Severius Acceptus grave: weapons, armor and period

[CaesarAugustus]

From Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, second edition (Di M. C. Bishop, J. C. Coulston), I was reading about Severius Acceptus, one of the few representational evidence for armour of the 3rd century.
He was Severius Acceptus, legio VIII Augusta, from Instambul. He seems to be an infantry soldier, I have read somewhere that this is coming from the late 3rd century, but I am not sure of this.

Looking at the weapons, he seems to have a gladius. For the protection... well, they are not totally coherent with a soldier protection:
- attic helmet (at least it seems attic)
- round shield (but this may be normal for the late 3-rd century)
- leg armor
- an armor with vertical bands...

Do you know (or can you guess) more about him, his role and about this armor set?

[Nathan Ross]

can you guess... more about him, his role and about this armor set?

The long sleeved tunic is otherwise unknown before about AD220; that and the cloak suggest third century. The broad baldric and large scabbard chape also suggest that date - the sword could be a spatha but depicted shorter for reasons of space.

The shield is right for third century too, and the helmet and body armour (whatever it is) doubtless depict types from that era, although we lack the archaeological evidence to show us what they might be. The greaves look like the example from Kunzing, again third century.

VIII Augusta was based on the Rhine, so Acceptus was perhaps serving in a mobile detachment sent east for one of the Persian wars, perhaps under Gordian.

The only aspects which might count against a mid 3rd century date are his name - the lack of a praenomen is usual post-2nd century, but soldiers by the mid 3rd were increasingly adopting the imperial nomen, even if they had not gained citizenship in AD212 - and his hairstyle, which maybe looks a bit Antonine!

[CaesarAugustus]

So in short we can just guess

Anything more related to the armor? It seems a model that we ignore and may be the the link between the segmented and the coming back to the hamata. Or, it may even be that armor that seems still in use for some cavalry troops, at least until the time of Julianus, when we know that some of them were using a sort of lamellar armor.

And, I would add that it is not sure the assignment to infantry troops, at least considering the helmet (and the shiled... and the armor).

[Nathan Ross]

So in short we can just guess

Indeed! I've just noticed that Clauss-Slaby gives this one an estimated date of '51 to 70'!

Anything more related to the armor?

I would certainly imagine that this is some sort of padded linen or even leather corselet. But we've discussed these things before, and it doesn't seem likely that anyone's going to agree on anything... As I say, without archaeological backup these depictions only tell us what we don't know.

it is not sure the assignment to infantry troops, at least considering the helmet

The inscription makes it clear that Acceptus is a miles legionis. If he was a more prestigious eques legionis he would certainly have mentioned it.

[Dan Howard]

It is impossible to interpret these because when they were made, they were painted. We have no idea how much detail was painted and not carved. The armour could easily be representing something like the Mars of Todi but with some of the detail painted instead of carved.

[ciro]

   
I found this image on the Internet but I don't remember where. You can see (left) that there is no reason for any doubt about the details because this relief is carved very well in every little detail, so for me this is proof of the existence of a leather armor or another textile armor in the Roman army.

[Dan Howard]

It isn't proof of anything without corroborating evidence from textual or archaeological sources.

[CaesarAugustus]

I was also thinking that this may be some old remnant of the marble cutter, or based on old models, but I don't remember other copies of that armor, so I would reject this last hypothesis.