Login

01-06-2004, 09:42 AM

Avete! Is there evidence for the use of Pteruges by average Imperial legionaries? I am well aware of their use by officers, Praetorians, et al., so please exclude them from any search this question may launch. My curiosity stems from the illustration by Sumner on p.54 of Brassey's Roman Army: Wars of the Empire, where he shows a legionary from a British legion, circa 160AD. It seems extremely well-researched [the older Robinson version of the Newstead notwithstanding], and I'm wondering exactly where he got that piece of information. They do seem appear on enlisted men by the 3rd Century, albeit in a more flimsy, suedey sort of way... can anyone point out Sumner's source, or date they first appear (within reason) in the 2nd Century? 
 
I plan to make some on the Sumner model and try them out on marches, mock combat, etc, and see if they help, hinder, or have no effect on performance. Often times I think pteruges are assigned the same level of respect as "boiled leather loricae" or those infamous Hollywood leather wrist guards... it would be nice to know something more concrete. 
 
Gratias Multas, fratre! 
Gaius Darius 
 
PS - and yes, Matt, IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve checked the LEG XX Handbook!

01-06-2004, 05:02 PM

Gaius, I believe their first recorded use is during the Dacian Campaigns. Now, I am not sure if there is any sculptural evidence to suggest this on the Adamklissi monument or Trajan's Column, but they are shown in use by legionarys in Peter Connolly's "The Legionary" in the cover illustrations. So if he thinks they had them then, it's good enough for me (I won't argue with him). 
 
I made a set out of thick leather (8 oz on the bottom, and 5-7 oz for the arms)...5 for the arms and about 8 or 10 on the bottom, can't remember off hand. It definately helps with any chaffing from the lower girdle plate and the shoulder guard plates. I used to get scratches and scrapes all the time, but not anymore. I love'em. I basically made the arm ones smaller...I think 1.5 inches X 7? or so inches, and the bottom ones are 2 X 8 inches. Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" Coh I 
 
"Lay your hand, or thy tongue against the greatness of Rome, and feel my wrath." - Matt Lanteigne 
 
- Number of posts: current +1248

01-06-2004, 10:42 PM

Thanks, Matt! Of all the respectable contemporary artists that depict Romans (Connolly, Sumner, McBride), Connolly is by far my favorite. Perplexingly, though, while these artists do all show use of pteruges by average legionaries, only the Sumner plate shows them being worn with a segmentata. And therein lied my dilemma: while (like all of us), I relish the opportunity to make a piece of equipment I can then try out, establish itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s usefulness, veracity, etc., I wanted to avoid having to present it in the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œthey may have done thisÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â

Aluscladiusmaximus · 01-08-2004, 02:17 PM

Some years ago I looked at the statues in the British Museum which had Pteruges. They appeared to be three layers with the inner layer offset by half the width of the flaps. This would give a flexible but continuous protection around the wast and arms

01-11-2004, 08:23 AM

Hey Gaius, 
 
My boss is gone this week at work, so I'll scan some pics of me and send'em to ya.

aitor iriarte · 01-11-2004, 05:13 PM

Avete omnes, 
Graham sumner has asked me to post his: 
 
Pteruges. 
Pre-Hadrianic depictions of Pteruges possibly associated with mail armour worn by infantrymen can be seen on the tombstones of Valerius Crispus from Wiesbaden and Castricius Victor from Aquincum. Both the Augustan period Arch of Orange and the Trajanic Adamklissi monument also show figures wearing mail or scale armour with Pteruges. 
 
A later second century example is provided by the Croy Hill relief. At least one of the three soldiers represented there might be wearing Pteruges with his armour. Another soldier in this group could also be interpreted as wearing Lorica Segmentata. 
 
Illustrations of most of these figures can be found in either Brassey's 'Roman Army :Wars of the Empire' or Bishop and Coulston 'Roman Military Equipment'. Although Graham Turner painted the Illustration in the Brassey's book I provided him with the information as this was his first experience of illustrating Romans. So any faults are therfore my own. 
 
Nevertheless thanks for including me in the same list as Angus McBride and Peter Connolly!

