Working on an triumvirate impression

[Matthew Amt]

I just checked Connolly's "The Roman Army" and he does indeed seem to show a Mainz carried by a Caesarian Legionary. But on page 35 he says that the 1860 French excavations at Alesia turned up no Roman swords - only a dagger and several pilum heads.

Ah, maybe it's the dagger I'm remembering. No, I wouldn't trust his reconstructions without some backing!

I only know of two Legionary tombstones, from Bishop and Coulston, that show the old oval scuta still being used. First there's that of Quintus Petilius Secundus which can be seen here : [url:p2n2ae2v]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/option,com_imagebase/task,view/cid,46/Itemid,94/[/url]

Hmm, isn't that his cloak, not a shield at all?

And that of Publius Flavoleius Cordus which can be found here : [url:p2n2ae2v]http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/component/option,com_imagebase/task,view/cid,7/Itemid,94/[/url][/quote]

Okay, definitely a shield there, but I'd be inclined to call that more of an "auxiliary" oval shield. It's shorter than the Republican style, and not as "oblong".

(One thing that bugs me about theories on Praetorian gear, is that if the Praetorian Guard was first formed by Augustus, why would they be using things that date to *before* his reign? Hmmm....)

Praetorians have their origins in the Republic, IIRC. All late Republican generals had a Praetorian cohort to act as a personal bodyguard. Augustus simply appointed himself multiple cohorts and based them in certain cities. At least, that's my understanding.[/quote]

Right, I realize that. But weren't those early praetorian guards simply drawn from the ranks of the legionaries? Why would they have different equipment? Same with Augustus' cohorts--no real reason for them to look "archaic". Unless, of course, their gear wasn't considered archaic at all!

OR I could simply be committing the sin of inflicting logic and modern thinking on the ancients! Spank me!

Matthew