Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Face mask or face guard in late roman period
#46
Face masks were not only used in the Middle East, but also in Central Asia and Mongolia, and we are sure the Mongols used them in combat. Therefore, a mask is not necesarily "parade armour".
Various kinds of Roman face masks have been found and are depicted from the principate to the early Byzantine period. They were used before that period (Etruscan face-mask cheekplates) and after that period (Sutton Ho). Ammianus describes them in the 4th century CE.
Persian face masks have not been found, and are not shown. Admittedly, we have found little, and the pictorial record too is not as rich as that of the Romans, but still, we only have Roman descriptions of these Persian face masks to go on.
Could it not be that, not only during the principate but during the entire Roman period, face-masks were characteristic of the oriental part of the Roman Empire, and this spectacular armour stimulated the Romans into describing Persians as personati, since they were orientals too? In other words, the connection between these clichées and fancifull descriptions and reality might not be Persian armour, but East Roman armour.
Reply
#47
Quote:Plate 3 - the death of General Gainas (12/23/AD400) - from D'Amato's The Eastern Romans 330-1461 AD
In addition to the Column of Arcadius as a source, the text says:
Quote:Their helmets are based on an actual specimen found in the Theodosian fortress of Richborough in Britain.

Quote:I think the Richborough helmet is the one shown on the guy with the red feather crest? (Robert Vermaat kindly sent me the pdf from JRMES a while ago). Not sure which helmet the Osjiek find refers to - anyone got more info?

Several fragments of helmets were found in Richborough, however none of these were face masks. Two had a crest. See this post by Aitor from 6 years ago:
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/16-mark...=90#107900

One was the same crest as the Linz helmet:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...C3%A4r.jpg
Which is to my knowledge the only Late Roman helmet not yet produced as a replica :whistle:

So I think the other one is meant in the text. Not sure if it looks like that, however.
No face masks, anyway.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#48
Quote: Face masks were not only used in the Middle East, but also in Central Asia and Mongolia, and we are sure the Mongols used them in combat. Therefore, a mask is not necesarily "parade armour".
No one is claiming that face masks are 'only parade armour' Eduard. We did acknowledge that face masks were found elsewhere.

Quote:Could it not be that, not only during the principate but during the entire Roman period, face-masks were characteristic of the oriental part of the Roman Empire, and this spectacular armour stimulated the Romans into describing Persians as personati, since they were orientals too? In other words, the connection between these clichées and fancifull descriptions and reality might not be Persian armour, but East Roman armour.
You are turning it around? Descriptions of Persians wearing facemasks are supposedly really Romans using facemasks on a common basis and extrapolating that to Persian armies? Based on what? Even with 2 descriptions by Ammianus and a lost Column of Arcadius, that still does not make the facemask a common item in the Late Roman inventory, does it? And in earlier Roman periods, facemasks turn up aplenty in the West too (Kalkriese, several from Nijmegen to name a few) to stamp these as 'characrteristic for the Oriental armies'.

Also, I don't see evidence for differences in equipment between Eastern Roman and Western Roman troops.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#49
Could they have been something like this? Seriously, I think they were attached (if they were used) to a more open-faced Intercisa-style helmets.

[Image: f126c6ab918c67cef1f7c34f33d3d2a7_zps8c52d2f6.jpg]
Virilis / Jyrki Halme
PHILODOX
Moderator
[Image: fectio.png]
Reply
#50
eduard wrote:
Could it not be that, not only during the principate but during the entire Roman period, face-masks were characteristic of the oriental part of the Roman Empire, and this spectacular armour stimulated the Romans into describing Persians as personati, since they were orientals too? In other words, the connection between these clichées and fancifull descriptions and reality might not be Persian armour, but East Roman armour.

Robert Vermaat wrote:
You are turning it around? Descriptions of Persians wearing facemasks are supposedly really Romans using facemasks on a common basis and extrapolating that to Persian armies? Based on what? Even with 2 descriptions by Ammianus and a lost Column of Arcadius, that still does not make the facemask a common item in the Late Roman inventory, does it? And in earlier Roman periods, facemasks turn up aplenty in the West too (Kalkriese, several from Nijmegen to name a few) to stamp these as 'characrteristic for the Oriental armies'.
Also, I don't see evidence for differences in equipment between Eastern Roman and Western Roman troops.

