I am very interested in the attire/armor of the great generals of the late Republic. Obviously, this period is one of the best in terms of literary sources, however, I find it maddeningly frustrating how little archaeological evidence there is for the Roman military of this period...and that goes for the milites as well as any legatus.
The gist of the question that I want to bring to the esteemed members of RAT is more focused in nature – why do you think we have next to no archaeological evidence for the armor of senior officers from the Republic…or any Roman period really? I say ‘next to no archaeological evidence’ because there is the one lorica musculata that has been found and published in D’Amato’s Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, but it is suspected to be from the 1st-3rd century AD, I believe. Other than this one find, there really is nothing at all as far as I know.
Some of the common suggestions I’ve heard in the past that might answer this question state that we have no material remains like this because the Romans did not bury their dead (at least in the period I’m referencing), and therefore did not inter any grave goods. Ok, well I’m sure that they did not just discard what we would assume to be extravagant and expensive armor, correct? What do you think they would they have done with it? I assume that this armor would be expensive, extravagant looking stuff, so I can understand why people would want to pillage and steal it, but destroy it entirely? Why has only this one musculata survived, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of surviving depictions from this period show Roman generals and statesmen clad in armor? Why are there no surviving officer’s helmets, swords, ocrae, etc.? Are they in known existence, just hidden off in old private collections built during the era of the first excavations in the 18th-19th centuries, when nothing was catalogued or published?
I mean, do you really believe all of this mass of materials was eventually melted down by Rome’s conquerors? Perhaps much of it is still buried somewhere underneath the densely populated and congested streets of one of Italy’s cities or towns? I just can’t seem to get my head around the idea that we have so little archaeological evidence to go on for so much history, and it is really frustrating when you think about it. Makes me want to go out and dig…
Thanks for your opinions in advance!
My guess is that these were mostly silver and gold or gilded silver. Which would right away explain why they are gone.
Quote: I say ‘next to no archaeological evidence’ because there is the one lorica musculata that has been found and published in D’Amato’s Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier, but it is suspected to be from the 1st-3rd century AD, I believe. Other than this one find, there really is nothing at all as far as I know
Is there an inscription on this item telling us that this thing was an higher officer´s item? If no, attributing it to a higher officer is just speculation.
I sometimes wonder too Alexander as to where did all of that armour and paraphernalia go?
Maybe as you said it is stashed away in private collections somewhere not catologued, or as Christian has suggested in regards to the siver and gold metals....I mean look at he price of gold 2 thousand years later!!
Let's hope that someday something will turn up. I personally would like to see found a complete officer's helmet (attic style).
We do have the spectacular and rather impractical-looking Autun helmet. But the fact is we have very little armor for the common legionary, and there were thousands of legionaries for every general. What are the chances of Gen Patton's six-shooter still being in existence 2000 years from now? Or Rommel's Marshal's baton?
Alexander,
There is an issue with the musculata dating in D'Amato's book. He says in the caption below his phot that the piece is from the 1st -3rd C AD. However, if you look closely at the little paper description under the armor as per the museum display, it actually mentions in Spanish that the musculata is from the BC era (I do not recall exactly when). I did make a point of this on another thread but it went completely ignored.
caiusbeerquitius wrote:
Quote:Is there an inscription on this item telling us that this thing was an higher officer´s item? If no, attributing it to a higher officer is just speculation.
I agree. As far as I know, the musculata supposedly originates from a shipwreck off the coast of Spain, as stated in the caption accompanying the photographs in D’Amato. That is the only bit of context that I have for it, frustratingly. I don’t know if you’ve seen any pictures of it, but to me, it looks like a rather plain bronze cuirass (even without shoulder straps which are almost always depicted in Roman art/statuary). There is no ornamentation such as depicted on statuary of the same period (assuming it originates in 1st-3rd century AD).
John Maddox Roberts wrote:
Quote:But the fact is we have very little armor for the common legionary, and there were thousands of legionaries for every general.
Yes, I know, and the deeper into this interest I delve, the more frustrating it gets. I wanted to keep this thread as focused as possible, because basically it’s just a rant about not having the evidence I’d like to (selfish and simplistic, I know, forgive me), but the overarching idea I’m trying to get at is this – why so little evidence? I know the common explanations, yet I’m still surprised. Roman history is so popular, and we know they created so much, particularly in terms of military production. My favorite period is the late Republic, and we have next to nothing in terms of sample size to analyze.
Doc wrote:
Quote:There is an issue with the musculata dating in D'Amato's book. He says in the caption below his photo that the piece is from the 1st -3rd C AD. However, if you look closely at the little paper description under the armor as per the museum display, it actually mentions in Spanish that the musculata is from the BC era (I do not recall exactly when). I did make a point of this on another thread but it went completely ignored.
