09-17-2011, 06:50 PM
Quote:I am not convinced that there was such a radical change in equipment between the mid third century AD and the early fourth century AD, when compared with other periods...
Certainly we should be sceptical of reading too much into a period with such little physical evidence remaining. But I think the helmet and belt change is a bit more obvious - earlier helmets, from the Gallic Agen/Port styles through the Imperial Gallic and Italic right up to the Niederbieber (which we could best see as the final developed form) show a process of steady evolution. Again, with limited evidence this evolution could just be our modern shaping of what was in fact a far more complex pattern. But the later helmets - Intercisa and Berkasova types - still do not appear to have evolved from these earlier patterns, but to have sprung from some new, perhaps outside source.
Similarly with the belt - the wide belt of the 4th century is quite a different item to the earlier balteus. Different suspension method, different fittings, different look altogether. Again, there seems to be some other influence coming in here, from outside the previous family of equipment evolution.
Quote:If you were to take an example of a soldier of the period of the invasion of Britain in AD43 and contrast him with a soldier of fifty years later, you would see different sword and scabbard types, different belt styles, probably different helmet styles and possibly different footwear styles. Similarly if you were to contrast a soldier of the mid second century AD with another of fifty years later...
Yes, there's an assumption of a lack of change in the appearance of Roman soldiers between about 50 and 200 AD that needs challenging, and is, I think, being challenged by reenactors and historians. All the same, though, that change still shows signs of evolution rather than revolution - from swords to footwear, it's possible to trace the changes. Later styles (in some respects at least) show less of a continuation.
All this could be merely a function of a lack of evidence for the period, especially the later 3rd century. With more to inform us, we might be able to see more clearly a slow progression of form and function, even a continuity. The discovery of the late 3rd century segmentata fragments at Leon should warn us against too easy an assumption of total change.
Having said that, and strictly out of interest, just how much genuine difference would there be between a legionary of AD43 and one of AD93?
- Nathan
Nathan Ross
