+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Allies & Enemies of Rome (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Bronze or Brass? (/showthread.php?tid=14933)
Pages:
1
2
Bronze or Brass? - Jesper D - 04-07-2009
Hello,
Just wondering whether anyone have any idea of the applications of brass in the ancient world. I know some helmets and other military equipment was of brass and I assume that this implies that it was not much more expensive than iron or bronze. If gold was so attractive during those days I cannot see why they wouldnt use brass for decoration as well seeing that it looks pretty much the same and must have been much cheaper. Is there any evidence that brass equipment was only used by officers or richer soldiers etc? Or was iron/brass/bronze used interchangeably?
By bronze I mean copper-tin alloys, I know that some people refer to all copper alloys as bronzes...
Re: Bronze or Brass? - Matthew Amt - 04-07-2009
The Romans don't seem to have attached any real status to the use of brass, except that it does seem to have been used only for military items or coinage. Domestic items were bronze, for the most part. But in the army, brass and iron helmets were used without any inherent distinction.
I don't know about the actual content of copper alloy items from non-Roman cultures during the Roman era. In Classical Greece, bronze was used for armor and helmets, but I don't know if they started using brass instead or not. Same with Gaul, etc., though I'm pretty sure at least a few brass Gallic things have turned up. Partly it's a matter of analysis--archeologists may just tend to assume what they have is bronze without testing, or a test isn't done because of cost. So there might be more brass out there than we think.
The general assumption is that brass and bronze were both costlier than iron, and it's true that iron deposits are much more wide-spread over Europe, while copper alloys would largely have to be imported. Smelting and working iron can also be easier and cheaper. But copper alloys could be cast to shape, and easily melted for recycling, so they were definitely widely used all over. It's also important to note that a lot of copper alloy items were basically unnecessary, either decorative or something that could have been done in iron. So the cost was not prohibitive in any way. If fashion dictated the use of brass or bronze, that's what they used.
Vale,
Matthew
Re: Bronze or Brass? - Jesper D - 04-07-2009
Hello,
Maybe they used brass and bronze(?) in military items because of their ability to withstand corrosion better than iron?
Must have been a lot of work having an iron helmet compared to a brass or bronze helmet. Same goes for all utensils used in the field. I bet all the reenactors out there have a distinct opinion on this... You do reenactment dont you Matt?
Wikipedia(!) mentions that romans didnt make use of brass until 30BC?
The reference for that is page 501 of Emsley, John (2001). "Zinc". Nature's Building Blocks: An A-Z Guide to the Elements. Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 499–505. ISBN 0198503407.
If that is correct that means that all military utensils for roman troops were paid for by the "state", I assume, and so you would get what you got - not what you could afford(unless you wanted to spend you own money).
Calamine was used as the source for zinc, so it wasnt enough to procure copper you would have to chase down calamine as well. I have a difficult time seeing that the price of iron and bronze/brass would have been roughly equal. As you say maybe it was just more price efficient to buy a more expensive material that would last for longer and be easier to work with.
Ah, so that's why all the metal cuirasses are in bronze alloys eh? Easier to cast it than forge it. Especially if you want it nice and muscled I take it
So it wasnt until scale armour and mail armour iron was any good really - for armour that is.I cant see how iron or steel armour would be much lighter or better than copper alloy armour? Any reenactors with experience from wearing both? So the only reason to switch to iron would be the cost eh?
Re: Bronze or Brass? - Matthew Amt - 04-08-2009
Quote:Hello,
Maybe they used brass and bronze(?) in military items because of their ability to withstand corrosion better than iron?
Nah, all their weapons and most of their armor was iron. Keeping an iron helmet free of rust would be easy compared to a shirt of mail or a segmented lorica! Trust me on that one...
Quote:Wikipedia(!) mentions that romans didnt make use of brass until 30BC?
The reference for that is page 501 of Emsley, John (2001). "Zinc". Nature's Building Blocks: An A-Z Guide to the Elements. Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 499–505. ISBN 0198503407.
Dunno, that might be more or less correct. Seems to have been sometime in or shortly before the reign of Augustus, at least.
Quote:If that is correct that means that all military utensils for roman troops were paid for by the "state", I assume, and so you would get what you got - not what you could afford(unless you wanted to spend you own money).
