Quote: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!
Well that does sound pretty much like the world turned upside down.
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...
It’s interesting. I’m inclined to think in the opposite direction. There aren’t any depictions of Romans wearing Berkasovo style helmets either are there?
EDIT: Robert has mentioned the depiction of a ‘Berkasovo helmet’ on a few coins. I’m curious because I’m aware of emperors depicting themselves with a jeweled helmet, but never did they appear to me as a Berkasovo styled helmet.
Quote: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.
I wasn’t specifically talking about the late Roman period after the reforms of Constantine and his successors but also about the period of the tetrarchy in which there were (officially) no limitanei, comitatenses, palatina and scholae units. That’s why I used comitatus/palatina to simply denote elite troops.
Quote: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.
But aren’t we running the risk of reading too much into the painting? Perhaps the artist just thought that’s how a palatina unit would/might have looked like. If the payment was good, why wouldn’t soldiers have upgraded their kit from the moment they were able to? Surely they (or some) would have done it even if they were promoted to palatina status a little while back?
Quote: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.
Then again, uniformity is relative. Perhaps I should phrase my question a bit more carefully. Would a unit from the eastern provinces and equipped with equipment from eastern fabricae look uniform enough/carry a certain uniform style in armour and appearance to be distinguished from Danubian units, and Danubian units from Gallic units etc. I feel that the answer would be yes, but I’m having a hard time translating that to actual visual differences, especially in terms of armour, because all types of armour seem to have been used everywhere throughout the empire, making it hard to differentiate between regional styles.
Regarding the quality of equipment of limitanei units, would you say that troops stationed at the limes during the tetrarchy would also be that ‘ill-equipped’ compared to a century later? I mean, we’re talking about ‘the’ late Roman period, but it certainly isn’t just one long period in which everything stayed the same.
Quote: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.
A musculata easier to maintain than even a hamata? I can imagine that producing them could be done faster, but easier maintenance?
Quote: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?
Ok, there you might have a point. It’s just so different from the conventional image I have of a late Roman soldier.
Quote: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…
Perhaps it persisted because it referred to the ideal and previous might of Rome and its military? Which doesn’t have to mean that soldiers didn’t at some point actually use similar armour, even if it was meant as a way to imitate the old Romans, to place themselves in a respectable tradition besides the practical use.
Quote:Hoi Thijs,
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-)
Hoi Robert…
The answers I get are pretty simple and straightforward in text but are pretty hard to translate into visuals...
Quote: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.
I’m curious what you’d come up with, because I’m aware of coins depicting emperors with jeweled helmets and what not, but they may just as well be totally different helmets after all. On these coins this jeweled helmet is depicted very much like an attic helmet or as just a bowl with a crest.
I don’t quite see a Berkasovo-style helmet in it (unless with a lot of imagination) much like I don’t see Intercisa-style helmets on monuments and reliefs and other art save for one fresco showing a bronze/golden crested helmet with eyes very similar to an Intercisa helmet. Although I do see a lot of depicted helmets that look like intercisa style helmets, but the cheek guards are totally different and ear holes absent, showing the helmet very much like an Attic helmet instead.
Along the same lines, perhaps you’re all be waiting in vain for a (late Roman) Attic helmet to appear while it might not even have existed in a late Roman context.
Quote:It's an interesting thought that the troops shown wearing muscule cuirasses on monumental works such as the Column of Theodosius and the Column of Arcadius could be representations of the Palatine legions i.e. the best of the best? Perhaps only the Palatine legions wore the cuirasses whilst the comitatensis units wore the mail/scale hauberks?
Possible, but I personally consider palatina units to be akin to the praetorian guard. If praetorian units wore scale armour, then why would the palatina units not wear them either?
Quote:As to the helmets, the bejewelled Berkasovo helmet looks very similar to the description given about Valentinian I's helmet which 'shone with scintilating light' from the gems on it. The raised ridge on the top could have had a crest fixed to it, I would suggest that you could have affixed a horse hair crest to a textile backing that was then glued to the raised ridge. This could then be easily replaced if damaged but would have left no trace after being buried in the ground for over 1500 years, just a thought...
Quote:So did Constantine's helmet at Milvian Bridge, which according to the panegyric was 'glittering with gems flashing light'. A painting at Aquileia showed a girl (Fausta?) offering him a gilded helmet set with gems and the 'plumes of a beautiful bird'.
But then again, those helmets can be any type of helmet worthy of an emperor, i.e. gilded, set with gems and plumes.
