Praetorian uniforms

[Uwe Bahr]

Ennius,<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>As you can see, we also have a copy of Vespasian!!<hr><br>
<br>
I was so bold to look into Your group's images index. Fantastic photos. You have a divided photo there, showing "Your" Vespasian and a bust of the original. The similarity is striking. Did You take the street scenes at this year's easter parade in Rome?<br>
<br>
Uwe <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Aaron,<br>
We freely admit the leather cuirass is hypothetical, our member reconstructed it on the premise that since very few if any have been found in metal, they might just have been organic, (there is evidence of leather armour from Syria, and applied metal ornament from Switzerland and germany that seems to belong to muscled cuirass) It has proved to be a good talking point!<br>
The "round shield" is based on numerous reliefs of praetorian soldiers, both on monumental sculpture and grave stelae, the colour scheme matches that of the relevant osprey book.<br>
<br>
Uwe,<br>
Yes, those pictures are from the Easter parade, we hope to get some more pics through soon. <p></p><i></i>

[Theodosius the Great]

While we're on the subject, here's a picture of Praetorians from the miniseries "A.D." , which came out either in the late seventies or early eighties as a sequel to Jesus of Nazareth.<border:0;"/><br>
<br>
Notice the praetorians wearing only red tunics with their Attic helmets. These aren't the greatest pictures I admit, but trust me, their tunics are made of wool. This is probably the most accurate portrayal of Praetorians ever put on film.<br>
<br>
Overall I think it's a lousy production, but some scenes are worth seeing at least once. Like the scene of Caligula on the shores of Normandy with the legions and him making them gather up the sea shells . There's a lot of good acting from actors like James Mason playing Tiberius. Half the movie takes place in Rome.

<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=theodosiusthegreat>Theodosius the Great</A> at: 6/29/04 9:48 am<br></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>Like the scene of Caligula on the shores of Normandy with the legions and him making them gather up the sea shells <hr><br>
Indeed, utter drivel. they did that on the Dutch coast.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Pelgr003 - You mentioned that famous picture of Trajan's showing possible Praetorians.<br>
<br>
Those circular devices seen on thier shoulders, I've been told and have read that tose are supposed to be helmets, yet I can't agree with this, to me they look nothing like the helmets most of us are familiar with and use reconstructions of.<br>
<br>
Those "helmets" are way too small for the heads of those soldiers. I wonder then, are these some sort of water canteens? Or what I have been thinking recently, is this a design Motive or a device that would be used by the Praetorians to distinguish themselves? It also looks like those soldiers would have been holding some sort of Pilum, which for this sculpture I assume would have been bronze or some other material long since gone. I then also think that whatever those circular devices are, that they were perhaps intended to be attatched to the Pila or whichever they would have been carrying?<br>
<br>
Another thought I have is that in this "scene", they have the soldier on the left chopping at a tree, and in the right side they have a bull in the background. Behind the bull are a few Signa, so then I wonder if these guys with the devices on thier shoulders are part of some procession for a sacrifice?<br>
<br>
Either way, I'm getting off subject perhaps. I still don't agree that those things on the shoulders are helmets. But dunno what they are myself. <p>-ANDY aka "Roman Dude" Svaviter in Modo, Fortiter in Re<br>
<br>
www.higgins.org </p><i></i>

[L C Cinna]

