Aux Impression Question

[arklore70]

Most of the pictures I see of re enactors that portray auxiliary impression seem to wear hamata with out a doubler.

Is this by choice to more clearly identify the auxiliary from a legionary?

I guess my question is circa 33 AD, would it be out of the question for a auxiliary to wear hamata with a doubler?

I have seen a lot of speculation that it would be alright since a lot of the gear the auxiliaries received was handed down, but what is accepted thought at this current time and belief?


What about the balteus? I believe the Daverzus' stele shows an auxiliary wearing one.


V/r
Mike

[Graham Sumner]

Mike wrote:

Most of the pictures I see of re enactors that portray auxiliary impression seem to wear hamata with out a doubler.

Hi Mike

They are simply copying the available evidence, in the main Trajan's Column which has been highly influential in our perception of Roman military equipment. Otherwise the distinction between Legionary and Auxiliary equipment has been well summarized in Bishop and Coulston's Roman Military Equipment, although you might want to wait for the new edition out soon.


Graham.

[FAVENTIANVS]

A good reconstruction examples:
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/index.php? ... ail&id=358
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/index.php? ... ail&id=266

[arklore70]

Gents,
thanks much.

* sigh of relief* My impression is well on the road to success. Working on my Clipeus still .





V/r
Mike

[Peroni]

Salvete,

The photo's that Faventianvs posted are of me and my old hamata.

I chose to wear the shoulder doubling, as, being from a Celtic race, my chosen auxiliary would have known the extra protective qualities of an extra layer of mail and leather. After all, they invented the stuff!

Admittedly, most of our auxiliary impressions are taken from the information and details from Trajan's Column and the Adamklissi metopes and in one instance the Mainz pedestals, and it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that either one represents the 'true' picture. I also think the images on the Column are far too regimented and uniform.

Whereas the probability is that the Rhineland tombstones show the reality of the soldiers based in the Rhineland and Britain during the mid 1st century AD, but not necessarily everywhere else, and that Trajan's column is the impression sixty years later by a series of artists who may never have seen the real thing, but did have access to sketches drawn by someone who had, in a completely different theatre of war and different area of the empire.

As for the balteus, many of the Rhineland tombstones of auxiliary soldiers are depicted wearing a military belt (or two) and very ornate they are too!

Trajan's Column and indeed the Adamklissi monument show no belts on auxiliary soldiers(?) This I find confusing due the problems encountered by the lack of a belt.

a. nothing to help support the weight of the mail

b. nothing to keep your baldric still (Unless there was a way of tying the
baldric to the mail with a leather thong(?)

c. nothing to stop excessive movement of the mail. (even leaning
foward to pick something up in unbelted mail is a problem).

To my knowledge, no examples of 'Dagged' mail have been found as yet from the Roman period, but the Ccolumn of Trajan shows all auxiliary troops wearing this type of defence!

I no longer wear this hamata as I have finished constructing a nice lorica squamata.

Regards,

[arklore70]

Peroni,

thanks for taking the time to answer my questions on getting my impression squared away.

V/r
Mike

[Peroni]

You're welcome!

Any more, feel free to send me a PM.

Regards,