Roman helmet surface

[terzer]

Thanks to all, it became a very interesting disscusion.
I took a look of "Roman military dress" and l'm asstonished how differently the legionares are shown. Circle shields, crests, et cetera in the principate stage, l'm so confused now....

[jvrjenivs]

Thanks to all, it became a very interesting disscusion.
I took a look of "Roman military dress" and l'm asstonished how differently the legionares are shown. Circle shields, crests, et cetera in the principate stage, l'm so confused now....

Good, you lost the idea of uniformity then. That's a good start

[terzer]

But that was one of the most favourite things for me in the roman army... Is not the uniformity one of the crucial things about the principate legion? I know before the Marian reforms (and later Augustus) the gear varied, but when the state manufactured the uniforms, they should be almost the same. Yes, it logical to vary in different parts of the empire, the uniforms in Gaul and in Syria cannot be the same due to cultural differences in the regions. But that leaves us quite big gap in our knowledge for the equipment in different regions.

Sorry for the off topic and my English
Thanks!

[jvrjenivs]

yeah, but think of uniformity in the following way: every soldier is equiped uniform, that is with a scutum (shield), lorica (armor), galea (helmet), gladius (sword), pilum (spear) and cingulum militaire (military belt). This was already quite some uniformity when compared to the celts/germans, who had basically just had what the person could pay for. Not even every soldier had a sword, not even to mention armor.

[terzer]

But you suggest that in one legion the armour, shields... vary? I can agree that in different legions the equipment may vary (different standards, helmet types, different scuta layout), but in one legion the equipment should be the same? As for example shown in Trajan's column.
Can you suggest me more literature (proven to be accurate)? I read many books, but they suggest different theories.
Thanks!

[jvrjenivs]

But you suggest that in one legion the armour, shields... vary? I can agree that in different legions the equipment may vary (different standards, helmet types, different scuta layout), but in one legion the equipment should be the same? As for example shown in Trajan's column.
Can you suggest me more literature (proven to be accurate)? I read many books, but they suggest different theories.
Thanks!

Yes I do. But I think we slightly go off-topic now. But as for the shields, of course the form of the shield shouldn't vary much, as that makes certain formations difficult, or impossible to make. But yeah, I think different loricae (that is hamata, segmentata, squamata) were worn next to each other, and the same goes for helmets. For books, start with Bishop & Coulston - Roman military equipment, 2nd edition. Then, there are more interesting reads, but I wouldn't suggest your one or two more of them, as there is a whole bunch to read.

[terzer]

Ok, l will find it. Thanks!
And last off topic - l'm not entirely convinced, that the equipment varied in the legion. There are many sources, which show identical soldiers, fighting, marching....

[Sean Manning]

But you suggest that in one legion the armour, shields... vary? I can agree that in different legions the equipment may vary (different standards, helmet types, different scuta layout), but in one legion the equipment should be the same? As for example shown in Trajan's column.
Can you suggest me more literature (proven to be accurate)? I read many books, but they suggest different theories.
Thanks!

Remember that soldiers had to buy their own equipment. We have letters from Egypt saying things like "Dear Mom and Dad,I hope you are well. Please send me two lanceae, a new tunic, and an iron grappling hook. Your devoted son, Gaius" And the Romans wouldn't waste a good mail lorica just because it was two hundred years old and had unfashionable shoulder flaps! Some helmets have been marked by a succession of owners showing how they were passed down. Even modern armies have trouble giving everyone exactly the same kit, and soldiers add some things out of their own pocket.

There are several archaeological sites which show a mix of mail, scale, and segmentata in use at once. Art was not intended to be a photo-perfect representation, but includes factors like artists copying models and trying to make it easy to recognize different types of people.

[Matthew Amt]

Ok, l will find it. Thanks!
And last off topic - l'm not entirely convinced, that the equipment varied in the legion. There are many sources, which show identical soldiers, fighting, marching....