hmmm... one thing I was thinking about. I haven't read the Osprey book and I don't know too much about Praetorians equippment other than what has been posted here before but:<br>
<br>
There seems to be some confusion about their real equipment and stuff, so what if:<br>
<br>
They dressed like modern guards would?<br>
<br>
Our guards here wear an ordinary uniform with a red barret when thei're doing their everyday job. So that would be the Praetorians wearing the Tunic in Rome.<br>
<br>
When there are parades or they go somewhere with the President, they wear some special dress (helmet, high boots, swords, guns) which is a bit oldfashioned. They use our old guns for example, and the old high boots and the old helmets because they say it looks better and is better to exercise cause the gun is longer than a modern one for example. So if the Praetorians did something like that they might have worn some kind of cuirass, a hellenic helmet with feathers and the old scutum (probably the old oval shape is more comfotable for exercising as well and they thought it looks better?)<br>
<br>
When our guards are on combat duty they get the same equippment as ordinary soldiers do, no difference at all because it's a modern combat suit offering protection and everything they need. So maybe when they went to combat the Praetorians just wore the modern Legionary armor? <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I tend to think more and more that there was a parade dress for the guard, at least in Rome.<br>
The hint could maybe found by comparing the famous Louvre sculpture and some of the reliefs on the arch of Constantine.<br>
No need to describe the Louvre scupture which is perhaps one of the most famous roman sculptures in the world, along with the unavoidable Prima Porta statue of Augustus.<br>
Some reliefs on the pedestals of the arch of Constantine, apparently lifted from older monuments (Diocletian?) seem to show a parade dress similar to the Louvre soldiers: muscled cuirass, attic helmet and pteryges.<br>
There are however significant differences: one of the soldiers on the arch of Constantine wears his sword on the left and very low on the hip and that looks very much like a spatha.<br>
The other praetorian (??) wears a cuirass that is shaped like a muscled cuirass but is in fact scale armour. The first one may also have a scale cuirass but the picture I have is not big enough.<br>
The greatest difference between the Louvre soldiers and those on the arch is that those on the arch wear pants..<br>
It shows an evolution similar to the "regular" soldiers, e.g.: pants and spatha instead of bare legs and gladius, while traditional uniform of "greek style" --at least in the roman eyes-- was retained for the honor guard.<br>
Not unlike the guard at Buckingham Palace for instance, dressed in mid/late 19th century uiniforms and carrying modern assault rifles.<br>
It is to be noted also that those figures are never shown in combat scenes, only on formal occasions. the Louvre soldiers are obviously on parade, and those on the arch of Constantine are leading barbarian captives, probably during some ceremony when those captives were presented to the emperor. <p></p><i></i>

[Crispvs]

The 'things' on the shoulders of the probable praetorians on Trajan's column are definitely helmets. They are scaled down, like the shields, so as not to obscure the soldiers themselves, but still show the cross bracing displayed on other helmets on the column, while the peaks are mistakenly continued around the entire circumferance of the helmets. Compare these images with the marching soldier on one of the Mainz column bases who has what appears to be an imperial gallic type helmet slung in exactly the same position.<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i></i>

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Matthew,

Ave!<br>
<br>
The relief you mention is the Louvre relief. It looks Hollywoodish because it is the second-most-famous Roman illustration in the world and the movie makers have been copying it (or at least loosely interpreting it) forever.<br>
<br>
However------<br>
<br>
IT SHOWS OFFICERS. The men in the front row at least are aristocrats such as tribunes. These MIGHT be Praetorian officers, but they might be any other equestrian or senator in military dress. That's why they are wearing the classic Hellenistic muscled cuirass. Now, the fellows in the back could be common Praetorian guardsmen, but of course we can't see anything of them except their helmets and shields, and pila sticking up.<br>

I just noticed from a blow-up of the Louvre Relief that one of the men in the background has a scorpion on his cheekpiece. I almost missed it since it's so faint. So I guess we can say there's at least one Praetorian. Have you noticed the scorpion before ?




Theo

[TR M VALERIVS]

The people were summoned as to a grand spectacle; the praetorian cohorts were drawn up under arms in the plain in front of their camp [in Rome].

Tacitus, Annales 12.36

I wouldn't think that several cohorts of men in togas would provide much of a "grand spectacle", with most of the upper classes and the entire Senate wearing the same, day-in, day-out. The representational evidence leads me to agree with the gentlemen who support the "togas for day-to-day duties within the capital, ceremonial armor for high visibility posts, special events, etc, and legionary-type armor for field operations (with or without a more Atticized helm)."