Exactly, I am turning it around. Ammianus and other Roman authors were in a far better position to study the equipment of their own armoured cavalry, than to see the equipment of the enemy. More important, most of their readers would only be aquainted with Roman armoured cavalry. I agree, it does not make the face mask an item in the Roman inventory, only archaeology could do that, I am just making a suggestion that it could be possible. I am a supporter of the "Oriental Origin for Roman Face Masks Theory", but that is another subject. I did not use "common", and I do not believe that "common" would be true, but a part it could very well have been.
There is plenty of evidence for differences in equipment between Eastern Roman and Western Roman troops. Our sources confirm that the soldiers from Syria, mounted and on foot, were archers. Their organistation was different (the western alae had a strenght of about 500 horsemen, the eastern allea were called milliariae) and they used specific local armour, such as the traditional lamellar armour of the Middle East. And that the equipment of the soldiers at the Eastern frontier would differ from the equipment of the soldiers at the western frontier makes sense, if you consider what they were up against (and if you consider the difference in level of civilisation between Gaul and Syria).
Reply
#51
This discussion is becoming ever more interesting! ;-)

Question: should we split off the heliodorus discussion? I think it warrant a separate thread, discussing it as a source. Anyone against that?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#52
Quote:Hmm, interesting, but very tricky - especially when using the (undated) Historia Augusta to try and date the (undated) Aethiopica, in turn to try and date the appearance of a literary topos!
Well, the 'helmet which has been compacted and forged in one piece and skilfully fashioned like a mask into the exact shape of a man’s face' does indeed sound more like an older helmet than a 4th century one.

As it happens I thought of Ammianus' description as a literary topos as well. After all, the clibinarius had been around for a number of centuries, and Ammianus is using old descriptions all over the place as text figures. But I decided against bringin that one up, because I'm not so sure whether this is a topos in it's own right. perhaps anyone knows more about that? Are there (lots of) earlier description of similarly attired cavalrymen, decked in armour from head to toe including facemasks?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#53
Quote: Exactly, I am turning it around. Ammianus and other Roman authors were in a far better position to study the equipment of their own armoured cavalry, than to see the equipment of the enemy. More important, most of their readers would only be aquainted with Roman armoured cavalry.
I disagree. Of course Ammianus’ readers would not often be in the position to watch Sassanid cavalry forming up (if they were lucky) Wink but most of his readers would also never see a Roman soldier in real life. I don’t see it as a reason NOT to describe Roman cavalry, that’s for sure.

Quote: I agree, it does not make the face mask an item in the Roman inventory, only archaeology could do that, I am just making a suggestion that it could be possible.
Well, we agree there.

Quote: I am a supporter of the "Oriental Origin for Roman Face Masks Theory", but that is another subject. I did not use "common", and I do not believe that "common" would be true, but a part it could very well have been.
I interpreted your words “characteristic of the oriental part of the Roman Empire” as implying that ‘characteristic’ meant ‘common’.

Quote: There is plenty of evidence for differences in equipment between Eastern Roman and Western Roman troops. Our sources confirm that the soldiers from Syria, mounted and on foot, were archers. Their organistation was different (the western alae had a strenght of about 500 horsemen, the eastern allea were called milliariae) and they used specific local armour, such as the traditional lamellar armour of the Middle East. And that the equipment of the soldiers at the Eastern frontier would differ from the equipment of the soldiers at the western frontier makes sense, if you consider what they were up against (and if you consider the difference in level of civilisation between Gaul and Syria).
I doubt that everything you sum up here is based in reality. As far as I know, Roman units in the west were also supported by archers (remains have been found), although I concur that the amount may have varied. However, you can’t claim that “. Our sources confirm that the soldiers from Syria, mounted and on foot, were archers”. That’s incorrect. I’m not sure if you really mean that.
Also, I seriously doubt that you can claim that Eastern alae were at double strength compared to Western alae, AS A RULE. There may have been more alae miliaria in the east, but the basic number of all ala was the same, everywhere.
Also, although I can find examples of (late) use of lamellar, this was NOT the local armour of Roman forces in the East. I’d really like to see your evidence for that.
I also don’t really see what point you are trying to make by claiming differences in equipment based on differences in civilization levels between Gaul and Syria).

But maybe this becomes the stuff of a different thread? I’d like to split this off from the facemask thread, agreed?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#54
Quote:should we split off the heliodorus discussion?

Not sure about Heliodorus alone - not enough people have access to the original text to comment on it, and what's being said is (mostly) still bearing on the clibanarii question.

However, we have moved on from discussing whether any late Roman troops wore masks - perhaps taking the latter stages of this thread and renaming it as a debate about clibanarii equipment in literary sources might work (although that has been discussed here before, I think...)
Nathan Ross
Reply
#55
Quote:Could they have been something like this? Seriously, I think they were attached (if they were used) to a more open-faced Intercisa-style helmets.
Nice color combination jyrki!
Remember my 'experiment'? :lol:
[attachment=6500]IntercisaVarus.jpg[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#56
Yes, Robert! Something like his seems practical indeed.
Virilis / Jyrki Halme
PHILODOX
Moderator
[Image: fectio.png]
Reply
#57
Quote:As it happens I thought of Ammianus' description as a literary topos as well. After all, the clibinarius had been around for a number of centuries, and Ammianus is using old descriptions all over the place as text figures. But I decided against bringin that one up, because I'm not so sure whether this is a topos in it's own right. perhaps anyone knows more about that? Are there (lots of) earlier description of similarly attired cavalrymen, decked in armour from head to toe including facemasks?

