pieces. Decorations are fine, but ceremonial equipment is largely too obviously unusable or precious to be brought to the field. The Kalkriese example is an interesting one, but recall 2 important things:
1 Standard bearers were supposed to be kept alive at all costs, thus were unlikely to often fight themselves unless absolutely necessary, so could afford to be a bit sillier in appearance.
2 The baggage train was also lost at Teutoberg (many women's items and non-battle gear was also found), so it may not even have been for use in battle, but travelling with its owner.