Actually, most *Roman* sources show non-uniformity, or at least not perfect uniformity. Trajan's Column shows different shield shapes (rectangular and curve-sided), and if you look closely you'll see little variations in the helmets and armor, too. Probably a lot more differences were visible when it was still painted. The Adamklissi reliefs show some mail, some scale armor. The Mainz column bases show different armors. The Ahenobarbus altar shows shields of different heights. And of course practically every piece of original equipment that survives is different from the rest, though of course many fall into basic categories or typologies. (Though it pays to remember that typologies are *modern* inventions that did not necessarily apply in ancient times!)

Be careful about "state issue" of equipment. That was certainly done in the Republic, even very early at times, but strictly speaking even in the first century AD the troops seem to be responsible for equipping themselves, to a certain extent. There were clearly stockpiles of gear from which a recruit could choose, and we have records of the army purchasing things like tunics in bulk orders. But it was all paid for out of the soldier's paycheck over time, and we do have those letters from the kid in Alexandria who asks his father to send him things like spears and a new pickaxe. Best guess is that it was some sort of mongrel system, not really "state issue" or "BYO" but a mix of both, and it may have varied from place to place. Once we get into the 3rd century there is central manufacture of gear and actual state issue of equipment, but even then there is clearly a lot of variety in the stuff that gets made. And there's no real need for strict uniformity--a plain helmet protects as well as a fancy one.

There is at least one excellent thread (started by Jona, I believe?) on just why we assume that equipment was not uniform, and I remember that the original question really made me stop and think! It's good to question our core beliefs now and then, if a bit scary.

Vale,

Matthew

PS: Doh! Sean beat me to the "Submit" button...

[terzer]

Yes you are right, its logical to be so. For us modern people is't better to have exact uniformity (maybe it comes from WW2), its more beautiful, but then definitely the things were very different.
Though l think if the soldiers wanted to be like "divine" with their shiny armour, it would be more logical to have the same equipment. But maybe this is 21. century thinking

Maybe the uniformity (view) for the Roman army comes mainly, of the interpretation of the the discipline and the order.

[A_Volpe]

One possible theory/explanation I have that could help figure out why there is such a huge variety in Roman gear during most - if not all - of it's existence

From what little we know, there appears to be regional 'factories' that are making this gear en masse, but that they may be looking to use one particular model
or 'standard'. And, Legionaries were dispatched to different Legions all over the place (as well as Auxiliaries) - as well as Legions themselves being detached and sent off
to various regions ~ If gear needed to be replaced if a unit was far from its "home base", they may have had to utilize the local smiths, et al, to make replacement gear.

Even if they didn't do this, if they had it shipped to them ("Maille order"?) from their home location, the gear is probably not going to be totally standard, seeing as everything is being made by hand, and to be put on individuals - so right there you have a factor in a variety of similar-looking gear.

The only thing "standard", or "uniform" that can be seen are specific features of gear, ie helmets: In the 1st century, they have to have 3 major components: 1. a skull/bowl, 2. some kind of "neck guard" for the nape of the neck, 3. Some kind of cheek-guard/cheek-flaps.

If one of those components breaks/damaged, then a replacement piece will have to be made, or sent, and there is no guarantee that the replacement/repair piece is going to match exactly.

We also have the example of the Corbridge segmentata, which after replacing the fragile hinges on the shoulder-guard section, someone apparently got frustrated enough to just
rivet the two plates together!

There is also the example of the Hebron Italic type helmet, found in Israel, which appears to have had iron cross-braces slapped onto the helmet in what might have been a "field-modification" - the iron is not 'finished' from what I know, but crudely banged-out and riveted onto the helmet.

As also has been mentioned before, fashion is always changing with the Romans (well, with anybody!), yet if the helmet was still functional, and could be modified/"upgraded" (like with early 1st century Montefortino helmets), why throw it away? It sill works!

Although I can gather that there may have been a few rare examples where, say in the late Republic, someone funding his own Legion may have been able to purchase a large amount of 'uniform' gear so that his troops ended up looking pretty uniform, but as I said, I think this is the rarity, not the norm.

If we're to use modern thinking and fashion as something to reflect on, what about something like the opening months/year of WW2? Soldiers were wearing and using post-WW1 gear, which was still servicable and not seen as 'obsolete' until it came into contact with 'new' enemy weapons which far exceeded the performance of those older types, then having to develop, build and introduce newer weapons and gear to counter. Yet, you have troops (like Afghanistan, China) wearing German stahlhelm helmets dating from WW1 for years.
The helmets are still servicable, only they are not the most modern fashion/styles. So, this idea of "uniform" even in modern age starts to fall apart.

