\'Roman Military Equipment\' vs. \'Greece and Rome at War\'

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

I have these two books... 'Roman Military Equipment' and 'Greece and Rome at War'. They have the same basic style and layout... but there's some conflicting information. My Greece and Rome at War edition is older than the other so maybe that accounts for the discrepancies. But I would love some comments on what I post from these books.

Lorica Segmentata:

- Roman Military Equipment: "... pieces are found on military sites from the Augustan period onwards..."
- Greece and Rome at War: "... have been found in contexts that can only be dated to the first half of the 1st century..."

What I derived from that is that previously (as stated in both books) the armor was thought to be used much later (2nd century) but that it's being found that they were used earlier. However, one says the 1st century AD (implied) while the other says 1st century BC (also implied, but could have meant the end of the Augustan period in the early 1st century AD).

So the problem I have is which book is more accurate? It's been said by another member of the forum that segmentata can be dated back to 9 BC but I haven't found anything in my two books that reference that. So was the armor used in the 1st BC and more widely used in the 1st AD, or are the two sources conflicting in the armors first known origin? I think the latter. So as asked above, which is more accurate or am I wrong in my "assumption"?


Scutum:

- Roman Military Equipment: "... the curved rectangular shield was already in use by 10BC..."
- Greece and Rome at War: "Early in the 1st Century AD the oval scutum was replaced by a shorter rectangular shield..."

This confuses me. The Greece and Rome at War book goes on to say that later the sides were cut flat and became what is known as the rectangular shield based on the Duros scutum. So I'm assuming the one referred to above in quotes is the Augustan style curved scutum.

So now both books conflict in the origin (one saying AD the other BC). Again as above, which is more accurate? If the Roman Military Equipment source is more correct, then the Augustan style must have been created well (or at least a few years) prior to 10BC if it was "already in use".


Sword:

- Roman Military Equipment: "... some time after the middle of the 1st century AD... "
- Greece and Rome at War: "Towards the end of the 1st century BC... and by the beginning of the 1st century AD..."

These quotes are in regard to the Mainz sword transition to the Pompeii style sword. One source says late BC to early AD, the other clearly mid AD some 50 years later. So I'm confused as to when the change was made. Which source is more accurate?


There's a few other discrepancies among the content of both books. I picked these up just days ago and have been hammering away at them. I'm trying to place time periods of the equipment, but then the conflicting sources start throwing me off. Of course the "correct" information (whichever source is correct, or neither) while appreciated is not going to destroy my understanding of these subjects. But if I'm to talk to other people about the information, I'd like to know what's correct.

So can I generally believe that the information in the Roman Military Equipment book or the Greece and Rome at War book to be more accurate or dependable? What have other readers determined to be the better source? Again taking into account that one is almost 10 years older than the other, is that probably why they sound distinctly different in dating?

Thanks guys for any info. I don't mean to nitpick, but again I want to be as informed as I can. For one source to say BC and the other AD I think that's pretty significant. If I were to try and talk to an outsider (someone newer to the information in these books than I... if such a horrid creature exists because I'm as uninformed as they get)... I want to know what I'm talking about.