Strictly speaking, equipment was not state-issued until the 3rd century AD. Before that, it seems that the army did keep stocks of gear to "issue" to the men, but they paid for it by installments from their salaries. So technically they did own it. During the Year of Four Emperors, legionaries donated their belts to raise money for one of the contender's campaigns, so they definitely owned those belts!
Quote:Calamine was used as the source for zinc, so it wasnt enough to procure copper you would have to chase down calamine as well.
Right, and for bronze you need tin, which is found in very few places.
Quote:I have a difficult time seeing that the price of iron and bronze/brass would have been roughly equal. As you say maybe it was just more price efficient to buy a more expensive material that would last for longer and be easier to work with.
I wouldn't say they were roughly equal in price, only that brass and bronze were used consistently for certain applications, and were common enough that those metals were clearly not felt to be prohibitive in price. But also not so cheap as to be disposable, since recycling was also very common.
Quote:Ah, so that's why all the metal cuirasses are in bronze alloys eh? Easier to cast it than forge it. Especially if you want it nice and muscled I take it
Bronze armor was forged, not cast. And it was perfectly effective--a high-tin bronze can be harder than wrought iron.
Quote:I cant see how iron or steel armour would be much lighter or better than copper alloy armour? Any reenactors with experience from wearing both? So the only reason to switch to iron would be the cost eh?
Copper alloys are slightly denser than iron, so if you had two *identical* items, one in each metal, the iron one would be slightly lighter. For a cuirass, you might be talking about 7 pounds versus 8, hardly a big deal. My bronze swords have the same weight range as my steel ones of the same general sizes. It is generally felt that the rise of the use of iron (and steel) was more about availability. When only aristocrats wore metal armor, it didn't matter if bronze was expensive because they could afford the best. But the Iron Age also saw an increase in the amount of armor used by non-noble troops, and for that it's possible that the cost and availability of bronze was much less practical. Iron was the answer. However, note that there was a LOT more bronze (and brass!) used in the Iron Age than in the Bronze Age! Metal production increased dramatically overall, along with populations, general economic power, commerce, etc. In 2000 BC, a bronze bucket was quite likely a royal gift. By 100 BC, every Roman legionary is carrying one to cook in, and his wife probably has 2 or 3 more at home.
It's a complex question with no simple answer. Look at a modern chair--we make them out of metal, plastic, and wood. Plastic is clearly superior in terms of weight, cheapness, SOMEtimes durability, maintenance, etc. Your desk chair is typically plastic and metal, and if properly made it will be perfectly comfortable, adjustable, versatile, durable, and you can spin around in it or race down the hall on it. Yet if you want a *good* dining room chair you go for wood most of the time, eh? Lean back in it too much and it will come apart and the wife will give you no end of grief. But do we give up wood and use cheap plastic lawn chairs in the dining room? Heck no!
Vale,
Matthew
Re: Bronze or Brass? - richsc - 04-08-2009
Quote:You do reenactment dont you Matt?Please don't disparage Glorious Leader of Leg XX! May the sun shine on his armor!
Quote:Wikipedia(!) mentions that romans didnt make use of brass until 30BC?One page reference? This is that grain of salt thing with Wikipedia.
The reference for that is page 501 of Emsley, John (2001). "Zinc". Nature's Building Blocks: An A-Z Guide to the Elements. Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 499–505. ISBN 0198503407.
Re: Bronze or Brass? - Jesper D - 04-08-2009
Hello,
Quote:Nah, all their weapons and most of their armor was iron. Keeping an iron helmet free of rust would be easy compared to a shirt of mail or a segmented lorica! Trust me on that one...
Corrosion would depend on surface area and friction(and of course medium..water, soil or air etc) - so mail or a segmented lorica should corrode quickly. But my point was that bronze and brass would have less corrosion problems than iron.
Quote:Strictly speaking, equipment was not state-issued until the 3rd century AD. Before that, it seems that the army did keep stocks of gear to "issue" to the men, but they paid for it by installments from their salaries. So technically they did own it. During the Year of Four Emperors, legionaries donated their belts to raise money for one of the contender's campaigns, so they definitely owned those belts!
Ah, that's news to me, I thought the Marian reforms simply introduced gear as state-owned and lended it to soldiers pretty much like the armies nowadays. So instead the equipment were sold the gear on a loan eh? Was it interest-free?
