Basically the question is in the title of this topic already. What type of armour/helmets and which appearance would set an elite/palatine/comitatus status unit apart from an “ordinary” limitanei/comitatenses status unit according to you? Or are the different variations in armour and appearance dependent on the location of where a unit was stationed?
It’s very difficult to make up a reasonable picture for myself because I feel that I’m influenced by both pictures of artists and by pictures of reenactment. But on the other hand I’m getting confused when I look at frescos, reliefs and other archeological evidence that seem to show something (sometimes totally) different.
Take for example the really nice painting of the battle of Strasbourg. (http://cdn.ancient-warfare.com/templates...d_awnw.jpg) It shows a Legio Palatina unit in a shield wall formation, but they don’t really look very elite to me. They wear pretty simple Berkasovo and Intercisa style helmets and body armour and I notice only one Roman wearing a lorica squamata in the back. The whole picture doesn’t really show anything elite and it looks like as if they’re just basic heavy infantry.
Now the arch of Galerius shows troops that appear to be the elite troops of the Joviani and the Herculiani in scale armour and spangenhelmets (I know that this vision is disputable), but in reenactment I’ve never seen anyone wear similar scale armour. And then again, is scale armour something that is to be considered fitting for an elite soldier or not?
Anyway, what better place to ask this question than on the RAT forums?
On a side note, since I’m working on a late Roman modification myself surrounding the fall of the Tetrarchy and beyond, I’ve created some armour sets and helmets in 3D as well. This is what cast a considerable amount of doubt as to which armour set and appearance would be considered basic and what would be considered elite. Some pictures can be found here:
Armour sets:
[spoiler][/spoiler]
Helmets:
[spoiler][/spoiler]
I’m well aware that there probably isn’t a definite answer and that it mostly comes down to opinions. But I think that that shouldn’t stop us from having this interesting discussion and (hopefully) an exchange of ideas and visions.
Btw, I was in doubt whether this topic belonged to reconstruction&reenactment or here. If this isn't the right place could someone move it to the right subforum. Thanks.
I think that is a hard question to answer, however it may be more about the level of decoration than the actual armor type. I personally think Squamata was considered a more elite type of armor, probably because it looks more "elaborate" than mail did (IMO). In regards to decoration, one should consider gilded and decorated/patterned silver sheet on the helmet, instead of just iron. The type of crest, and or the addition of jewels to the helmet would also make a difference on the status of the wearer.
Two soldiers side by side both wearing scale and a ridge helmet could look significantly different just based on the level of quality and decoration in their armor. A soldier with a golden crested helmet, silver and brass scale shirt, large images on their tunic, richly decorated spatha scabbard and large details painted on their shield would certainly look more elite than a soldier with the "same" armor, but all basic in appearance.
Markus Aurelius Montanvs What we do in life Echoes in Eternity
Quote:Now the arch of Galerius shows troops that appear to be the elite troops of the Joviani and the Herculiani in scale armour and spangenhelmets (I know that this vision is disputable), but in reenactment I’ve never seen anyone wear similar scale armour. And then again, is scale armour something that is to be considered fitting for an elite soldier or not?
This thread has a discussion of the soldiers shown on the arch:
The contemporary Arch of Diocletian in Rome also shows a soldier in scale, together with one in mail (or so it appears - reconstructions differ!)
Scale does seem to have been associated with elite or bodyguard units - Macrinus's Praetorians are described removing their scale armour prior to battle in AD218 (Dio, 38.37), and the Equites Singulares are wearing it on the Arch of Constantine.
There's also the muscle cuirass, which is worn by later Roman troops on many reliefs and monuments and was possibly far more widely used than the archaeological record would suggest.
Quote:I think that is a hard question to answer, however it may be more about the level of decoration than the actual armor type. I personally think Squamata was considered a more elite type of armor, probably because it looks more "elaborate" than mail did (IMO). In regards to decoration, one should consider gilded and decorated/patterned silver sheet on the helmet, instead of just iron. The type of crest, and or the addition of jewels to the helmet would also make a difference on the status of the wearer.