01-12-2004, 09:04 AM

Thanks, Aitor! Man, an answer from the source, who could ask for more So, to clarify, is Graham saying that the pteruges shown in the Brassey's illustration [with segmentata] were in error, or that it's a fuzzy area to completely confirm or disprove either way, and that if it turns out that the illustration is definitively proven wrong somewhere down the road, that the mistake was unintentional? I'm sorry, just trying to make sure I fully understood his words. Again, that they were worn with scale and mail armor was never in question, only whether or not they may have been worn by legionaries with the segmentata, and at about what period (160-180AD are the dates shown in the plate). If you have a chance to confirm the answer, Aitor, I have an Abe Lincoln bill here with yer name on it! 
 
 
Darius

Crispvs · 01-13-2004, 12:43 AM

I would suggest that as both hamata and squamata are fairly heavily represented in the representational evidence and both can be found illustrated as being accompanied by pteruges, the fact that there are no definite images of segmentata with pteruges before the Antonine period reliefs on the arch of Constantine would not rule out the possibility (or even probability), given that there are so few examples of segmentata in sculpture anyway (leaving Trajan's Column aside). The fact that the handful of possible first century AD representations of segmentata do not seem to show pteruges should not obscure the fact that there are plenty of contemporary images of hamata and squamata which do not feature pteruges either. I would contend that it would be a dangerous assumption to say hamata and pteruges necessarily went together, because the evidence would suggest that this was not always the case. Similarly, to assume that pteruges were never worn with segmentata is tantamount to creating your own evidence, because there is little or no evidence for or against. 
What we do know is that pteruges were attached to the shock absorbent garment (thoromachus) worn under the armour. Is there likely to have been any distinction between a thoromachus to be worn under a lorica hamata and one to be worn under a lorica segmetata? Although segmentata has greater resistance to impacts to the chest area than hamata, the emphasis in armour design seems to have been on the provision of protection from downward slashing blows, making the shoulders a more important area. Both shoulder doubling on mail and the shoulder sections on segmentata emphasize this point, and both still require padding, despite their increased protection. As pteruges would be attached to precisely this area of the thoromachus I suspect that segmentata may have been just as likely as hamata to have them as I can see no reason why a segmentata equipped soldier would feel the need to choose a less substantial padding under his armour than a man wearing a (heavier) hamata, and therefore may well have worn a thoromachus which was exactly the same as that of his comiles. Therefore, while I am not advocating that we should make an assumption and require them to be worn with segmentata, I am trying to make a case for the possibility that pteruges may have been worn with segmentata as often as they were worn with hamata and squamata. I think useful questions to consider might be: were there factories which produced thoromachi and which may have had their own regional styles; and why are pteruges not shown on all images of men equipped with hamata of squamata if these armours require more additional protection than segmentata? 
 
Crispvs

John M McDermott · 01-13-2004, 04:55 AM

I have been working on a full kit for the figure on the Arch of Orange for several years now. The existence of a thoramachus or subarmalis is a dead certainty, as mail simply won't function without it. It seems logical that a finely crafted garment of linen or hemp (very tear resistant) was used in conjunction with mail. It makes the wearing of mail infinitely more comfortable. Sculptural and pottery evidence suggests it was quilted. 
 
Properly constructed Roman mail is not as heavy as you think. Anyone who has tried on butted mail of small ring diameter is aware of it crushing weight. I have one shirt that weighs 45 pounds and cannot be worn with any comfort at all. Good Roman mail, on the other hand was of very small ring diameter and consisted of fattened links that were riveted and punched. This produces mail of very good strength that is surprisingly light. Some Roman mail was so small that it suggests it was made by someone with the skill of a jeweler and not an armorer. 
 
This gets us to the pteryges and an important question: Why were they there? Were they merely ornamental or were they part of the very well thought out defensive system of the hamata? If they were merely ornamental, proceed no further with an inquiry as they could or could not have been worn with any form of body armor according to fashion only. What they were constructed of would be moot. 
 
If they were defensive in nature, then their construction was important. Were they hide or tanned leather? Hide would seem to provide more protection than tanned leather as it is harder. Also, what sort of blow were they meant to repel? 
 
Any Roman armor, including the segmentata is not very good at deflecting powerful, downward blows with heavy weapons imparting lots of kinetic energy. A blow by say, a hammer or ax will crush the bones of someone wearing a hamata. I suspect that the same blow would shatter a segmentata as well, thus stripping the wearer of his armor and leaving him open to the next blow. 
 
