Ptergis and Segmentata at the Turn of the Millenia AD

[kevair464]

This may have been answered in a former topic, and if so I appologize and just link me to that thread.

I am wondering what the likelyhood would have been for a Jr legionionary officer to use a subarmalis with ptergis under the Kalkriese model of the segmentata around the turn of the millenia AD (~20bc-10ad). This is in a period where Hamata is still the dominate form of armor, and we know ptergis are seen with hamata, so could it be concluded that a double row of ptergis could have hung from below the kalkriese segmentata, much like they do from a waist length centurions hamata? Also, the belts of this period were also fairly plan and narrow without the later apron, so could it also be possible that the dual belt was still used with this set up, 2 narrow belts, no baldric, in the same method as the hamata, though the belts would not be crossed and would sit one on top of the other.

All conjecture, but I am curious to get the opinions of RAT memebers, I may get kitted up in this fashion and post a picture for reference if its something anyone would like to see for analysis

[jvrjenivs]

we even know of 4 belts worn over each other from Trajans Column on segmentata, so I would say double belt over segmentata is possible.

Also, to me it seems that everyone could wear a subarmalis with pteryges, so that would be okay for your impression.

[Peroni]

we even know of 4 belts worn over each other from Trajans Column on segmentata

In which scene is this depicted Jurjen?

[jvrjenivs]

we even know of 4 belts worn over each other from Trajans Column on segmentata

In which scene is this depicted Jurjen?

Got that from D'amato's observations presented in his new book. He states (on page 100) that we see soldiers marching with 2 or even 4 overlapping cingula.
He mentions image 247 with it, which is a photo of scene IV, on which I only can spot a soldier with 2 belts over segmentata. So don't know where he spotted it exactly (or it's one of those many details you cann't easily see on pictures, compared to studiing the casts from close.

[Peroni]

Thanks Jurjen,

I'll look at the book when I get home!

[kevair464]

Thanks guys, so it sounds like this would be a plausable impression, I have heard alot of arguments around the use or un-use (word?) of ptergis with segmentata, and wasn't sure which way the argument had gone, or if its still being figured out.

[Matt Lukes]

Definitely it would be since the Kalkriese type segmentata was in use right at the beginning of the 1st century CE at the time the pair of crossed belts was the usual. Given that crossing them would probably be a bit difficult on the cuirass, I figured it'd more be stacking one above the other, which is also seen rather often in grave stela depictions.

[Matthew Amt]

My only question would be the use of segmentata by a "junior" officer. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of any centurion wearing segmentata, nor a standard bearer (though I'm not sure about that one!), and I really don't think you'd see a tribune wearing it. Granted the evidence is pretty slim, but there doesn't seem to be a need to step outside it.

Matthew

[kevair464]

I think i was confusing in my use of the term junior officer, probibly should have used NCO, since I was referring to an optio impression, and it is fairly common to see Optio's in segmentata. That said, the segmentata find at Kalkriese was very ornate, with alot of extra detail such as brass piping around the edges, a more refined turned up neck guard, unlike the later more mass produced looking coorbridge seggies, so the owner would have had to put out some extra money for the armor. But really thats not the argument, the dual belt situation seems pretty resolved, but having the ptergis under a seggy still seems to be up for discussion

[Matthew Amt]

Ah, gotcha! Well, since I portray an optio wearing segmentata myself, that sounds perfect! Can't really help with the pteruges, though, just not something I've seriously looked into.

Vale,

Matthew

[Magnus]

Matt, there is lots of evidence of centurions in segmentata... :wink: :mrgreen:

[Matt Lukes]

I think i was confusing in my use of the term junior officer, probibly should have used NCO, since I was referring to an optio impression, and it is fairly common to see Optio's in segmentata. That said, the segmentata find at Kalkriese was very ornate, with alot of extra detail such as brass piping around the edges, a more refined turned up neck guard, unlike the later more mass produced looking coorbridge seggies, so the owner would have had to put out some extra money for the armor. But really thats not the argument, the dual belt situation seems pretty resolved, but having the ptergis under a seggy still seems to be up for discussion

You're under a bit of a misconception there Kevin- yes there was a little bit of copper alloy edge binding on it, but overall the Kalkriese armour is hardly ornate in comparison to the Corbridge. Virtually every iron helmet has copper alloy edge binding- they're not considered 'speical' for it, right? And there's really nothing in its construction that would suggest more money was spent on the Kalriese armour than 'the norm'- the collar looks cleaner because it's very thick (~3mm) whereas that of the Corbridge is thinner- plus the it's also quite well-preserved. In truth one could argue that the extremly simple hinges or the lack of decorative florate rivet bosses, for example, in comparison the Corbridge, makes the Kalkriese rather less ornate; moreover the fact that these rather decorative elements of the Corbridge were definitely standard suggests none of these minor details were extra costs to be sure. The Kalkriese artifacts would seem to simply represent an average cuirass. The only thing that its reasonably good construction might suggest is that the type wasn't made in such numbers as the later Corbridge- the evidence is more that the later Corbridge could be rather poor perhaps due to more lax standards, not that the Kalkriese is 'better'.

Also, there's only one grave stela I know of depicting an Optio, that of Caecilius Avitus, and while he's not wearing a segmentata, he might have peryges- the carving isn't of the highest quality and the photo on the Imagebase isn't so clear. It's reminscent of what the Signifer C Valerius Secundus has and those really could be pteryges, since they look quite a lot like what the Cenurio Marcus Caelius has, which are definitely pteryges. There are two standard bearers and three, perhaps four Centuriones with them- but none are wearing segmentatae; the only depictions I know of showing pteryges are with scale or mail armour. That being said, there are no grave stelae I know of showing anyone wearing a segmentata. The Adamklissi Meotopes show a few cases of peryges, but they're all mail or scale too.

[kevair464]

Thanks Matt for the clearification that definately helps with the explination. There is a distinct lack of specific information from the period we represent, and most of what other groups portrey is mid-first to mid second century, and then late roman. I feel i have a good extremely late Republican/Early Augustan kit, but it could always use refinement. I asked because i have a repro of the Kalkriese Seggy since this fits into our period, and i have a leather subarm with ptergis i commonly wear with my hamata, to this point i have never worn that subarm with the seggy, but was wondering just at the plausability of such a combination. From the comments so far it seems that i should stick with my padded subarm without any ptergis with the seggy, and that the leather subarm with ptergis would work with my hamata.

On a side note, I sent you a message Matt on a seperate subject.

[Matt Lukes]

It is a shame there isn't much more specific information about the earlier period for sure- but just as is usually best elsewhere, sticking with what's known is usually the best; sometimes theorizing is necessary, such as for the vast majority of the Kalkriese armour, since only one brestplate, one mid-collar plate, and half a lower upper shoulder guard plate are known- the rest of the shoulders, the upper back and the entire torso section are all theoretical (and debated)- but if we didn't theorize, there'd be no cuirass at all. In the case of the use of pteryges with segmented armour, there's no support at all for it. 'It's not impossible' isn't the best logic LOL

[kevair464]

Thats kinda what I figured, just wanted to ask to see if there had been any evidence. Thats the good and bad thing about the earlier period, there is a lack of evidence so you can't nit pick as much, but also theres alot of interpretation involved which can cause issues. So to take from this discussion, ptergis with hamta = ok, ptergis with seggy in any period = no, dual apronless belts with a seggy = ok, so i guess my questions were answered. Thanks alot fot all the imput!