Two soldiers side by side both wearing scale and a ridge helmet could look significantly different just based on the level of quality and decoration in their armor. A soldier with a golden crested helmet, silver and brass scale shirt, large images on their tunic, richly decorated spatha scabbard and large details painted on their shield would certainly look more elite than a soldier with the "same" armor, but all basic in appearance.
That’s what I would say as well. But how much would a basic squamata look different from an elaborate one? I can envision the scales being tinned, of brass, silvered or gilded, scales of one squamata differing in size from the other, but other than that…
I understand that a decorated helmet is more expensive than a simple undecorated one. But even simple ones would allow for crests to be attached. My question is more about the extent of which normal troops did wear elite-like armour (such as scale and cheaply decorated helmets) and to what extent elite troops would wear basic armour (like mail and relatively basic helmets) as is depicted in the painting of the battle of Strasbourg in my first post?
Would it be likely for a Roman soldier in a palatina unit to wear a basic helmet and mail armour while his collegue in the same unit would have worn a gilded helmet and scale armour? And also, would it be likely for a Roman soldier in a basic unit to wear a gilded helmet and scale armour, while the norm would have been basic mail and iron helmet (perhaps silvered)?
Quote:
Razor post=317188 Wrote:Now the arch of Galerius shows troops that appear to be the elite troops of the Joviani and the Herculiani in scale armour and spangenhelmets (I know that this vision is disputable), but in reenactment I’ve never seen anyone wear similar scale armour. And then again, is scale armour something that is to be considered fitting for an elite soldier or not?
This thread has a discussion of the soldiers shown on the arch:
The contemporary Arch of Diocletian in Rome also shows a soldier in scale, together with one in mail (or so it appears - reconstructions differ!)
Scale does seem to have been associated with elite or bodyguard units - Macrinus's Praetorians are described removing their scale armour prior to battle in AD218 (Dio, 38.37), and the Equites Singulares are wearing it on the Arch of Constantine.
There's also the muscle cuirass, which is worn by later Roman troops on many reliefs and monuments and was possibly far more widely used than the archaeological record would suggest.
I’ve already stumbled on that topic and found the Joviani and Herculiani theory plausible, especially because their shield emblems are clearly visible on the same side where the adlocutio is being held. The way I see it, it looks as if Galerius wants to praise/honour the legions of the Joviani and Herculiani for their part in the successful Persian campaign.
Unfortunately I can’t find the detail of the arch of Diocletian showing that specific soldier you’re talking about.
Regarding the muscled cuirass debates, I still find it troublesome what to believe. (To which monuments are you referring specifically?) Do reliefs and monuments always show what a Roman soldier looked like exactly at the time? Or are they merely showing Roman soldiers in the way people would expect (or want) a Roman soldier to look like at the time? Then there’s the aspect of artistic impression allowing artist the freedom to deviate from realistic depiction and merely showing the essence of what they believe to be a Roman soldier or a Roman outfit/helmet or weaponry. And also: is this muscled cuirass really a muscled cuirass and not a hamata or a squamata after all?
Also, would a muscled cuirass not be regarded as something archaic? Usually elite troops and officers would fit such an outfit which is linked to a nostalgic and heroic/mythic past, which places them in a certain tradition. The way I see it muscled cuirasses were very probably worn but only by officers, elite troops, bodyguards and generals/emperors.
Quote:Would it be likely for a Roman soldier in a palatina unit to wear a basic helmet and mail armour while his collegue in the same unit would have worn a gilded helmet and scale armour?
Apparently there's a remark in the Theodosian Code that 60% of helmets produced by state fabricae should have gilding and decoration - possibly these were intended for the palatine units, while the undecorated ones went to the limitanei?
Quote:Unfortunately I can’t find the detail of the arch of Diocletian showing that specific soldier you’re talking about.
Here it is, in the version by Karen Dixon, Late Roman Army, p.99:
Quote:Do reliefs and monuments always show what a Roman soldier looked like exactly at the time? Or are they merely showing Roman soldiers in the way people would expect (or want) a Roman soldier to look like at the time?
