09-15-2009, 06:15 PM
Dear friend,
thanks for your reply and for your compliments. I am very happy that you enjoyed the book in general.
I agree with You: any reconstruction of the appearance of the army as a whole will have to be based on certain assumptions. The Roman army was not a standard one: there were elements of standardization, as the kind of gear mentioned by You, but never a uniform appearance.
About helmets, I have to disappoint you by saying that for sure leather helmets were in use, not only because it is clearly mentioned by sources, but also because of the pieces of equipment found in Vindonissa (p. 111) compared with the scupture beside, and also because the protection of the leather, as proofed by the helmets made in leather in the Bronze Age Sardinia, is very effective. The Middle Age armies are full of references to leather helmets, and also in Richborough at least one of the pseudo-Attic Theodosian helmet was in leather with metallic fittings. Leather helmets are clearly remembered for the Roman soldiers in Justinian Age, etc...
Look at the Amendola relief, which introduces a further typology (the Phrygian) that the Romans used until the XII century (Byzantium). The detail is astonishing, and the man has got on the legs also a greave identical to the Kunzing specimen! Artistical convention? No, then also the Phrygian cap should be true and the detail shows even the fastening system...
About metallic helmets you exactly underline that no two Roman helmets are exactly the same! There are similar tipologies which, as you correctly said, share certain characteristics, and spread all over the Empire, but still there are too little for centuries and centuries of Roman military history. How many Roman helmets have been found in all the world (I mean also those in private collection)? 10.000 ? If they are so, we do not have even the helmets for a big Roman army of one Roman emperor! We speak about a history of millions of soldiers...Moreover, all the helmets found in archaeology have been represented from the Roman artists. So why the other helmets, represented beside them , in the same scenes, are a fanciful invention of the artist?
Yes we have a pretty good grasp of what the Romans at any given time would have used, but we do not know how many and which they considered a decent military helmet. So, I do not think that it is unlikely that we will discover completely new types of helmet (look at p. 186) or better that we will just discover the helmets already under our eyes in the Roman art.
The reconstruction of the Portonaccio helmet is based upon a bowl of private collection helmet, and it is just filled with the details offered by the sculpture.
About the lorica, there are - at least for me - clear evidence of its composition in leather. Such lorica is worn by all the cavalrymen, and the representation of the leather is evident, especially if you compare it with the man on the Marcus Column having the same armour.
Any way it is a pleasure debate with you and also that my book has been so appreciated although constructive differences of thinking
All the best
Raffaele
thanks for your reply and for your compliments. I am very happy that you enjoyed the book in general.
I agree with You: any reconstruction of the appearance of the army as a whole will have to be based on certain assumptions. The Roman army was not a standard one: there were elements of standardization, as the kind of gear mentioned by You, but never a uniform appearance.
About helmets, I have to disappoint you by saying that for sure leather helmets were in use, not only because it is clearly mentioned by sources, but also because of the pieces of equipment found in Vindonissa (p. 111) compared with the scupture beside, and also because the protection of the leather, as proofed by the helmets made in leather in the Bronze Age Sardinia, is very effective. The Middle Age armies are full of references to leather helmets, and also in Richborough at least one of the pseudo-Attic Theodosian helmet was in leather with metallic fittings. Leather helmets are clearly remembered for the Roman soldiers in Justinian Age, etc...
Look at the Amendola relief, which introduces a further typology (the Phrygian) that the Romans used until the XII century (Byzantium). The detail is astonishing, and the man has got on the legs also a greave identical to the Kunzing specimen! Artistical convention? No, then also the Phrygian cap should be true and the detail shows even the fastening system...
About metallic helmets you exactly underline that no two Roman helmets are exactly the same! There are similar tipologies which, as you correctly said, share certain characteristics, and spread all over the Empire, but still there are too little for centuries and centuries of Roman military history. How many Roman helmets have been found in all the world (I mean also those in private collection)? 10.000 ? If they are so, we do not have even the helmets for a big Roman army of one Roman emperor! We speak about a history of millions of soldiers...Moreover, all the helmets found in archaeology have been represented from the Roman artists. So why the other helmets, represented beside them , in the same scenes, are a fanciful invention of the artist?
Yes we have a pretty good grasp of what the Romans at any given time would have used, but we do not know how many and which they considered a decent military helmet. So, I do not think that it is unlikely that we will discover completely new types of helmet (look at p. 186) or better that we will just discover the helmets already under our eyes in the Roman art.
The reconstruction of the Portonaccio helmet is based upon a bowl of private collection helmet, and it is just filled with the details offered by the sculpture.
About the lorica, there are - at least for me - clear evidence of its composition in leather. Such lorica is worn by all the cavalrymen, and the representation of the leather is evident, especially if you compare it with the man on the Marcus Column having the same armour.
Any way it is a pleasure debate with you and also that my book has been so appreciated although constructive differences of thinking
All the best
Raffaele