I assume the legionaries still got what they got and not what they could afford that way.Quote:Right, and for bronze you need tin, which is found in very few places.
Yes you do! Which is why both bronze and brass should be expensive! I was comparing Brass to Iron in saying what I said btw, I should have been more clear.
Quote:Bronze armor was forged, not cast. And it was perfectly effective--a high-tin bronze can be harder than wrought iron. Copper alloys are slightly denser than iron, so if you had two *identical* items, one in each metal, the iron one would be slightly lighter. For a cuirass, you might be talking about 7 pounds versus 8, hardly a big deal. My bronze swords have the same weight range as my steel ones of the same general sizes.
Ah now was it(forged)? How irritating. So why bronze and not iron then? Maybe it is just my ignorance but all representations I have seen of metal cuirasses from say ~300BC have been bronze. Iron should have been more easily accessible by 300BC for cultures around the mediterranean no?
Whoa yes, as I understand it ancient bronze(high tin) was about 10% heavier than steel, stronger than iron but not steel, less brittle than steel, withstood metal fatigue better than steel, easier to melt and reform than steel and much much more corrosion resistant than steel.
Quote:It is generally felt that the rise of the use of iron (and steel) was more about availability. When only aristocrats wore metal armor, it didn't matter if bronze was expensive because they could afford the best. But the Iron Age also saw an increase in the amount of armor used by non-noble troops, and for that it's possible that the cost and availability of bronze was much less practical. Iron was the answer.
As I see it, it must have been the cost that stopped the use of bronze in armour. Mass production depended on price efficiency no? Look at what happened to the gladius, no more pretty curves once they started mass producing them. When going from custom made to mass produced they also went from bronze to iron? Hmm I think we are of pretty much the same opinion there. This was why I assume that the upper classes would have used brass and bronze in their armour but the poorer classes would have used iron.
Quote:However, note that there was a LOT more bronze (and brass!) used in the Iron Age than in the Bronze Age! Metal production increased dramatically overall, along with populations, general economic power, commerce, etc. In 2000 BC, a bronze bucket was quite likely a royal gift. By 100 BC, every Roman legionary is carrying one to cook in, and his wife probably has 2 or 3 more at home.
Good point. Wonder why we never saw bronze mail shirts then. Weight?
Quote:It's a complex question with no simple answer. Look at a modern chair--we make them out of metal, plastic, and wood. Plastic is clearly superior in terms of weight, cheapness, SOMEtimes durability, maintenance, etc. Your desk chair is typically plastic and metal, and if properly made it will be perfectly comfortable, adjustable, versatile, durable, and you can spin around in it or race down the hall on it. Yet if you want a *good* dining room chair you go for wood most of the time, eh? Lean back in it too much and it will come apart and the wife will give you no end of grief. But do we give up wood and use cheap plastic lawn chairs in the dining room? Heck no!
Ah, human nature! We are very romantic about natural materials in general. Unfortunately though, plastics have gotten a bad name because of all the RUBBISH plastic products around. Plastic has the potential of being superior but most manufacturers go for cheap instead of good. Seriously - a plastic and metal chair falls apart in a few years, I am sitting in one of those right now!!! The problem is design, we have had thousands of years of experience designing wooden products and only meddled with design in plastics since the 1920s. Give it a couple of hundred years and the dining room chairs will be in plastic
Yes, yes the strive to stand out(fashion??) is intimately linked with population density and an intellect of a certain size. Unfortunately we are the only animals on this planet that combines huge population density with decent(not so sure always...) deduction capabilities.Btw those chairs are designed to break if you lean back in them, it is seen as a form of punishment for engaging in socially inacceptable behaviour. Which is why I would never consider buying dining room chairs. Couch is the way forward :mrgreen:
Re: Bronze or Brass? - Jesper D - 04-08-2009
Quote:Please don't disparage Glorious Leader of Leg XX! May the sun shine on his armor!
I thought legionaries preferrred shadow with all that armour on? Are you mocking the glorious leader?
Decimation! :mrgreen:
Quote:One page reference? This is that grain of salt thing with Wikipedia.
What's wrong with one page references to specific dates? It's probably a cross-reference anyway. You should give me credit for finding a decently written reference on wikipedia
Re: Bronze or Brass? - Matthew Amt - 04-09-2009
Quote:Matthew Amt:2uhv5x10 Wrote:Bronze armor was forged, not cast...