That's partly my point - earlier monuments usually showed segmentata, which however widely worn it actually was, was clearly what the public of the day thought that Roman soldiers wore. Later monuments show musculata in the same way - so while it may not have been ubiquitous, people at the time probably thought it signified a legionary soldier. Other details on these sculptures are quite individual and characteristically late Roman, so the armour is probably not just 'archaicising'. Scale and mail shirts of the day appear to have looked quite different to a muscle cuirass, as we see on the Diocletian and Galerius arches.
Razor post=317375 Wrote:Would it be likely for a Roman soldier in a palatina unit to wear a basic helmet and mail armour while his collegue in the same unit would have worn a gilded helmet and scale armour?
Apparently there's a remark in the Theodosian Code that 60% of helmets produced by state fabricae should have gilding and decoration - possibly these were intended for the palatine units, while the undecorated ones went to the limitanei?
That’s a lot of helmets for palatine units and not so much for the more numerous limitanei units… Still would you say it’s possible that a soldier of a palatine unit would look pretty basic, while his colleague of the same unit would look more ‘extravagant’?
Quote:
Razor post=317375 Wrote:Unfortunately I can’t find the detail of the arch of Diocletian showing that specific soldier you’re talking about.
Here it is, in the version by Karen Dixon, Late Roman Army, p.99:
(there's a redrawn version in Travis & Travis' Roman Body Armour that I think shows differences in the scale armour.)
I remember that fragment from an Osprey book. In there they’re depicted as two soldiers wearing long-sleeved mail. Thanks for that!
Quote:
Razor post=317375 Wrote:Regarding the muscled cuirass debates, I still find it troublesome what to believe. (To which monuments are you referring specifically?)
Quote:Do reliefs and monuments always show what a Roman soldier looked like exactly at the time? Or are they merely showing Roman soldiers in the way people would expect (or want) a Roman soldier to look like at the time?
That's partly my point - earlier monuments usually showed segmentata, which however widely worn it actually was, was clearly what the public of the day thought that Roman soldiers wore. Later monuments show musculata in the same way - so while it may not have been ubiquitous, people at the time probably thought it signified a legionary soldier. Other details on these sculptures are quite individual and characteristically late Roman, so the armour is probably not just 'archaicising'. Scale and mail shirts of the day appear to have looked quite different to a muscle cuirass, as we see on the Diocletian and Galerius arches.
Reliefs and monuments are indeed difficult to read. I agree with you that some monuments do show specific features and details from a specific period. But can these accurate details not also be used alongside idealized depictions of Roman soldiers? I've also never come across a depiction of the Berkasovo style helmet in monuments and reliefs. It's a bit speculating here but perhaps they were considered too 'un-Roman'?
With regard to the archaic nature I didn’t mean to say that they were non-existent at the time of the erection of the monuments but rather that they would have been kept for certain ranks and elite troops who themselves would stand in a certain Roman tradition by being dressed in a lorica musculata.
Quote:Hi Razor,
The images of the armor sets and helmets on the first post are not visible, can you re-post them?
Thanks,
Angelo
Angelo, you have to click the ‘Warning:Spoiler!’ text and the images will appear. I re-uploaded the second image showing the helmets as it didn’t fully appear.
Quote:That’s a lot of helmets for palatine units and not so much for the more numerous limitanei units… Still would you say it’s possible that a soldier of a palatine unit would look pretty basic, while his colleague of the same unit would look more ‘extravagant’?
Well, we might guess either that supplying palatine units was considered more important, or that limitanei troops would be expected to maintain their older equipment for longer, maybe.
But with state supply of armour, and the armour itself being decorated at the factories, it seems likely that there was a high degree of uniformity in style and appearance within units.
