04-02-2008, 08:51 PM
It depends on the psychology involved. Wearing your medals in combat in an age before firearms might say to the opposition something like: 'Look at these awards and see the experience I have and the fighting skills to match - you are not as good as me!'
As to whether or not centuriones wore segmentata I agree that there is not enough evidence either way (in any case the funerary depictions of centuriones' armour of any type can be counted on one hand), but I do not subscibe to the idea that a centurio would have had armour for peacetime duties and different armour for use in the field. Rather, I think that a centurio's pay rate would have enabled him either keep usingbhis existing armour or purchase new armour which suited his own (experienced) opinion of what armour best suited his role and his preferences. Every type of armour has its own advantages and disadvantages. Which disadvantages you ignore or choose to live with are a matter or opinion and preference. Segentata is far better where it comes to protection from concussive force and stabs but it has fittings which need to be repaired or replaces reasonably frequently. Which of those two points carries greater weight? What would an experienced Roman soldier decide? We don't really know the answer to that but it could be that some armour types worked better under some conditions than others and this would have been no less true for centurio than his men. If the centurio was standing in the same front line as his men (or charging out from it for that matter) then I am sure that he would not have wished his armour to be inferior to that of his men. We know regular soldiers wore a variety of armour types - why should we assume it was different for centuriones?
Crispvs
As to whether or not centuriones wore segmentata I agree that there is not enough evidence either way (in any case the funerary depictions of centuriones' armour of any type can be counted on one hand), but I do not subscibe to the idea that a centurio would have had armour for peacetime duties and different armour for use in the field. Rather, I think that a centurio's pay rate would have enabled him either keep usingbhis existing armour or purchase new armour which suited his own (experienced) opinion of what armour best suited his role and his preferences. Every type of armour has its own advantages and disadvantages. Which disadvantages you ignore or choose to live with are a matter or opinion and preference. Segentata is far better where it comes to protection from concussive force and stabs but it has fittings which need to be repaired or replaces reasonably frequently. Which of those two points carries greater weight? What would an experienced Roman soldier decide? We don't really know the answer to that but it could be that some armour types worked better under some conditions than others and this would have been no less true for centurio than his men. If the centurio was standing in the same front line as his men (or charging out from it for that matter) then I am sure that he would not have wished his armour to be inferior to that of his men. We know regular soldiers wore a variety of armour types - why should we assume it was different for centuriones?
Crispvs
Who is called \'\'Paul\'\' by no-one other than his wife, parents and brothers. :!: <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_exclaim.gif" alt=":!:" title="Exclamation" />:!:
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.romanarmy.net">www.romanarmy.net