Ah now was it(forged)? How irritating. So why bronze and not iron then? Maybe it is just my ignorance but all representations I have seen of metal cuirasses from say ~300BC have been bronze. Iron should have been more easily accessible by 300BC for cultures around the mediterranean no?
Yup, it was, but they just kept on making bronze armor and helmets. Maybe it was just conservatism at work.
Quote:As I see it, it must have been the cost that stopped the use of bronze in armour. Mass production depended on price efficiency no? Look at what happened to the gladius, no more pretty curves once they started mass producing them. When going from custom made to mass produced they also went from bronze to iron? Hmm I think we are of pretty much the same opinion there. This was why I assume that the upper classes would have used brass and bronze in their armour but the poorer classes would have used iron.
Right, basically what I was thinking. With the caveat that bronze and brass helmets were still popular. Oh, and the gladius was being produced in large numbers long before the Pompeii style showed up.
Quote:Wonder why we never saw bronze mail shirts then. Weight?
There is some bronze or brass mail, in fact some of the finest examples, plus those covered with scales are usually copper alloy. But again, it might just be that copper alloy was used for the expensive stuff for officers, while grunts got iron mail. Iron was not worse, just cheaper overall. There might be some difference in how easily wire is produced, too.
Quote:Btw those chairs are designed to break if you lean back in them, it is seen as a form of punishment for engaging in socially inacceptable behaviour.
Oh, I like it! In other words they're designed by wives. This explains much...
Quote:Which is why I would never consider buying dining room chairs. Couch is the way forward
Very civilized of you, sir. Vale,
Matthew
Re: Bronze or Brass? - Martin Moser - 04-09-2009
Interesting discussion, folks!
Quote:Just wondering whether anyone have any idea of the applications of brass in the ancient world.
Besides the military area, I read that analysis has shown that medical instruments sometimes were made of brass. Actually medical instruments seem to span the range from almost pure copper (with very little tin in it, that is) to bronze (various amounts of tin) and brass. With most instruments it probably didn't matter too much what exactly they were made of, so it might have had to do with what was available locally for a maker at a given time.
Re: Bronze or Brass? - Jesper D - 04-09-2009
Quote:With most instruments it probably didn't matter too much what exactly they were made of
As long as it was a copper alloy and not iron?
Re: Bronze or Brass? - Jesper D - 04-09-2009
Quote:Oh, and the gladius was being produced in large numbers long before the Pompeii style showed up.
Ah, yes but mass production and production in large numbers is not necessarily the same is it?
I take it you mean after 107BC when public funds must have been used to produce the gear and gladii? When did the pompeii show up for the first time? Around 0 AD?
If you design anything that will be produced in the ten thousands or hundred thousands from one single design(mass production) that one design must be as economical as possible. A broad gladius with distinctly curved edges would not have made economical sense. A slimmer version of that gladius with straight edges seems like a better if not ideal candidate for the job.
Btw as we are talking costs I would like to enquire how much 11000 asses(livy) and 400 drachmae(~4000 asses(polybius) would represent in property ~215BC. Would the proletarii with 4000 asses be able to afford their equipment when they lowered the property qualification for army service around 215BC or did they get public support?
Quote:Very civilized of you, sirI draw upon the greek tradition, the creators of civilisation. Sitting up whilst eating is bad for the bowels.
Re: Bronze or Brass? - Martin Moser - 04-09-2009
Quote:As long as it was a copper alloy and not iron?
Besides scalpel blades there are relatively few occurences of iron - some forceps and heavy levers mainly. Among the finds I'd say those are in the 1-2% range at most.
Re: Bronze or Brass? - Matthew Amt - 04-09-2009
Quote:Ah, yes but mass production and production in large numbers is not necessarily the same is it?
Well, at a time when every item is produced by hand, maybe or maybe not.
Quote:I take it you mean after 107BC when public funds must have been used to produce the gear and gladii? When did the pompeii show up for the first time? Around 0 AD?