Wow! That would be a lead on the armor of the generals of the Republic (or Principate etc.), so-to-speak. Even despite the fact that we don’t know if it was the property of an officer. I was trying to investigate which shipwreck the item was salvaged from, but alas, could find nothing…in English that is.
One other thought that I had on this topic was in relation to Pompeii. I really do not know anything in-depth about Pompeii/Herculaneum, but many of the other reasons we would expect not to find such items of extravagance do not hold up in Pompeii/Herculaneum’s case (unless it would be unreasonable for any officers/ex officers to live there). I’m assuming there is a flaw in this logic of mine, but is there any primary reason to assume that there would be absolutely no officer's armor contained in any of these household in Pompeii/Herculaneum?
As far as Herculaneum goes, very little has been uncovered. There is still potentially an ancient library buried under the modern city along with Temples and other important buildings. The bay of Naples was a place traditionally for the rich to vacation so not sure how many soldiers would be there or how many Senators would take their armor with them on vacation. If armor was pillaged and stolen that would be all the more reason to melt it down. Who would take a chance being caught with stolen armor?
Don't forget that many Roman finds were deliberately buried when camps were abandoned after a long occupation. If you were abandoning camp, you would take your best kit, not the ratty half segmentata that has been kicking around a corner of the armoury because nobody wants to see if it can be repaired. And the centuriones and tribunes have the most pack animals, wagons, and servants to carry away their kit!
Similarly, remember that Pompeii and Herculaneum were stripped when many of their inhabitants fled. Ancient and modern looters did more damage. Unless kit for several dozen common milites was found, we wouldn't expect to find any equipment from a centurion or higher. While Petronius gives the impression that arms were common in early imperial Italy, I suspect that many retiring soldiers sold their old kit and hoped that they wouldn't be called up again.
I'm no expert, but I think that the types of sites that produced most of our Roman army finds didn't exist until the Principate. Bishop and Coulston have some Laconic but thoughtful words.
Jay wrote:
Quote:As far as Herculaneum goes, very little has been uncovered. There is still potentially an ancient library buried under the modern city along with Temples and other important buildings.
Wow, I've heard that much less of Herculaneum has been excavated compared with Pompeii, but I had no idea there was suspicion of such undiscovered fantastic written evidence left there. Any idea why there aren't any projects to recover these remains? Urban occupation too significant to justify digging out building supports, I would imagine?
Sean Manning wrote:
Quote:While Petronius gives the impression that arms were common in early imperial Italy, I suspect that many retiring soldiers sold their old kit and hoped that they wouldn't be called up again.
That seems logical to me. However, I don't believe that Tribunes, Legates, and Consuls had this worry. Considering how ornate we believe these items to be, I believe such a panoply would be kept within the family almost in the same fashion as a death mask of the family's ancestors. Is this an unreasonable assumption?
And going back to an earlier comment -
caiusbeerquitius wrote:
Quote:My guess is that these were mostly silver and gold or gilded silver. Which would right away explain why they are gone.
I think armor gilded in gold or silver is probably likely - but a musculata constructed entirely out of solid gold or silver seems unlikely to me as it would be relatively soft compared to bronze or iron. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the muscled cuirasses that we have from the ancient Mediterranean are made of either bronze or iron (including Phillip II's iron cuirass from Vergina, and the supposed Roman musculata from the Spanish shipwreck). Both of these metals function much better as plate armor. Unfortunately, that still leaves us with the same problem - these metals have value enough in their own right to be melted down if the current possessor had no use for a muscled cuirass.
Alexander,
As Christian pointed out, unless there is something specific that suggests officer status, then we cannot know for sure. However, you mentioned something important about the fact that there are many statues depicting this armor. From what I have seen, the greater part of these depictions show highly embossed curiasses. However of all the musculatas found, not one of them has any such decoration (AFAIK). To me this suggests that the highly decorated armors found mostly on statues of the Imperial families or at least of high status were, as Christian pointed out, probably made of precious metals. Regardless, armors made from such metals would have been recycled, sold, ecc if there was a need.
The fact that the artifacts are not decorated in such a manner would seem to suggest (at least to me) that these armors were probably worn by normal soldiers. I would assume not because of the statue depictions but because of the quality of work required to make such an armor, that it was probably expensive to produce irrespective of embossed figures or not. Naturally, the armors with embossed figures would be even more expensive.