Much has been made of the "no armed soldiery within the Roman capital itself" rule. Objectively speaking, it would seem probable to me that the Emperors would exclude their own personal guard from this rule by simply classifying them seperately from actual "soldiers". Considering the social class required of Praetorian recruits, and all the educational, health, and social benefits derived from such an upbringing, as well as their higher pay and shorter terms of enlistment, they were different from those who filled the ranks of the legions. The legionaries represented a thick slice of Roman society: predominantly men from agrarian backgrounds, of limited financial means and/or education, hard-working, and of the plebian class. Many, if not most, Praetorians did not share these traits.

M VALERIVS / Jim Whitley

[JRSCline]

For what it's worth, an essay of mine on Praetorians, including their equipage, is available here.

http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/content/view/67/113/1/6/

Hoping it may be useful...

[TR M VALERIVS]

[color=darkblue]Ave, Jenny!

I read your paper, and thought it was very well written. And it’s consistent with what’s generally said by many about Praetorian uniforms.

Having said that, I respectfully disagree on several points. I’ll start with an analogy of sorts: for many years, experts (archeologists, researchers, authors) have maintained that the leather Roman muscle cuirass never existed. They/we would watch Hollywood movies (some of them quite horrible, but some not), with actors dressed in armor not entirely dissimilar to what seen in evidence, but never found. The worst scorn was reserved for the “boiled leatherâ€

[TR M VALERIVS]

[color=darkblue](Sorry, had to break due to the three picture maximum per post rule)

Let’s look at a couple more…

Here’s the well-known Marcus Aurelius in a few. First, riding while a Praetorian Tribune (or his Prefect, though I don’t think so because he carries a lance, though it may be symbolic… not very visible here) walks alongside his horse.

The soldiers presenting these prisoners to the Emperor are almost certainly Praetorians, due to their proximity, plumed, neo-Attic helms, oval scutae, and at least one’s in scale armor (far right, w/ shield).

Next is another shot of Emperor Marcus, again receiving POWs, again most like from Praetorians.

They wear thin, officer-style pteruges with their field armor, but still retain several variations of the basic neo-Attic design. Oval shields, scale armor…by now, a trend should be emerging, one that makes it hard (for me, anyway) to say that all of these different monuments, in different geographical areas, from different time periods, all of them “made upâ€

[Luca]

Jim,

I think there is a sort of misunderstanding about the Attic helmet. Jenny correctly says that there are also some archeological evidences, so it is very hard to says simply "they didn't exist, in fact they were never found".

Personally I agree with Jenny, and she has exactly my same position on the problem.

I think that none can deny the existance of such helmets because artists can modify something, but not totally invent an helm.
But the "artistic convention" always cited is a phrase that must be deeply considered with the knowledge of the artistic values, trends, miths, etc. each people in the history have.
Just to make you an example why the armours in the Trajan Column are so different compared with the Adamclissi Monument in Romania?
This problem would require a different topic, but while speaking with Raffaele D'Amato he said that usually the sculptors were not on the battle field so they were representing soldiers using some drawings made probably by some witnesses, but overall they were referring to something close to them, probably in Rome. This would explain many many things, especially for the "artistic conventions" in the IV and in the V centuries.

In my group of praetorians until now the Attic Helmet was not represented for the only fact that it too much Hollywood, but I know that I will have to buy some because I think that at least officials were wearing them. I explain always this "problem" to the public with the fact that we are dressed for the battle, so "probably" the Attic was not really used, and we appear like usual legionaries, but "very well" equipped.

[Peroni]

The soldiers presenting these prisoners to the Emperor are almost certainly Praetorians, due to their proximity, plumed, neo-Attic helms, oval scutae, and at least one’s in scale armor (far right, w/ shield).

Hi Jim, There are also images of regular auxiliary soldiers on this monument that exactly fit this description.