Be careful about the terminology. Clibanarius does not enter into the literary vocabulary until the 4th century. Its first appearance is in Lactantius, de mort. pers., 40. 5, although the tombstone of Valerius Fuscianus, ducenarius in vexillatio equitum catafractariorum clibanariorum (AE 1984, 825) may be a little earlier. I have sought to argue elsewhere in this forum that this is a technical term applicable only to troops in the Roman army and that it cannot properly be applied to non-Roman forces. The generic term for this type of cavalry, Roman and non-Roman, was cataphracti or cataphracti equites or the Greek equivalents. This went back to the time of Polybius and is still found in the works of Ammianus and Vegetius. The first reference to cataphracti equites (or rather the Greek equivalent) in the Roman army, however, occurs in Herodian’s description of Maximinus Thrax’s entry into Italy (Herod. 8. 1. 2).

Depending upon how Heliodorus is to be dated, either he or Julian is the first to mention facemasks and the image of the living statue. Before that, writers had merely described these warriors as being completely armoured. Plutarch’s reference to the Armenian cataphracts at Tigranocerta having only their legs and thighs exposed (Plut., Lucullus, 28. 4) could imply that their heads, as well as the rest of their bodies, were completely covered and there is a facemask helmet depicted among the Pergamum reliefs which may support this.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
#58
Robert Vermaat wrote:

I doubt that everything you sum up here is based in reality. As far as I know, Roman units in the west were also supported by archers (remains have been found), although I concur that the amount may have varied.

There were, and the Romans did not bother training Gauls or Romans to become archers, they simply imported them from Syria. As the Romans believed, archers are born, not made.

However, you can’t claim that “. Our sources confirm that the soldiers from Syria, mounted and on foot, were archers”. That’s incorrect. I’m not sure if you really mean that.

Well, I do. The Romans did not bother turning Syrians into legionaries either, they came from the west.

Also, I seriously doubt that you can claim that Eastern alae were at double strength compared to Western alae, AS A RULE. There may have been more alae miliaria in the east, but the basic number of all ala was the same, everywhere.

Not double strength, because it seeems these eastern alae could in fact be even larger. But Alae milliariae are only documented in Syria and Egypt, not in the west.

Also, although I can find examples of (late) use of lamellar, this was NOT the local armour of Roman forces in the East. I’d really like to see your evidence for that.

Of course you know what I am referring to, the statues of armoured deities form Hatra and, most of all, from Palmyra, show lamellar armour in the old Assyrian construction. You must have seem them.

I also don’t really see what point you are trying to make by claiming differences in equipment based on differences in civilization levels between Gaul and Syria).

Compare the masked helmets from the west, especially the earlier ones, with the oldest "Roman" masked helmet from Emesa, Syria. If you do, I am sure you understand what I am talking about.

But maybe this becomes the stuff of a different thread? I’d like to split this off from the facemask thread, agreed?

I am sorry Robert, but count me out for the time being. I am just working on this subject in order to write an article about it, I' ll post it when I am done, okay?
Reply
#59
Quote:The Romans did not bother turning Syrians into legionaries either, they came from the west.

The eastern legions recruited locally from at least the 1st century. Mann's Legionary Recruitment lists 49 inscriptions of legionaries based in the east - only 4 were recruited in the western provinces, the rest coming from Syria, Greece, Egypt and Asia.



Quote:Alae milliariae are only documented in Syria and Egypt, not in the west.

I can think of several alae milliaria in the west - Ala Petriana Milliaria in Britain, II Flavia Milliaria in Germany, I Flavia Britannica Milliaria and I Ulpia Contariorum Milliaria in Pannonia. All known from inscriptions. There are probably more...
Nathan Ross
Reply
#60
Quote:there is a facemask helmet depicted among the Pergamum reliefs

Do you have a picture of this, or a link to a source online?
Nathan Ross
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What type of Montefortino Helmet is suitable for Late Republic/Gallic Wars period? Corvus 4 653 11-13-2021, 11:23 AM
Last Post: Corvus
  Late Period Pteruges? Oisin 2 1,497 12-03-2008, 07:39 PM
Last Post: Gaius Julius Caesar
  Face mask helmet on eBay FlaviusCrispus 4 1,307 03-23-2005, 02:25 PM
Last Post: Anonymous

Forum Jump: