Plumata: Battle or Parade Armor.

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

Hm. The Praetorians had.

Evidence? How do you know that the armour the Praetorians wore was not intended for battle?

In the book "The Roman Army" by Peter Connolly there is on page 43 (in the dutch translation) a picture of a "Pretoriaan in uitgaans- en in gevechtstenue".
Can M.Mummius (or someone else from Vlaanderen/Nederland) give a good translation? I dare not to say it can be translated as "parade", but I think in this context it is possible.
Then it should be "a Praetorian in parade- and fightarmour".

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

Ave,

The "Praetorian in parade" makes sense, actually perfect sense but, it doesn't mean that the armor they are wearing wasn't also their armor for battle. I've read that normally they would wear a white toga only with their swords hidden underneath when just walking around in the city.

The base of the column of Antoninus Pius, Vatican Museum shows Praetorians, with their more oval shields, attic style helmets, and segmented armor... this relief is showing parade of sorts but, it again does not mean that armor is parade only.... as we see this armor in battle scenes as well.

Due note the shield size below (I personally disagree with the notion that "the sculptor made the shields smaller so you could see the solider"), I think we're seeing the correct shield size below. I know Dura-Europos shield was much larger however; it is from the 4th century, perhaps many shields were smaller than the Dura-Europos 100s of years before? I've seen sculpture of the larger longer Republican shields but.... Tarjan's column's shields are all much smaller in size than the Dura-Europos, actually the column shields are the same smaller size as the Praetorians at the Louver and column of Antoninus Pius below and other sculptures... is anyone seeing a pattern here? :roll:

Also note the larger rounder and thicker standards, this sculpture is really 3D, much more than the Column…. Is this perhaps showing things more as they really were? 3D is so much more accurate than a relief…
in my less-than-expert opinion anyways. :wink:

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

Ave,

The "Praetorian in parade" makes sense, actually perfect sense but, it doesn't mean that the armor they are wearing wasn't also their armor for battle. I've read that normally they would wear a white toga only with their swords hidden underneath when walking around in the city, e.g. no armor.

In the book, there were 2 pictures: one of a praetorian in parade, one of a praetorian in fightarmour. So not one praetorian who wears armour both for parade and fighting. Or do you mean something else?

[Tarbicus]

Due note the shield size below (I personally disagree with the notion that "the sculptor made the shields smaller so you could see the solider"), I think we're seeing the correct shield size below. I know Dura-Europos shield was much larger however; it is from the 4th century, perhaps many shields were smaller than the Dura-Europos 100s of years before? I've seen sculpture of the larger longer Republican shields but.... Tarjan's column's shields are all much smaller in size than the Dura-Europos, actually the column shields are the same smaller size as the Praetorians at the Louver and column of Antoninus Pius below and other sculptures... is anyone seeing a pattern here? :roll:

No. Note their little shields go nicely with their little spears.

[AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs]

Ave,

Sandrus Junius Aurelius - Sander Van Daele wrote:

In the book, there were 2 pictures: one of a praetorian in parade, one of a praetorian in fightarmour. So not one praetorian who wears armour both for parade and fighting. Or do you mean something else?

I was commenting on the words you wrote"Praetorian on Parade" I haven't seen the photos. I would honestly have to see the photos for clarification . What was the "Praetorian on Parade" wearing that was so different?

TARBICvS/Jim Bowers wrote:

No. Note their little shields go nicely with their little spears.

But those do not look like Pilums, the spear point is far larger, could they have carried a different type of spear... is that possible or no? As far as the shields... we see in other sculpture the Hellenistic or Greek style of shield holder (off center grip with the forearm sleeve.) unless it was totally made up by the artist... the Roman's possibly had that style of shield too.

The spears are much longer in the image below but, note how the shield is held (off center grip with the forearm sleeve) and note it's size.

[Paullus Scipio]

No. Note their little shields go nicely with their little spears

I wouldn't worry too much about the spears. IIRC they are not original, but later 'restorations'. This a perpetual problem when trying make deductions from sculptural works - most are 'restored' in some way after they are found.

A particularly heavily restored example is the Praetorian sculpture from the reign of Domitian/ Trajan, part of which is in the Louvre and part in the U.S, which is used to illustrate Roman soldiers so often.........

