05-24-2009, 06:31 PM
On technical stuff, always go with Bishop and Coulston over Connolly. That's only for details that flatly contradict, mind you! With things like shields, much depends on interpretation of very un-solidly dated artwork: The Republican oval scutum *could* have hung on (particularly in Praetorian cohorts) to the mid-first century AD, and the "Augustan" style with straight top and bottom *could* have appeared as early as Marius. Or not!!
With some things, it's helpful to have finds from Britain, particularly those sites we know were the first Roman bases there. Since we find Pompeii gladius and scabbard parts, we know that sword was well in use by 43 AD. We also find Fulham and Mainz swords, so we know those were still in use at least to about mid-first century. Ditto for Corbridge and Kalkriese lorica parts.
Many nice finds are from rivers and the like, not from nicely stratified and dated archeological digs. So we can only date them stylistically, relating them to better-dated finds from elsewhere. Also beware of weird or slanted interpretations: in Armour of Imperial Rome, H. Russell Robinson discusses the finds of Imperial-Gallic helmet fragments from the Sheepen site, a destruction layer nicely dated to the revolt of Boudicca in 60 AD. He seemed to be stuck on the idea of some stodgy armorer refusing to let a helmet be issued for this emergency until all the little brass bosses were neatly in place. Well, DUH--Those helmets were DESTROYED in the revolt, but there is not a shred to suggest that they were CONSTRUCTED at that time! For all we know, they were 50 years old and still rusting on a shelf when the Britons burned the place down.
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the raising of "a bazillion soldiers" as evidence for any particular items. Experienced smiths have said that a Mainz blade is really no more effort to make than a Pompeii. And armor wouldn't have been such a huge problem since many of the troops may not have had any. And most of those legions were not raised all at once, but in smaller batches over months or years. We know that equipment could be produced surprisingly quickly when required, and there is simply not a lot that I know of that suggests any significant changes in patterns of particular items during the civil wars of Antony and Octavian.
But back to the original question, those are both essential books, and you should definitely absorb as much as possible from both. But the first lesson to learn is that a lot of the "facts" are ambiguous, debatable, and controversial. If you get through a book and feel like you know less than you did before reading it, perfect!
Happy reading!
Matthew
PS: Hey, if you think this is bad, try researching the same sorts of topics for the Bronze Age! Yoiks...
With some things, it's helpful to have finds from Britain, particularly those sites we know were the first Roman bases there. Since we find Pompeii gladius and scabbard parts, we know that sword was well in use by 43 AD. We also find Fulham and Mainz swords, so we know those were still in use at least to about mid-first century. Ditto for Corbridge and Kalkriese lorica parts.
Many nice finds are from rivers and the like, not from nicely stratified and dated archeological digs. So we can only date them stylistically, relating them to better-dated finds from elsewhere. Also beware of weird or slanted interpretations: in Armour of Imperial Rome, H. Russell Robinson discusses the finds of Imperial-Gallic helmet fragments from the Sheepen site, a destruction layer nicely dated to the revolt of Boudicca in 60 AD. He seemed to be stuck on the idea of some stodgy armorer refusing to let a helmet be issued for this emergency until all the little brass bosses were neatly in place. Well, DUH--Those helmets were DESTROYED in the revolt, but there is not a shred to suggest that they were CONSTRUCTED at that time! For all we know, they were 50 years old and still rusting on a shelf when the Britons burned the place down.
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the raising of "a bazillion soldiers" as evidence for any particular items. Experienced smiths have said that a Mainz blade is really no more effort to make than a Pompeii. And armor wouldn't have been such a huge problem since many of the troops may not have had any. And most of those legions were not raised all at once, but in smaller batches over months or years. We know that equipment could be produced surprisingly quickly when required, and there is simply not a lot that I know of that suggests any significant changes in patterns of particular items during the civil wars of Antony and Octavian.
But back to the original question, those are both essential books, and you should definitely absorb as much as possible from both. But the first lesson to learn is that a lot of the "facts" are ambiguous, debatable, and controversial. If you get through a book and feel like you know less than you did before reading it, perfect!
Happy reading!
Matthew
PS: Hey, if you think this is bad, try researching the same sorts of topics for the Bronze Age! Yoiks...
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