I do recall something by Luke Ueda-Sarson (I think), speculating on third century shield designs - the very decorated ones from Dura Europos compared with the simple geometric patterns from the II Parthica tombstones at Apamea, which resemble late Roman designs. He suggested, I think, that the more elite field units might have adopted a simpler and more (to our eyes) spartan look. So maybe the decorated helmets were for the limitanei!
Quote:It's a bit speculating here but perhaps they were considered too 'un-Roman'?
Who knows what a 4th century Roman would consider 'un-Roman'! :eek:
It is baffling that the single most widely represented helmet type in Roman art of the 3rd to 5th centuries is entirely unknown in the archaeological record. This has been explained by the old arguments about artistic license and classical imagery. Maybe - but I tend to think otherwise...
Quote:What type of armour/helmets and which appearance would set an elite/palatine/comitatus status unit apart from an “ordinary” limitanei/comitatenses status unit according to you? Or are the different variations in armour and appearance dependent on the location of where a unit was stationed?
For one, the word ‘elite’ combines with ‘palatina’, but not so much with ‘comitatus’. The latter were the field army, and one notch above the limitanei, but clearly below the palatine units or the scholae.
As to the equipment, you had the standard issue which could be quite spectacular, although I doubt that such glass-paste encrusted helmets like the Berkasovo I or the Budapest examples were churned out by the fabrcae. I guess that such units like the scholae or palatine regiments showed a bit more variation in equipment than the comitatenses, due to the larger amount of money they were able to spend.
Otherwise, we should probably not generalize where such units are concerned. A lot would have depended ion availability – even if you get first choice, it’s not always possible to get the best stuff for everyone. And like every soldier on campaign, equipment was altered, repaired, bought and stolen from vanquished enemies.
Quote: It shows a Legio Palatina unit in a shield wall formation, but they don’t really look very elite to me. They wear pretty simple Berkasovo and Intercisa style helmets and body armour and I notice only one Roman wearing a lorica squamata in the back. The whole picture doesn’t really show anything elite and it looks like as if they’re just basic heavy infantry.
Which they are, essentially. The Primani were the old Prima Minerva I think, a centuries-old unit promoted to the field army and then to the palatine, but of course still raised locally. I’m not sure how long they belonged to the palatine by the time of Strasbourg, but it might not have been very long. Anyway, times were hard and I can’t see the reason to re-equip an old legion with new fancy stuff when the stuff they had was good enough. But over time, perhaps better helmets and armour would begin to show when they were to spend considerable time in more peaceful regions.
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Quote:Would it be likely for a Roman soldier in a palatina unit to wear a basic helmet and mail armour while his collegue in the same unit would have worn a gilded helmet and scale armour? And also, would it be likely for a Roman soldier in a basic unit to wear a gilded helmet and scale armour, while the norm would have been basic mail and iron helmet (perhaps silvered)?
Yes, because uniformity did not exist in Roman units. Of course when taken as a whole, the quality of equipment would be higher in the elite units. The main difference would be the quality of the equipment (instead of perhaps the expensive decoration), while limitanei would perhaps not even have armour for every miles.
Quote:Regarding the muscled cuirass debates, I still find it troublesome what to believe. Do reliefs and monuments always show what a Roman soldier looked like exactly at the time? Or are they merely showing Roman soldiers in the way people would expect (or want) a Roman soldier to look like at the time? Then there’s the aspect of artistic impression allowing artist the freedom to deviate from realistic depiction and merely showing the essence of what they believe to be a Roman soldier or a Roman outfit/helmet or weaponry.
There’s always the debate about artistic license, and Hellenistic imagery. But we see the musculata also (re)appearing in Byzantine art, and I don’t think we should stretch the influence of Hellenistic art so far. Therefore I tend to agree up to a point. We should also not forget that a musculata, whether a metal or a leather one (yes, we should condider that, too) is far cheaper than a squamata or a hamate, and easier to maintain. It’s after all a large breastplate, no more. And this would indeed fit into a picture of hard economic times and the need to equip an army.