[Marcus Mummius]

In the book "The Roman Army" by Peter Connolly there is on page 43 (in the dutch translation) a picture of a "Pretoriaan in uitgaans- en in gevechtstenue".
Can M.Mummius (or someone else from Vlaanderen/Nederland) give a good translation? I dare not to say it can be translated as "parade", but I think in this context it is possible.
Then it should be "a Praetorian in parade- and fightarmour".

I have not seen that drawing so I don't know exactly what is meant either. I suspect that most common soldiers would have had a tunic to wear every day and a nicer lighter one they kept when they had the opportunity to leave the camp and go impress some ladies in the canabae.

The pictures Tarbicus posted in another thread illustrate this nicely:



We have of course no evidence at all to say that this was the case with the Romans, be they common legionaries or praetorians...

Vale

[Tarbicus]

but, note how the shield is held (off center grip with the forearm sleeve) and note it's size.

http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica ... panela.jpg

But if the shields were always sculpted at their proper size we wouldn't see anything of the men behind them when depicted from that direction. It's ancient Hollywood, and there's a great example of exactly the same thing being done in modern times.

Monkey see:


Monkey do:


Monkey see:


Monkey say, "I ain't spending all that money on armour and costume to see it hidden by f****** wooden planks!"

[Marcus Mummius]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Paullus Scipio]

I have not seen that drawing so I don't know exactly what is meant either.

Connolly illustrated a Praetorian from the Domitianic/Trajanic Louvre relief, in Attic helmet with massed feathers crest and 'archaic' republican Fayum-type shield, with tunic over armour and petryges at shoulder and showing below tunic; and to his right the same figure, this time with Gallic 'g' helmet with a 'paintbrush' crest, segmentata, weighted pila and cut-off scutum with contemporay circular metal boss - similar to the way Praetorians are shown on Trajan's column.
The original caption read" A Praetorian in dress uniform and in battle dress"

Monkey say, "I ain't spending all that money on armour and costume to see it hidden by f****** wooden planks!"

:lol: :lol: :lol:
A laudes for you, Tarbicus, a point very wittily and succinctly put !!

[Doc]

Gentlemen,

Are we not drifting here :roll:

I like your point Tarbicus, eloquently put. :lol:

I spoke to Erik Schmid again and I too am in error. He caluclated from some photos and data he has that the plumata scales of Newstead are about .25-.30mm thick. Thus in the future disregard the misstatment he made a while back of 1mm.

Nonetheless, a question arrises. Would the scales not be a wee bit thin to offer any protection? Even though they overlap, and we take the lower value, the total overlap without counting the chainmail is about .75mm. If one were to count the 22 gauge chainmail, it puts us at 1.4mm. Still however, one may think "such a fine mail and such fine scales. how could they be of any protective value?" Considering this, one might be led to believe that "plumata" is in fact parade gear.

My take is the following:

Why go through all that riveting if the armor is for show? Would it not be easier to butt the mail? Some RAT members have said that the Romans would do something wild like that (riveting mail to hold scales just for show; the mail however will not be seen since it is covered.)

However, as wild as the Romans were and as "showy" as they were, they were in the end pragmatic, practical, and not stupid.

The only way one would know about the riveting is if the owner of the "plumata" mentioned it. Otherwise to the viewer just the scales are visible. Thus what is the point to rivet everything? To show wealth? Well the mail cannot be seen only the scales are visible. Indeed if one then considers that the face of the armor (scales) would be made of orichalum (or other copper alloy) giving a yellow, rich, and vibrant color, this in and of itself would be enough to suggest a high status or show of wealth.

Would a centurion be carrying his parade gear and battle gear on campaign? That would be like saying that an infantry US Marine would carry his dress blues into a city his unit is going to occupy.

Lastly, when you get right down to it, most armors will stop a glancing or slashing blow. However, I am of the opinion that NO Roman armor would have withstood a direct spear or arrow attack. Thus all armors are vulnerable to some degree.

Look at what has been said about segmentats; the buckles can be torn easily yet it was still used.

How about Roman mail where the ID was more than 6mm, could not a sharp weapon easily go through?

