A Niedermörmter type Helmet with Newstead Segmental Armour

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

So, the Neidermormter would be good for a marcusArelian impression, during the Macrommanic war? With a Semi spatha/spatha, with a pattern welded blade? This is late second century? With the wider baldric?
What actual dateing for the 2 Neidermormter type helmet is there?

[Crispvs]

Fabius,

I would do it the other way around. Ie: no pugio with the Hebron helmet and a belt with openwork plates (not the first century belt plate types which would have been long forgotten by the 130s) but possibly a Kunzing style pugio with the Niedermoemter helmet and vtere felix belt.

I think the various elements of the Lyon find (dating to the early 190s) and the Newstead / Niedermoemter combination would be about right and I think this would have continued for some way into the third century before the ring buckle belt took over completely and segmentata dropped out of use (as far as we can tell anyway).

Crispvs

[Fabius Liberalis]

Crispvs

After you had described a Newstead based kit without a pugio but with a wide baldric and spatha I knew I had seen a photo of this presentation before. After a long search in my library I eventually found it. It is on page 33 and 34 of The Roman Legions Recreated in Colour Photographs by Dan Peterson 1992. (2003 Impression)

The kit featured in this 15 year old photo comprised a Robinson interpretation hingeless Newstead with wide baldric/phalera and a spatha. There is no belt worn. The helmet used is an Auxiliary E. The remaining kit is a Hasta and Dura Europos Scutum. The only thing I would change other than use my Bishop Newstead in this presentation would be the caligae in the photo for Newstead style boots.

I like this presentation and thanks for drawing such a possibility to my attention but I would like your evaluation of this combination of kit 15 years on before I put the equipment together.

I would have posted the photo of it here but was uncertain of copyright issues.

[Martin Moser]

Hi Fabius,

I have had a look at page 160 in the 2nd edition of Roman Military Equipment showing the Vtere Felix Belt/Scabbard you mentioned and I think it would certainly be an interesting combination to use with the Newstead and no pugio. I didn't think I could use it as its described as 3rd C but if you think its appropriate I certainly would consider it.

It is dated by coins, the youngest of which is from 192, so the grave is from after that, meaning it could be very late 2nd or early 3rd century. I don't think anything spectacular will come up but I'm planning to take a look at the actual article tomorrow.

Re daggers in the 2nd cent. - there are two other finds I just stumbled upon (again :-P P ) 1 from Stillfried that is dated to the antonine era and one from Truchyna (Slovakia?) - I'll check the article on the 2nd one tomorrow, too. This info is from

Tejral, J. 'Römische und germanische Militärausrüstungen der antoninischen Periode im Licht norddanubischer Funde', in Carnap-Bornheim, C. von (ed.): Beiträge zu römischer und barbarischer Bewaffnung in den ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten. Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg a. d. Lahn, 20. bis 24. Februar 1994, Lublin/ Marburg, 137-44.

[Martin Moser]

Hi Fabius,

The shoes will be based on this example from the Newstead finds.

I don't want to be a spoil-sport, but based on finds from other places, this type of shoe actually seems to be early 2nd century and phase out at about 130 AD. For mid-2nd cent onwards, the lower shoes (finds from Hardknot, Bar Hill, Saalburg) would be the norm AFAIK. You can see examples in Curle, Plate XX, nos 5 and 7 or here.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I am getting the impression that the enclosed shoe was used much earlier than I at first believed....

[Fabius Liberalis]

Hi Martin

Thanks for sharing your views on the Newstead shoes. Here is the photo you mentioned. From a practical military perspective and knowing the cold and wet conditions soldiers serving in this far northern outpost of the roman empire had to endure I still consider boot 4 in the picture to be the more robust and practical pattern for the local winter conditions. Perhaps this utilitarian pattern may therefore have survived longer in the 2nd C in northern Britain than in warmer central or southern European locations



Ich habe nun Projekt Generationes anschaut. Gratuliere !! eine sehr einfach, interessantes und hilflich webseite fur student der geschichte Romer militarische ausrustung durch vierhundert jahren. Ist die entwicklung diese projekt jetzt zu ende? Ist andere ausrustungs ansichten vielleicht um 150 n.Chr ins zeitlinien noch moglich? Ich mochte gerne weitere erklarung/bilder an die verschiedene korperpanzer typen Corbridge und Newstead zu sehen.