Sorry, I'm a little fuzzy on the organizational details in that era. I don't know if there is indication for the use of public funds or not. I have a feeling that we simply don't know enough to draw firm conclusions. The Pompeii gladius was definitely in use by 43 AD (invasion of Britain), but I don't know if there are any firmly dated finds from before that. But even if you assume it was in use by 0 AD, that still leaves a century of the greatest and most rapid expansion of the army up to that point, with Hispaniensis and Mainz gladii.
Quote:If you design anything that will be produced in the ten thousands or hundred thousands from one single design(mass production) that one design must be as economical as possible. A broad gladius with distinctly curved edges would not have made economical sense. A slimmer version of that gladius with straight edges seems like a better if not ideal candidate for the job.
Yet helmets became more complex in the Augustan era, with a lot more decoration. The lorica segmentata got fancier and fancier over the course of its 300-year existence. Again, I really don't think we know enough about how the Romans were thinking, or even their priorities regarding equipment, to make solid conclusions. Modern blacksmiths have said that the amount of work in a waisted blade is not significantly more than for a straight blade, so maybe the need that you see to be economical just wasn't enough to overcome conservatism and tradition. It's possible that if there WAS felt to be a need for economy, that they simply did not bother with body armor for many troops--we certainly have evidence for unarmored legionaries. Nothing else would have to change, suiting both economy and tradition.
Mind you, it is clear from surviving helmets that there was a visible drop in workmanship and cost in the first century AD, with bunches of Montefortinos that are very slapdash, with visible hammer marks, no decoration, only one rivet per cheekpiece hinge, etc. So yeah, I think it's safe to see that as a lot of cheap junk being cranked out to outfit larger forces. So I would never suggest that the Romans were too rigid to change how they did things! But the message we seem to be getting from finds of armor and weapons overall is ambiguous, and really doesn't point to the Romans saying, "We have to make EVERYthing as cheaply as we can!"
It's just my usual caveat: Sure, one version of something may have been a little cheaper or easier to make, that they might have felt that to be important at some point, but we just have to be careful about making too many assumptions based on our modern viewpoint or ideas of "logical" or "practical". The ancients simply had different priorities than we do, and we don't always know what those were.
Vale,
Matthew
Re: Bronze or Brass? - Jesper D - 04-09-2009
Quote:Sorry, I'm a little fuzzy on the organizational details in that era. I don't know if there is indication for the use of public funds or not. I have a feeling that we simply don't know enough to draw firm conclusions.
Well, Marius did reform the army and did drop the land qualifications to the army, as I understand it due to the major losses suffered around the turn of the century. Obviously someone had to pay for the equipment of these new proletarii recruits. Where would that amount of money have come from if not public funds? Also I believe Marius raised more the velites, more like whole legions,thus the costs must have been massive.
"Strictly speaking, equipment was not state-issued until the 3rd century AD. Before that, it seems that the army did keep stocks of gear to "issue" to the men, but they paid for it by installments from their salaries." This makes sense!
After the Marian reforms this would be an ongoing thing, as I understand things proletarii would form the bulk(??) of the army and thus relieve the upper classes from grunt duty. Isn't it reasonable to assume that once public funds were continually being used for gear of new recruits, arrangements would be made to mass produce this equipment?
Quote:The Pompeii gladius was definitely in use by 43 AD (invasion of Britain), but I don't know if there are any firmly dated finds from before that. But even if you assume it was in use by 0 AD, that still leaves a century of the greatest and most rapid expansion of the army up to that point, with Hispaniensis and Mainz gladii.
Yes I does seem a bit odd that they just didn't simplify the design once they had to create gladii to all these new proletarii recruits. The development from hispaniensis to mainz is logical, romans didnt need a slashing weapon really. The mainz does seem to be quite ideal for the roman way of fighting but it just doesnt make economical sense to mass produce it, not now and not then. Surely a swordsmith would let them know that a similar weapon without waist and thinner blade would do a good job too and would be substantially cheaper to produce.
Quote:Yet helmets became more complex in the Augustan era, with a lot more decoration. The lorica segmentata got fancier and fancier over the course of its 300-year existence. Again, I really don't think we know enough about how the Romans were thinking, or even their priorities regarding equipment, to make solid conclusions.
Are you sure you can draw the conclusion that helmets did become more complex? Did the lorica segmentata really become more and more fancy? Do we have enough examples to say this with any certainity, from a statistical standpoint we would need to compare thousands of examples to draw that conclusion. Or have we just happened to dug up some grunt armour from one era and some rich officers gear from another time? Can we be sure that we would be able to tell these apart? Why would anyone put any decorations on proletarii grunt gear??