Of course this is just my opinion; FOOD FOR THOUGHT

On another note, there are other considerations to be made inspite of the fineness or thiness of the materials used in "plumata"

A .25mm thick scale measuring 7mm wide and 1cm long (excluding the bent section) that has been ribbed and work hardened into a slight dome shape will be stronger than a scale larger than it at the same thickness.

Then if one condsiders the mail where the riveted part of the link is work hardened by the riveting process, then you have extra strenght avialble. Nonetheless, mail of this gauge really does not offer any protection it offers a good strong backing for the scales.

Therefore, even it the rings look flimsy, it is the scales that in fact make the armor viable for battle given a few reasons. The first being that the scales are work hardened, secondly they overalp verrrrrry closely, thirdly there are a large number in a square inch locking the mail tightly. Lastly, contrary to popular belief, the plumata scales do not flutter like feathers. The chainmail gives them some mobility but not much. The rings holding the scales are not perpendicular to the wearer where the scales can freely rotate. The rings sit just about in the same way that they do in hamata thus bieng somewhat flat and restricting an exaggerated movement of the scales.

Just food for thought

Paolo

[martijn.wijnhoven]

Why go through all that riveting if the armor is for show? Would it not be easier to butt the mail? Some RAT members have said that the Romans would do something wild like that (riveting mail to hold scales just for show; the mail however will not be seen since it is covered.)

However, as wild as the Romans were and as "showy" as they were, they were in the end pragmatic, practical, and not stupid.

The only way one would know about the riveting is if the owner of the "plumata" mentioned it. Otherwise to the viewer just the scales are visible. Thus what is the point to rivet everything? To show wealth? Well the mail cannot be seen only the scales are visible. Indeed if one then considers that the face of the armor (scales) would be made of orichalum (or other copper alloy) giving a yellow, rich, and vibrant color, this in and of itself would be enough to suggest a high status or show of wealth.

The riveting of the mail rings in the lorica plumata does not seem to be a diagnostic feature for its battle practicality or for its display of wealth. True, for battle-use riveted rings seem a necessity, but I have a strong suspicion that if the rings were not riveted at all it would result in a too fragile and too weak backing for the scales in general. The diameter of the wire seems simply so thin that riveting (even if display purposes were intended) was necessary.

We also have to be careful with applying modern concepts and logic to other cultures or other times. The fact that a piece of battle equipment does not seem to suffice to a modern re-enactor does not necessarily mean that it wasn’t deemed efficient in other times. The same goes for the concepts of functionality and practicality.

Best wishes,

Martijn

[Tarbicus]

Is plumata a case of two layers are better than a single thicker layer, and more so with plumata as the different types of armour would protect against different types of attack and blows?

[Dan Howard]

Is plumata a case of two layers are better than a single thicker layer, and more so with plumata as the different types of armour would protect against different types of attack and blows?

Impossible to tell. Nobody has made a decent reconstruction using riveted links. Erik has recently started such a reconstruction. Hopefully he might destructively test at least a small piece of his work.

[Matthew Amt]

I spoke to Erik Schmid again and I too am in error. He caluclated from some photos and data he has that the plumata scales of Newstead are about .25-.30mm thick. Thus in the future disregard the misstatment he made a while back of 1mm.

Aha! Thank you, and please thank Erik for us if you talk to him before I do.

However, as wild as the Romans were and as "showy" as they were, they were in the end pragmatic, practical, and not stupid.

Pragmatic and practical? The ROMANS?? Do people still believe this? I gave it up long ago. Hinges on belt buckles, for starters...

Would a centurion be carrying his parade gear and battle gear on campaign?

Josephus states that armor was uncovered or unpacked specifically for the payday parade during the seige of Jerusalem. So definitely "yes".

However, I am of the opinion that NO Roman armor would have withstood a direct spear or arrow attack.

Good heavens! Then your opinion would seem to be in direct disagreement with all the evidence that I've run across. No armor is completely invincible, but it will certainly stand up to the usual weapons of the time in general use. THE ANCIENTS THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH.

How about Roman mail where the ID was more than 6mm, could not a sharp weapon easily go through?

No, because every ring had four others going through it and filling a good portion of the hole. No arrowheads or other weapons of the time were thin enough to penetrate the remaining space.

I haven't decided about the whole parade armor thing. I have no objections to the concept that it existed and was used, but it would be really nice to see more info and tests on the plumata in question.

Valete,

Matthew