MfG

[Crispvs]

Fabius,

I won't comment on shoes as they are not my area of speciality and Martin can answer your questions on these far better than I. I would however agree that the caligae shown in the photo are uncontestably incorrect.

On the front of the photograph in Dan Peterson's book, I think that the impression is quite good but should be updated to show Bishop's reconstruction of the Newstead armour and a military belt should definitely be present. There is evidence to show that military belts continued to be important aspects of soldiers' identity right up until the closing decades of the western empire. The remains of these belts often show them to have been functional and it seems unlikely that there was a period when they were not worn with armour or that they were worn in an invisible and inaccessable position under armour. I think that there would have been a degree of overlap between the Italic 'H' and the 'Cavalry' 'D' and 'E'. Crossed re-enforcments such are fond on these latter helmets begin to be found from the Antonine period on. Thus there is a high chance that all of these helmets are reasonable contemporary.
Incidentally, something I noticed during a display by Cohors Quinta Gallorum was that when an Italic 'H' is fitted with the large cheek guards of a third century helmet, the differences between them seem so much smaller.

Crispvs

[Tarbicus]

Incidentally, something I noticed during a display by Cohors Quinta Gallorum was that when an Italic 'H' is fitted with the large cheek guards of a third century helmet, the differences between them seem so much smaller.

But bear in mind that Robinson believed they would have cheek pieces more like the Italic D. I bet putting a man wearing the H with D style cheek pieces next to a man wearing a D would look even less out of place.

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/Files/thum ... 2a_461.jpg

[Martin Moser]

Hi all,

been to the library ...

I wrote: "It is dated by coins, the youngest of which is from 192, ..."

the youngest one actually is from 194, and the other thinks that the burial is from the last few years of the 190s.

and:

"...and one from Truchyna (Slovakia?) - I'll check the article on the 2nd one tomorrow, too. "

The book unfortunately is missing in the library it seems, at least it wasn't where it should be .... :-( (

[Martin Moser]

Hi Fabius,

From a practical military perspective and knowing the cold and wet conditions soldiers serving in this far northern outpost of the roman empire had to endure I still consider boot 4 in the picture to be the more robust and practical pattern for the local winter conditions. Perhaps this utilitarian pattern may therefore have survived longer in the 2nd C in northern Britain than in warmer central or southern European locations

The statement as such is certainly valid, but then we could also use it against the use of caligae at least in the second half of the first century in Britain. Also, most of the lower shoes I cited do come from Britain. Of course I can't prove that the higher shoes weren't used any more between say 150 and 200, but if we go by what finds we actually have, they had phased out by then.

Ich habe nun Projekt Generationes anschaut.
Ist die entwicklung diese projekt jetzt zu ende?

Glad to hear you like it :-) ) It is still a piece of work in progress and we are trying to add at least two 2nd century soldiers over the winter months (which is why I am researching this period at the moment as well and am also building 2nd century shoes).

[scott]

Fabius/Crispus/Martin, thanks to you all for your advice.

Crispus; in answer to your question, I had wanted to put together an early 2nd Century impression, possibly the first quarter. Like Fabius, I have a set of Newstead lorica (albeit still in production) and wanted to build my impression around it. However, I was wondering if I may be wiser to push my impression into the next 25 year period? I read somewhere of Trajan's column depicting a possible Newstead type lorica (?), which I suppose would mean it would be fine to gear my impression towards my target period? However, i've not actually seen this and all the other info I seem to have unearthed, with my limited time for research, so far seems to point towards mid 2nd century?

So, once again over to you! Any pointers towards putting together my impression would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance. Fabius, many apologies for hijacking your thread!

Scott.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well these gents will certainly keep you on the right track, even if it is not always what you were hoping to hear..... :roll: :lol:

[scott]

Ah, don't worry Gaius, I have broad shoulders - sometimes!

Scott.

[Crispvs]

Scott,

According to Bishop (2002) if I recall it correctly, fittings from the Newstead segmentata start turning up in contexts dating to the 130s. On this basis I would aim for an impression of the second quarter of the second century AD, combined with a Hebron or Theilenhofen helmet and belt wth openwork plates, no apron and no pugio. You could also consider a ring pommel sword or something heavier like one of the Canterbury murder grave blades.

Crispvs