I do not believe in parade armor but I think that these really ornate embossed armors from statues, if they existed as depicted, were really for show. That is not to say that they were not functional and thus could be used on the field of battle. Of course for this to be likely, you have to ask yourself the question that if the armors were made of precious metals, how effective would they be? Silver and gold are not very hard metals. On the other hand all the armors that have been found (with the exception of one specimen) are copper alloy making them both very strong and attractive. A brass or bronze curiass that is polished can look gold in color.
We should be careful to not end up in a circular argument, since the armor we see represented for the officers must not necessarily be what they actually wore. Think of archaizing character in art.
As has been shown elsewhere on this forum a while ago, the Autun helmet seems to be from a religious context, i.e. apparently was a statue´s decoration.
Quote:I've heard that much less of Herculaneum has been excavated compared with Pompeii, but I had no idea there was suspicion of such undiscovered fantastic written evidence left there. Any idea why there aren't any projects to recover these remains? Urban occupation too significant to justify digging out building supports, I would imagine?
The 'library' is actually part of the
Villa of the Papyri, a suburban villa just outside the town wall. It was explored by tunnelling in the 18th century, but since then only a small part has been reexcavated. I visited the site in 2003, and you can see the problems quite easily - there's about fifty feet of solid tufa and a modern town on top of it! There's also a conservation issue - the excavated parts of Herculaneum and Pompeii are decaying fast, and without finding a means to preserve them better it might be reckless to put funds into more digging.
At the time of eruption, Pompeii itself was not an upscale town. It was badly damaged in an earthquake in 62, and most of the larger buildings were still being repaired, or had been turned into workshops, seven years later. The wealthy men of the town were mainly freedmen or former freedman; it was a city of trade and industry, not of the officer class. Herculaneum may have been more prestigious - the Papyri villa was probably in aristocratic hands, but we don't know without further exploration. But the really rich apparently lived around the bay in Baiae, or southwards around Stabiae.
Whether or not wealthy men of the officer class would keep armour in their homes is unknown - I can't think of any references to it in literature, but it's an attractive idea. What else would they do with it? Until we find evidence of it, however, it's only a guess.
Quote:I think armor gilded in gold or silver is probably likely - but a musculata constructed entirely out of solid gold or silver seems unlikely to me as it would be relatively soft compared to bronze or iron.
I agree. Gilded or silvered armour would be fine, and we have helmets even for common soldiers decorated in this way from the later empire. But surely the principal function of armour would be protective, otherwise why wear it at all?
Quote:We should be careful to not end up in a circular argument, since the armor we see represented for the officers must not necessarily be what they actually wore. Think of archaizing character in art.
Quite. We do have the scenes on Trajan's column of the emperor and (presumably) his senior officers wearing the musculata, but this might be in part an artistic symbol of rank, rather a reflection of their everyday dress!
I have written elsewhere of my belief that the musculata was far more widely used, particularly in later centuries, than is perhaps commonly assumed - both by officers and by common soldiers. As two large pieces of metal, with few bits to fall off, get lost or need replacing, it's not surprising that this armour leaves little trace in the archaeological record. Possibly the decorated items we see represented in sculpture had an iron or bronze core with the decoration applied over it, as embossed pieces or as part of the gilding? This layer of precious metal could then be stripped off when the cuirass was 'decommissioned', leaving the plain metal core to be recycled for scrap or discarded.
Quote:I agree. Gilded or silvered armour would be fine, and we have helmets even for common soldiers decorated in this way from the later empire. But surely the principal function of armour would be protective, otherwise why wear it at all?
I think there it might also be reasonable to assume that senior officers, standing somewhere behind the army in a battle, organizing, relaying messages etc. just wore "nice and shiny" armour, where displaying prestige or status was far more important than protection.
Quote: ... where displaying prestige or status was far more important than protection.
Quite agree with that but whether they would wear such costly armour on a battlefield is another matter. Makes themselves even more of a target than they already were.
Devil's advocate - without archaeological artefacts, how do we know the whole musculata was made from any metal at all? Could it not be made from leather with applique decoration? It would be far more comfortable to wear, surely?
Quote:Quite agree with that but whether they would wear such costly armour on a battlefield is another matter. Makes themselves even more of a target than they already were.
Devil's advocate - without archaeological artefacts, how do we know the whole musculata was made from any metal at all? Could it not be made from leather with applique decoration? It would be far more comfortable to wear, surely?
Yes, of course. Could be. I don´t see how it would fit with the upper class´s love for MORE BLING, but it could be. But, after all, all is pure speculation. Until we find something that says "I belong to a tribune of Legio whatever", or similar, one just has to avoid models or displays or impressions displayed in public. I think.