Quote:Modern blacksmiths have said that the amount of work in a waisted blade is not significantly more than for a straight blade, so maybe the need that you see to be economical just wasn't enough to overcome conservatism and tradition.
Were they asked to produce a hundred thousand gladii? A small difference on a small scale tend to involve huge differences on a large scale. One extra inch width on the blade would mean millions of asses probably
And we all know how fond the romans were of asses, they conquered most of the then known world in search of more asses
Ok I should have used sesterces but it just wasn't as fun. sorry.Quote:It's possible that if there WAS felt to be a need for economy, that they simply did not bother with body armor for many troops--we certainly have evidence for unarmored legionaries. Nothing else would have to change, suiting both economy and tradition.
Assuming neither the hastati(a sprinkling maybe..) or velites(!) used body armour, I think the principes would disagree violently with anyone trying to strip them of their body armour.
Re: Bronze or Brass? - Matthew Amt - 04-10-2009
Quote:Well, Marius did reform the army and did drop the land qualifications to the army, as I understand it due to the major losses suffered around the turn of the century. Obviously someone had to pay for the equipment of these new proletarii recruits. Where would that amount of money have come from if not public funds?
The impression I had is that Marius largely paid for it, or much of it, himself. I think he did get some public funds, the usual amount for the number of troops authorized by the Senate, but he wanted a lot more than that so he decided to foot the bill himself. He was really stinking rich at that point...
Quote:After the Marian reforms this would be an ongoing thing, as I understand things proletarii would form the bulk(??) of the army and thus relieve the upper classes from grunt duty. Isn't it reasonable to assume that once public funds were continually being used for gear of new recruits, arrangements would be made to mass produce this equipment?
I'm not sure they'd need too much in the way of mass-production. Some recruits were already equipped due to prior service. Some retiring veterans would either turn their gear in if they didn't own it, or maybe sell it off if it was theirs. And there really weren't that many occasions on which large numbers of troops were needed in a tearing hurry. So I have a strong feeling that the system already in place was adequate most of the time, though of course sometimes they'd have to go into "high gear" to meet demand. This wasn't being done in central factories, of course, but by small private workshops all over the place.
Quote:Yes I does seem a bit odd that they just didn't simplify the design once they had to create gladii to all these new proletarii recruits. The development from hispaniensis to mainz is logical, romans didnt need a slashing weapon really. The mainz does seem to be quite ideal for the roman way of fighting but it just doesnt make economical sense to mass produce it, not now and not then. Surely a swordsmith would let them know that a similar weapon without waist and thinner blade would do a good job too and would be substantially cheaper to produce.
The Mainz is an excellent cut-and-thrust weapon, much better in tight quarters than the longer hispaniensis, but a much better cutter than the average Pompeii. It's an excellent weapon, and I really think the Romans felt that it meant their requirements. If it takes a certain amount of metal to make the sword they needed, that's what they'd make. Again, think conservatively--no point in going to what may be a less effective weapon just for the sake of saving metal. Now, I agree that at SOME point the Pompeii DID come into use, and ended up superseding the Mainz, so obviously it was found to be adequate for the purpose. But that was a hundred years later, practically a different world.
Quote:Are you sure you can draw the conclusion that helmets did become more complex?
Just in a very general sense. Under Marius and Caesar you see cheap, plain Monteforinos almost exclusively. In the second half of the first century BC you get a growing number of plain Coolus helmets--type C doesn't even have a crest knob. But in the reign of Augustus you see the spread of Gallic and Italic types, which were mostly decorated with embossing (eyebrows, ridges, neckguard steps) and applied brasswork. Even the plainer Italic helmets have embossed ridges and neckguard steps, and brass edging, which the Coolus helmets never have!
Quote:Did the lorica segmentata really become more and more fancy?
Oh yes!
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/kalklor.html
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/lorica.html
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/newstlor.html
The Kalkriese has rectangular main hinges (with a scalloped end), straps and buckles riveted directly to the plates, an no sign of decorative bosses. The Corbridge has larger lobed hinges, hinged straps and buckles, and often multiple bosses or florets. The Newstead has even larger hinges, fleur-de-lis shaped, *always* with a decorative triangular cutout in the middle, bosses, and a brass plate around every slot or hole--and those plates can even have embossed pearled edges. Plus brass edging on some plates. There are LOTS of finds, and they are frightfully consistent.