Absorbing a slash with pteryges does not seem wise either. A powerful slash would just cut through the pteryges. 
 
Perhaps in the melee of ancient, muscle powered combat, with tightly packed bodies, lots of shoving and imperfectly delivered blows, the pteryges was intended to afford its wearer protection from the cut or imperfectly delivered slash and not much else.

01-13-2004, 02:40 PM

Whoah...a ton of speculation there. 
 
"If they were merely ornamental, proceed no further with an inquiry as they could or could not have been worn with any form of body armor according to fashion only. " 
 
I think Matt Amt would disagree with you 100% there. The Romans were quite fanatical about having useless, decorative additions to their armour that had little or no practical application. Just take a look at the brasswork on a segmentata, or some of the enameled helms. 
 
The pteryges were also of greek origin, as we all know the Romans were happy with using many of these inventions. The pteryges may indeed have come into fashion style in the 2nd century or later. 
 
"Any Roman armor, including the segmentata is not very good at deflecting powerful, downward blows with heavy weapons imparting lots of kinetic energy." 
 
It's not? I disagree. Overlapping layers of plate, over top of a padded arming shirt gives EXCELLENT protection against crushing blows. Why? the layered steel and padding displaces the kinetic energy over a larger area, lessening the blow. I've had my bud who's 6'4, 200lbs, haul off and hit us in the girdle plates with his fist wrapped i cloth. It dented the armour in, but we felt nothing. The force of the blow was taken by the entire cuirass. 
 
"A blow by say, a hammer or ax will crush the bones of someone wearing a hamata. I suspect that the same blow would shatter a segmentata as well, thus stripping the wearer of his armor and leaving him open to the next blow." 
 
Yes, a hamata provided little protection against such blows...subarmalis or not. But the part about the Segmentata shattering? Forged steel shattering...not likely. Ask Hibernicus of Legio IX Hispana. They fight in modern reconstructions of segmentatas in SCA combat. The worst they've had happen, is hinges blow apart, but the steel (because of the leather strapping) stays together quite well. I truly fail to see where you're getting this from. 
 
Also, when in a battle, is someone going to get that much of a power shot in? To accomplish that, the attacker would have to heave a mighty swing with all of his force (something which takes a while to do), and all this time, his opponent is just what....standing there? 
 
"the pteryges was intended to afford its wearer protection from the cut or imperfectly delivered slash and not much else. " 
 
How? They're not fixed in place, they're too flexible (being attached to the fabric of the subarmalis) to have any stiffness or deflecting power to them. Also, some only had a single row...with gaps between them. That won't stop anything. Secondly, we don't have any concret evidence as to what they were made out of! Fabric? Leather? Either one by itself as the romans made it would provide any protection against an edged weapon. 
 
So in conclusion, while my arm pteryges do give me some protection against scrapes from the shoulder guards of my own armour, it has little defensive value in battle. So my opinion is that they were in fact, more ornamental or possibly served as a method of distinction (though this isn't likely). Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" Coh I 
 
"Lay your hand, or thy tongue against the greatness of Rome, and feel my wrath." - Matt Lanteigne 
 
- Number of posts: current +1248

scythius · 01-13-2004, 04:33 PM

Avete, omnes! 
 
Just to pick one nit - friend Magnus wrote: 
Quote:<hr>Yes, a hamata provided little protection against such blows...subarmalis or not. But the part about the Segmentata shattering? Forged steel shattering...not likely. <hr> 
 
The difference is that modern reconstructions ARE steel and not iron, as our forebears used. Iron *IS* more brittle than steel, so 'shattering' is an extremely real possibility. 
 
We are in the process of making an iron seg., and when it's completed, we'll take thousands of photos and then proceed to beat the living s--- out of it... 
 
and you know what? -it will still not provide enough answers to speculation by reenactors, though it may help just a little.. 
 
Scythius 
 
 
LEG IX HSPA - COH III EXPG - CEN I HIB 
 
- FIDELITAS - - VIRTUS - - MAGNANIMITAS -

01-14-2004, 02:24 PM

Hmmmm...I wonder if anyone has bothered measuring the carbon content in roman segmentata plates? 
 
