Imperial Roman Legionary, A.D. 161–284 (War

[Anonymous]

Any opinions on Osprey Imperial Roman Legionary, A.D. 161–284 (Warrior 72)]. versus Stephenson's book on the same period. Which would you recommend, or both? <p></p><i></i>

[aitor iriarte]

Read both but don't trust much any of them!<br>
<br>
aitor <p></p><i></i>

[richsc]

I have it, and wanted an opinion on the first plate; the helmet on the central figure, is that a Roman Trooper helm or do my eyes deceive me? <p>Legio XX<br>
Fortius Conamur<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>

[FlaviusCrispus]

Here's a quick, first-look impression I recently posted on my own unit's club board:<br>
<br>
Looks disappointing on first glance. I'll post a more detailed review later, but here are a few things I noticed off the bat. The art by Angus McBride is sub-par for him, looking a little rushed and sketchy. Either he or Ross Cowan, the author, has totally ignored the new work by MC Bishop on the Newstead and Alba Iulia cuirasses. The Newsteads they depict are of the old, Robinson variety with no hinges and the old leather tie closure system. They also ignore virtually everything in Graham Sumner's two books on military clothing (odd, since Osprey publishes them all!). The first plate is a reconstruction of the Croy Hill relief. The legionary on the left is wearing a strange, knee-length quilted subarmalis with no other armor-- dubious, to say the least. The guy in the middle (identified as a centurion) is wearing a mail shirt with a double-row of (white) pteruges. The guy on the right is wearing a Robinson-style Newstead, with a Italic G helmet slung on his chest; he has open-work belt plates (same pattern as ours), a medium-length cingulum and looks amazingly like, well, US (except for the white tunic). Unfortunately, all three guys wear regular old-fashioned caligae, very unlikely by the mid-second century date given. There are several depictions of soldiers in lorica segmentata (albeit the obsolete reconstruction); none are shown also wearing pteruges. I'd put more stake in this if the rest of the book was better. They do include a line drawing of a grave stele of a soldier ca. AD 212 wearing a lorica seg, the first I've seen showing a soldier in this form of armor. The wide baldric and scabbard-slide suspension is ubiquitous, except for one guy with a Pompeii-style sword and suspension. One plate shows a guy reconstructed from the Alba Iulia relief, wearing a Newstead-type lorica with a scale coiff and NO HELMET (again, ignoring Bishop, who interprets this relief as showing a new form of lorica seg with a scale upper section). The cover and showcase plate shows Praetorians battling Legio II Parthia in the civil war of AD 218; all soldiers are fighting ad expeditio-- sans armor! The aquila of Legio II is a LIVE EAGLE in a cage! Talk about bizarre....<br>
<br>
As I said, I'll post more once I've read the book through.<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus<br>
Legio VI Victrix Pia Fidelis<br>
California, USA<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=flaviuscrispus@romanarmytalk>FlaviusCrispus</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/legiovi/vwp?.dir=/Flavius+photo&.src=gr&.dnm=flavhead2.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 1/22/04 12:34 am<br></i>

[Anonymous]

Which MC Bishop work are you referring to, if I might ask? <p></p><i></i>

[FlaviusCrispus]

The research outlined in his book "Lorica Segmentata," vols. 1 and 2, in which he proposes a revised reconstruction of the Newstead cuirass and a hybrid cuirass based on the Alba Iulia relief. The work is summarized on the website:<br>
<br>
[url=http://www.loricasegmentata.org/" target="top]www.loricasegmentata.org/[/url]<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus<br>
Legio VI Victrix Pia Fidelis<br>
California, USA <p></p><i></i>

[aitor iriarte]

Nothing in favour of the rest, Flavius , but, at least the aquilifer of II Parthica is depicted on his graveston from Apamea holding what looks like a staff ending in a cage with a bird inside! (I've seen the photo, but I cannot post it here. Help, Jasper?)<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>

[FlaviusCrispus]

Yes, Aitor, I've heard of that relief as well. So the McBride illustration may well be accurate as far as the eagle is concerned, but that doesn't make it any less bizarre!<br>
<br>
I suppose part of the aquilifer's duty would be care and feeding of his "pet." Imagine what an ill omen it would be if the bird died of sunstroke or took an arrow during a battle!<br>
<br>
I still think the illustration in question is more than a little unlikely. I know the literary reference cited to Macrinus having his Praetorians remove their scale armor prior to the battle, but would the other side also doff their armor just to make it a fair fight? And would both sides fight without helmets as well?<br>
<br>
T. Flavius Crispus <p></p><i></i>

[Andrew Brozyna]

I just got Cowan's book yesterday, along with Sumner's. I'm afraid I am not very familiar with the history or equipment of the 2nd century, so I can't comment too much on what is lacking in accuracy, but I was interested to see photographs of the Dura Europos shields. I've seen reconstructed illustrations of these a bunch of times, but it was nice to see the photos of the originals.<br>
<br>
After only a brief skimming of the 2 books I've already noticed a point on which the author's disagree: whether the "Macedonian Phalanx" in Cassius Dio's description was a unit in the true sense of the word: equipment and tactics, or just a romantic title meant to hark back to the success of Alexander over the Persians. It's not surprising to see Roman historians disagreeing over conclusions, but it is frustrating to know I'll have to read a dozen or more books before I'm able to figure out which "facts" about this time period are just opinions!<br>
<br>
-Andy <p></p><i></i>

[aitor iriarte]

Undoubtedly, Flavius,<br>
As I said on the 'Quosque tandem' thread, that kind of illustrations continue giving people the false idea about Third (ans so on) century roman soldiers fighting unarmoured!<br>
I was only talking about the 'aquila'.<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

That relief does indeed exist, it's the tombstone of Felsonius Verus, aquilifer of II Parthica, not in the Imagebase yet. The standard consists of a rectangular box with x-shaped bars through the middle. Inside seems to be indeed something that might be interpreted as a bird. <p>Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper</p><i></i>

[richsc]

Not perhaps entirely relevant, but there was a US Army unit in the US Civil War that carried a live eagle into battle. <p>Legio XX<br>
Fortius Conamur<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Finally received and read my copy.<br>
<br>
Although there was (an) explanation why the praetorians fought unarmoured, I could not find the reason why their opponents from II Parthica would fight unarmoured as well!<br>
<br>
On the whole, a very usefull book which spans the gap between the usual 1-2nd c. stuff and my own period. A sort of missing link, so to speak.<br>
Quinta must be delighted! And so will I when a third volume will span the 4th and 5th centuries only!<br>
<br>
This is where Osprey comes into their right - general, but not very long periods usually work for them.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I take it not much happened between AD56 and AD161 ?<br>
<br>
Conal <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>I take it not much happened between AD56 and AD161 ?<hr><br>
<br>
Hi Conal,<br>
<br>
Ross Cowan informed me that Osprey did not want a volume covering this period, because they feared 'overlap'.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>