Quote:Do we have enough examples to say this with any certainity, from a statistical standpoint we would need to compare thousands of examples to draw that conclusion. Or have we just happened to dug up some grunt armour from one era and some rich officers gear from another time? Can we be sure that we would be able to tell these apart?
There are indeed thousands of finds, and yes, they are generally consistent within their styles. Get a copy of the Vindonissa catalog for an excellent example. It has a full page of plain belt plates, a page of inlaid belt plates, and a page of stamped belt plates. The way they fall into stylistic categories on each page will make your jaw drop. No two match, by the way, so we're not looking at the remains of just a couple belts. They're all different, but all the same! Robinson's book alone shows dozens of helmets. Certainly a couple of them were owned by officers, like the Italo-Corinthian with an articulated neckguard of 3 rows of bronze laurel leaf wreaths. Gilded. Enough of these finds are stratified archeological finds, and decently dated, to be confident that the overall equipment chronology is reliable. Plus we have surprisingly detailed artwork such as grave stones which shows exactly the items we have found.
There are items which might have belonged to officers, but we really don't know. For instance, the famous "Sword of Tiberius" was first thought to be an officer's sword, and the scabbard was described as being gold and silver. Turns out it was brass and tin, partly stamped out with dies, and was probably a pretty common item. A number of similar parts have turned up since, in different areas. Plain pugio scabbards seem to be the rare exception, the vast majority being inlaid with silver, brass, and/or enamel. While this is sometimes thought to be the result of museums just displaying the spiffiest items and storing the plain ones, even archeological reports don't turn up much in the way of plain pugio scabbards. And it was almost never just a *little* inlay...
Quote:Why would anyone put any decorations on proletarii grunt gear??
Caesar said if you make it all with silver and gold the men are much less likely to lose it! The men took a lot of pride in their stuff, especially since they were paying for it themselves. Color and shine and a rich appearance was a major reason for wearing things like this into battle--they wanted to shine like gods and impress the heck out of foes and friends alike. It was a psychological advantage over any barbarian dirt farmer with nothing but a spear and a shield. It meant they always had something to clean, a MAJOR factor in keeping them busy and out of trouble. And in the days before hot rod cars and CD players, they needed something to blow their money on (besides drinking and women!). In short, it was incredibly good for morale, which is everything in ancient warfare.
Quote:Were they asked to produce a hundred thousand gladii? A small difference on a small scale tend to involve huge differences on a large scale. One extra inch width on the blade would mean millions of asses probably
Almost never. Even raising four legions only meant 20,000 swords IF all the men were new recruits, and there were simply not that many times when a force that size was raised from scratch. Even in the civil wars of Octavian and Antony, they eventually built up to 20 or 30 legions each, but over the course of several years, generally building on existing armies and pools of veterans.
Quote:And we all know how fond the romans were of asses, they conquered most of the then known world in search of more asses
That explains the spiked soles and matching leather handbags, eh? And don't forget coffee--they didn't have it, and I think that made them angry and more inclined to conquer the world, to find the coffee that they needed but didn't know about.
Quote:Assuming neither the hastati(a sprinkling maybe..) or velites(!) used body armour, I think the principes would disagree violently with anyone trying to strip them of their body armour.
But at the time that hastati and principes were differentiated, they supplied their own armor based on their wealth. No general would object to his men buying their own armor, probably right through into the first century AD! (For example, the soldier from Egypt who writes to ask his father for a spear and a good pickaxe--what, he couldn't get a SPEAR from central supply??) The system of hastati/principes/triarii seems to start going away with the reforms of Marius. And in any case, most of the lower-class soldiers up to that point had only the little pectoral plate for armor, which is almost no armor at all. From there to having no armor would not have bothered any of the new landless troops. See, the whole society was used to the concept of rich men having more armor, poor men having less or none. So if after Marius some of the poor men had armor, whether a majority or a tiny minority, they would have seen that as great progress! We should not take "armored" as the default and see every unarmored legionary as a problem.
Whew! Good thing my boss is out today! Vale,
Matthew