Thanks Scythius, I meant iron! Magnus/Matt 
Legio XXX "Ulpia Victrix" Coh I 
 
"Lay your hand, or thy tongue against the greatness of Rome, and feel my wrath." - Matt Lanteigne 
 
- Number of posts: current +1248

aitor iriarte · 01-14-2004, 06:53 PM

Hi Darius, 
That's what Graham have replied to you: 
 
Well Gaius Darius Valerianus you seemed to have stirred things up a bit and we have not even mentioned colour yet! Most of the illustrations that I have seen depicting Pteruges ( and I mean original Greek and Roman sources not modern paintings or reconstructions) show them in white. Linen perhaps? 
 
The illustration in the Brassey's book was my own interpretation of the meagre evidence that I had available to hand at the time. Chiefly the Croy Hill relief and the other Antonine sculptures that you mentioned earlier. 
 
Like many other items of Roman military equipment portrayed in sculpture, mosaics or paintings, Pteruges can be interpreted as being either practical, fashionable or both or even dismissed as a complete fabrication by the Roman artists.Personally I think any form of protection, even if it only psychological is better than none at all. 
 
Nevertheless I would be very interested to see pictures of any reconstructions and to discover what others have to say about their experiences with them. 
 
Does this mean Aitor can claim his dollar bill!

01-16-2004, 01:08 AM

Most certainly! An Abe Lincoln would be a $5, not a $1, BTW. Now, about the issuance of payment... (you see, it's all part of my scheme to get the late Roman group to do a US tour... shhhhh, mum's the word!) Very interesting notes on segmentata composition, a big thanks to Scythius for keeping us in the right time period! 
 
Legio VI's resident archaeological expert, Flavius Crispus, did a brief report on their use, and concluded that (a) they appear, albeit sparingly, from the Antoinine Period on, (b) they were for defensive reasons, and/or © their use was most likely limited to duplicarii (those of double pay grade, i.e., those holding a rank or position above that of average legionary). 
 
This opens up new questions, as all answers do, of course. If something is first glimpsed in the Antoinine Period, would it be plausable that it's use would have been phased-in sometime in the Hadrianic Period immediately preceeding it? And officers are always pictured wearing the less-effective Hamata, although we're quite certain they lead from the front... did some of them in fact retain their better-made segmentata when promoted? You woukld think this a logical choice, yet the sculptural evidence would not agree. Perhaps this just confirms something we already suspect; that once in a while (but as rarely as possible), we simply have to connect the dots of an otherwise obvious probability. I think Connoly does this in his fantastic series, The Roman Legionary. There, he depicts centurions on the battle line wearing (besides pteruges) their crestae transversa during the Dacian War of 105AD. Trajan's Column, paradoxically, does not show a single helmet crest on ANY soldier, regardless of rank! (Or even Optio feathers, for that matter.) And yet, knowing the way the Roman legions fought, how can battlefield cohesion be maintained if the Centurions are incognito? So perhaps the pteruges are in a similar sense; that is, something probably much more common in real life, yet (like the cresta transversa) rarely depicted for some reason. File this in the "the more we know, the less we know" catagory! 
 
I do want to thank everyone whose contributed to this thread; NOT ONE posting was devoid of either hard information or extremely good ideas on this matter. Now, about the color... Aitor implies they should perhaps be white. 
 
Which is funny, because I was thinking red 
 
Darius 
(fleeing before the inevitable barrage of ballista-fired water balloons hits him!)

aitor iriarte · 01-16-2004, 02:36 PM

Hi Darius, 
 
Please, don't mingle me with that tunic colour affair, those were Graham words. We, Late Romans are above such trifle! 
 
I had also realized that it is Washington who is portraited on the one buck banknote (I must admit that I didn't remember where the heck did Lincoln appear! ) 
 
About pterugae, I have examined a good deal of emperors or gods statues and I think that, in the best depictions, pterugae go in rows, each one having three layers. Leaving aside much inconsistencies, in my opinion the (three) layers of pterugae going in ech one of the overlapping rows are superimposed to those on the lower row, not alternating with them. My two cents1 
 
Aitor

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Making Pteruges (or at least trying to make Pteruges!)	AntonivsMarivsCongianocvs	141	48,626	01-23-2008, 07:22 PM Last Post: madoc