[Lindsay_Powell]

I don't think there is any doubt that Roman commanders and soldiers liked their armour to shine. In addition to the depictions of shiny armour in wall paintings mentioned elsewhere on this board, there are references to gleaming or shining armour - as in polished to a shine - in the extant literature of the time. Two examples from Josephus' Jewish War (references to the Greek not Slavonic version*):

In 3.262 the besieged at Jotapata react with dismay:
"when they saw, moreover, at the foot of the
ruined walls the enemy sword in hand, and
above them the mountain-side gleaming with
arms and higher still the arrows of the
Arab archers pointed at the town,...

Not only the Romans: in 4.243 Jesus son of Gamala says to the Idumaeans:
"You, on the other hand,
in your numbers and shining armour
present an appearance such as would become you
had the capital in public council
summoned you to its aid
against the foreigner."

The real question is 'how shiny was the armour?' The 'how shiny is shiny' debate regularly occurs between members of The Ermine Street Guard. As modern re-enactors we normally use 3M™ Wetordry™ Tri-M-ite™ sandpaper or an abrasive block to achieve a near mirror finish. Many of us have argued for a lesser lustre. Without modern abrasives - unavailable to ancient troops - plate iron or steel can only be brightened to a certain extent but the effect is never as shiny as, say, a silvered or tinned surface. We have speculated about burnishing with a solution of sand suspended in olive oil, or with sections of chain mail - but those ideas are only speculative.

* Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=gu5HI- ... ng&f=false

[Matthew Amt]

Actually, Andy, on the Hebron helmet, like the Thielenhofen infantry helmet, the cross-braces were part of the original construction, presumably finished to the same degree as the bowl. You're thinking of a couple other earlier ones that have been found, such as a Gallic E with braces slapped on right over the eyebrows, or even over the crest attachments.

Lindsay, I also tend to go for a satin finish on steel, but I disagree that finer abrasives yielding a mirror polish were unknown to the ancients. They certainly had a wide array of minerals, dusts, and powders, and plenty of slave elbow grease to apply them. In fact I prefer a glossier finish for brass helmets and armor, since it is pretty simple to achieve and easy enough to maintain. Basically, I believe they *could* achieve a mirror finish on any iron or steel surface, but I don't think they usually did.

Matthew

[Lindsay_Powell]

Researching my latest article for Ancient Warfare magazine, I came across another reference to shiny armour, specifically helmets. This from Florus discussing the response by the Cimbri at the Battle of Vercellae, 101BC:

“heaven seemed to be on fire from the glittering of the Roman helmets and the reflection of the sun’s rays from them”

"ex splendore galearum ac repercussu quasi ardente caelum videretur."

(Florus, Epitome, 1.38.15).

[M. Demetrius]

"Maille order"?

:lol: Hah! :lol:

As for finish, well, at the last event, I noticed that blackish brown oxidation on my pugio scabbard that meant I had not properly tended it the time before. As I was already there, and there was no maintenance kit in my non-existant belt pouch, I quickly took off my focale, touched it to my tongue, then the dirt in the parking lot, and in ten seconds, the discoloration was removed with only minor rubbing. The original finish of the steel was hardly affected, and only a very slight difference in color was visible.

Some civilians in strange clothing were watching me, so I said, "If the Centurio saw that rust on my scabbard, I'd be digging latrines for a month." They smiled and walked on. Men in bracchae, women in very short tunics. What's the world coming to?

I've heard wood ashes make a good, fine-polishing abrasive. I'll find out soon enough. Same prior event, we let the public (kids) handle my Gallic A. It has dozens of fingerprint marks on it. I'll wood ash them away, perhaps, and get back with a report.

Back on topic, the Roman soldiers would need some kind of metal polish that was always available, and reasonably effective. Dirt is pretty much everywhere, cloth scraps are available, ashes every night at the cook fire. I'll let you know. With pictures.