Quote:Also, would a muscled cuirass not be regarded as something archaic? Usually elite troops and officers would fit such an outfit which is linked to a nostalgic and heroic/mythic past, which places them in a certain tradition. The way I see it muscled cuirasses were very probably worn but only by officers, elite troops, bodyguards and generals/emperors.
The gilded and elaborately decorated ones, sure. But when we step away from the ‘gilded sixpack’ image of a musculata worn by an Augustus and instead think of a much more basic model – why not?
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Quote: Apparently there's a remark in the Theodosian Code that 60% of helmets produced by state fabricae should have gilding and decoration - possibly these were intended for the palatine units, while the undecorated ones went to the limitanei?
Surely would be 60% for palatine units AND comitatenses, and 40% for the limitanei? But remember, even the undecorated ones were silvered.
Sorry, I completely missed that one. Let’s start it up again.
Quote:
Razor post=317375 Wrote:Do reliefs and monuments always show what a Roman soldier looked like exactly at the time? Or are they merely showing Roman soldiers in the way people would expect (or want) a Roman soldier to look like at the time?
That's partly my point - earlier monuments usually showed segmentata, which however widely worn it actually was, was clearly what the public of the day thought that Roman soldiers wore. Later monuments show musculata in the same way - so while it may not have been ubiquitous, people at the time probably thought it signified a legionary soldier. Other details on these sculptures are quite individual and characteristically late Roman, so the armour is probably not just 'archaicising'. Scale and mail shirts of the day appear to have looked quite different to a muscle cuirass, as we see on the Diocletian and Galerius arches.
I agree. In the past I too thought it was a Hellenistic influence on artists who never set eyes on a real soldier, but the style persists after the 5th century, so…
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Quote: Still would you say it’s possible that a soldier of a palatine unit would look pretty basic, while his colleague of the same unit would look more ‘extravagant’?
yes. Perhaps he would like to change it, but it’s the same now – some people spend money on their family, some spend it on their Porsche. 8-)
Quote:I've also never come across a depiction of the Berkasovo style helmet in monuments and reliefs. It's a bit speculating here but perhaps they were considered too 'un-Roman'?
Oh, but there are such depictions. The famous on is Constantine with his jewel-encrusted peacock-feathered helmet on a coin. The trouble with those helmets is the nasal, which prohibits the depiction of the face, and which is often ‘left out’ by the artist. I’m not with my archive now, but I recall at least two depictions of a Berkasovo. I think the simple Intercisa helmet was much easier to show, and the crest perhaps looked more ‘military’? Or the Intercisa was perhaps far more worn by the troops, I don’t know.
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Quote: But with state supply of armour, and the armour itself being decorated at the factories, it seems likely that there was a high degree of uniformity in style and appearance within units.
And yet, no two helmets of this period are exactly alike, unlike what we see in helmets from the Principate (considering that the Intercisa hoard was in a gazillion pieces). It seems possible to me that although the state was responsible for the production of arms & armour, it was also possible to add decorations to your helmet yourself?
Quote: I do recall something by Luke Ueda-Sarson (I think), speculating on third century shield designs - the very decorated ones from Dura Europos compared with the simple geometric patterns from the II Parthica tombstones at Apamea, which resemble late Roman designs. He suggested, I think, that the more elite field units might have adopted a simpler and more (to our eyes) spartan look. So maybe the decorated helmets were for the limitanei!
Not THAT would be a novel idea!
Quote: Who knows what a 4th century Roman would consider 'un-Roman'! :eek:
Indeed!
Quote: It is baffling that the single most widely represented helmet type in Roman art of the 3rd to 5th centuries is entirely unknown in the archaeological record. This has been explained by the old arguments about artistic license and classical imagery. Maybe - but I tend to think otherwise...
Indeed 2. It’s an old debate, and secretly I hope that one will turn up soon. :wink:
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
![[Image: wip110340.jpg]](http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5205/wip110340.jpg)
[/spoiler]![[Image: 15691431.jpg]](http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/3919/15691431.jpg)
[/spoiler]
![[Image: websitepic.jpg]](http://www.roman-artifacts.com/files/websitepic.jpg)
